It is commonly claimed in Nyaya and Vedanta circles that Udayanacharya brought an end to the long-standing philosophical debate between Buddhist thinkers and Vaidika traditions. His works, such as Kusumanjali, Atmatattva Viveka, and Nyaya Vartika Tatparya Parishuddhi, are said to have decisively refuted core Buddhist doctrines like shunyavada, kshanikavada, and vigyanavada. A Traditionalist Vedantin author summarizes this viewpoint as follows: > **"Dharmkirti who is well known for his scholarly works, criticized > nyaya doctrines and Vartikam in his Work called “Praman -Vartika”. > After Dharmkirti Buddhism went into decline, last work which was a > considerable criticism was written by a Nalanda professor as > “TatvaSangraha”. In This tatvaSangraha the writer had also tried to > critize BhagvatPad Sankara’ views (verse 330-331). > > Vachaspati misra who was the knower of 12 darshanas, He wrote Nyaya > Vartika Tatparya tika and answered the claims that were made till now > in a very good manner. His refutations are Calm,deep and subtle.** > > **An unexpected refutation came from Kashmir and that was from Jayanta > Bhatt. He wrote an independant commentary on NyayA suTras called > “Nyaya Manjari” He established the authority of the Veda and refuted > the buddhist doctrines mercilessly.** He has quoted everyone be it > DharmaKirti, Dingnaga or Dharmottara. > > Bhasvarajna an other Kashmiri wrote ‘NyayaBhusana’. He criticized > everyone from Nagarjuna till Prajnakara Gupta(writer of > VartikaAlankara). > > Jayanta Has wrote a verse while refuting क्षणिकवाद which goes as > follows :- > > **नास्त्यात्मा फलभोगमात्रमथ च स्वर्गाय चैत्यार्चनं , संस्काराः क्षणिकाः > युगस्थितिभृतश्चैते विहाराः कृताः । सर्व शून्यमिदं वसूनि गुरवे देहीति > चादिश्यते, बौद्धानां चरितं किमन्यदियती दम्भस्य भूमिः परा ॥** > > **You Bauddhas, hold that there is no soul, yet you construct caityas > (towers) to enjoy pleasure in paradise after death; you say that > everything is momentary, yet you build monasteries with the hope that > they will last for centuries; and you say that the world is void, yet > you teach that wealth should be given to spiritual guides. What a > strange character the Bauddhas possess; they are verily a monument of > conceit.** > > **JnanaSariMitra and his disciple RatnaKirti wrote some works answering > Vachaspati and made last tries to save buddhist philosophy from the > attacks of logicians.** > > **UdayanaCharya ended this debate with very strong logics.** He composed > works as “Kusumanajali” “Atma Tatva Viveka” and “Nyaya Vartika > Tatparya Parishuddhi” and refuted ShunyaVada,KshanikVada,VigyanVada. > > There are other works as Bauddha Dhikkara tika(sankara misra) and > Bauddh dhikkar shiromani **but till then Buddhism became a history.**" Source - The Literary debates between Buddhists and Vaidikas Given this narrative, my question is the following: Did any later Buddhist philosophers, either in India, Tibet, Nepal, or elsewhere, directly or indirectly respond to Udayanacharya's arguments? Are there surviving texts or commentaries that attempt to refute or answer his critiques of the Buddhist doctrines of no-self, momentariness, and emptiness? Or did the Buddhist tradition leave Udayana's works unanswered, either due to historical decline or strategic neglect? Any textual, historical, or scholastic leads would be much appreciated.

I am fairly new to the Dhamma and this site specifically. I was told by an Indian person that dyana (meditation) was a part of a yoga system which became zen in china, dharma became dhamma, most of Buddhists texts are sutras, ideas of reincarnation, maya (phenomenon), nirvana, samaddhi, sat (truth), chitta (conciousness), daya (compassion), ahinsa are all Hindu themes reinterpreted. How much did Sakyamuni reinterpreted on Brahmanism and how much is disinformed?

Some Scholars like R.S Bhattacharya claim that while Buddha rejected the Karma-kanda portions of the vedas, he spoke Highly of the Followers of Jnana-marga or nivritti-marga of vedas in the Brahmanadhammika Sutta. Is this really true? And Does This mean Buddha indirectly approved the Upanishadic philosophy of Atman-Brahman?

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 .***

Professor VV Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) discusses a work named mAdhyamakahridaya by Bhavya, a sixth century mAdhyamaka buddhist. In the discussion, He refers to a situation where the mahAyAna school is criticised as being similar to vedAnta in the said work. In reply, Apparently Bhavya says that whatever is good in the upaniShads has also been taught by the Buddha. To cite- > In one of the chapters of the **Madhyamakahridaya** dealing with the > hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the > mahAyAna buddhist saying;- > > **न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् | मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा > यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||** > > The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because > it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta > darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation. > > To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies - > > **वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् | दृष्टान्तन्यूनता > तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||** > > **Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by > the Buddha.** The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and > what is doubtful must be examined. Questions- 1. Is that a unanimous view among the Mahayana Buddhists that Buddha's teachings were inspired from vedanta? 2. How would adherents from other schools of buddhism view the statements of Bhavya?

At the time of Tathagat Buddha, Hindu religion in its current form did not exist. However, there were Vedic teachings. These teachings were based on blind belief in the authority of the Vedas. There were many different schools of philosophy *opposing* Vedic teaching, e.g. Akriyavada, Niyativada (determinism), Ucchedavada etc. As far as I know, the Buddha opposed Vedic religion. He opened a strong camp against it and freed people from the exploitative teachings of Veda. He expounded equality as opposed to the Vedic teachings which discriminated between different classes. Is it true that Buddhism (since time of Buddha) opposed Vedic (and later Brahminical) religion?

A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas: > In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that: > > Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati > Bhooripanjo. > > People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high > and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands > Dharma and does not waver. > > Sutta Nipat 503: > > Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema ……. > > One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, > intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits. > > Sutta Nipat 1059: > > Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam…… > > One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic > Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly > things. > > Sutta Nipat 1060: > > Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja….. > > I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards > the world and becomes free from sins. > > Sutta Nipat 846: > > Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso…. > > One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by > hearsay and delusions. > > Sutta Nipat 458: > > Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi > > I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets > success. > > Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't > opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like > animal sacrifice, caste system Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

There has been a rich history of debate between Vedantists and Buddhists. One main method the Vedantist uses disprove every other sect which doesn't hold Vedas as true, is to first prove that Vedas are authorless, then say that authorless Vedas have to be 100% true because the defects of lies and incomplete knowledge cannot be there in authorless, and therefore that whatever in Vedas must be 100% true and any sect which goes against the Vedas must be false. These are the two steps 1. Apourusheyatva (Authorlessness) 2. Swayam Pramanya (Default Validity) I have heard that various Buddhist scholars like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute the claim of authorlessness of Vedas and its validity. Supposedly one such argument is there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika, which I couldn't find. >The first chapter discusses the structure and types of formal inference and the apoha (exclusion) theory of meaning. Dan Arnold writes that apoha is: "the idea that concepts are more precise or determinate (more contentful) just to the extent that they exclude more from their purview; the scope of cat is narrower than that of mammal just insofar as the former additionally excludes from its range all mammals in the world that are not cats." In the latter half of this chapter, Dharmakīrti also mounts an attack on Brahmanism, the authority of the Vedas, Brahmins and their use of mantras, and the system of caste (see Eltschinger 2000). He also discusses the role of scripture, which he sees as fallible and yet important for their discussion of “radically inaccessible things” (atyantaparokṣa) such as karma. Dharmakirti critiques the Brahmins thus: > > "The unquestioned authority of the Vedas; the belief in a world-creator; the quest for purification through ritual bathing; the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone for sin— these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men." So -- what were Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness? I'm interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like -- in response to the authorlessness of Vedas. --- Edit -- My question is specific: Vedantists have given a syllogistic argument to prove that the Vedas are authorless, and many eminent scholars of Buddhism like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute those syllogistic arguments by logic ... what are those arguments? Please don't answer this question in a general or a philosophical way.

In [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandogya_Upanishad) i read: > The Chandogya Upanishad is ... one of the oldest Upanishads of Hinduism. > [It] opens with the recommendation that "let a man meditate on Om". It calls the syllable Om as udgitha (उद्गीथ, song, chant), and asserts that the significance of the syllable is thus: the essence of all beings is earth, the essence of earth is water, the essence of water are the plants, the essence of plants is man, the essence of man is speech, the essence of speech is the Rig Veda, the essence of the Rig Veda is the Sama Veda, and the essence of Sama Veda is the udgitha (song, Om). Its date is given as "8th to 6th century BCE" i.e. at least 100 years before Gautama. Now "Om" is also used in Buddhism. Is its use the same as in Hinduism? If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as described in the Vedanta? Is it difficult to describe the philosophical basis, if the practice is somehow derived from concepts and knowledge from a text whose date is from before Gautama?

As I discuss in [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7426/19) , by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy today is the Vedanta school, which is based on the philosophical portions of the Vedas. But in the time when Buddhism was at its peak popularity in India, the most popular school of Hindu philosophy was the Purva Mimamsa school, which was based on the ritualistic portions of the Vedas. Now one of the most famous Purva Mimasa philosophers was named Kumarila Bhatta, and in [this excerpt](http://gdurl.com/Is8P) from his work the Tantra Vartika, he argues that Hindus should not accept Buddhist texts as valid scripture, because Buddha was a violator of the Vedas: > Then again, we find that the Bauddha teachings were given by one who was a born Kshatriya; and as such, he transgressed the duties of his own class, in taking upon himself the work of taking and receiving presents (which are the monopoly of the Brahmanas); and hence how can we believe that true Dharma or Duty would be taught by one who has transgressed his own Dharma? It has been well said: "One who is found to be doing deeds opposed to a prosperous hereafter, should be shunned from a distance; because how can one who deceives himself offer any salutary advice to others?" > > Such transgression of Dharma by Buddha is clearly mentioned in **the Alankarabuddhi (a Bauddha work), where Buddha is represented as saying - "May all the pain proceeding from the sins due to the Iron Age, rest in me, and leave humanity at large absolutely free!"** And in connection with this his followers eulogise his virtues in the following strains: "For the sake of the well-being of humanity, He transgressed his own duties as a Kshatriya, and having taken up the duties of the Brahmana, he taught, even to the people outside the pale of Vedic religion, such truths relating to Dharma, as were not taught by Brahmanas who were unable to transgress the prohibition (of such teachings being imparted by outsiders); and thus prompted by his mercy to others, he even went to the length of transgressing his own Dharma!" And we actually find His followers behaving in a manner entirely at variance with the teachings of the Veda. I found the quote in bold interesting, because it seems reminiscent of the Christian notion that "Jesus died for our sins". So my question is, does the Buddhist text that Kumarila Bhatta is quoting from, the Alankarabuddhi, still exist? By the way, when the Alankarabiddhi quote says "Iron Age", that's an English translation of the Sanskrit term "Kali Yuga", which refers to the Hindu notion that we are currently living in an age of evil. Now I think only some sects of Buddhism share this Hindu belief, so that may help in finding this text.

Are there good apologetic resources (books, audios, sites, etc.) that give the buddhist answer to advaita vedanta and/or hinduism in general? To the substantial model of the atman-brahman or purusha/prakriti of Patanjali yoga. I understand that in the West, Whitehead's criticisms were quite close.

Do Buddhist ancient scriptures/texts record or comment on: 1. The then-prevalent varna system? or 2. The then-prevalent caste system (clan-like system)? I understand that Buddhism is based on equality, i.e. I am not saying that Buddhism accepted the caste system. In particular, what I am asking is whether buddhist text: - Records any wrong-doings based on caste system or varna system - Records whether or not the varna system was birth-based at that time - Explicitly says that it rejects birth-based varna system/caste system. Please provide references from such text.

Why Buddha praises the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice and the Gayatri mantra as the foremost meter in the Pali Canon? > aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham. > > Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is > the Sāvitrī "On the Buddha's Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts"

When I studied Spanish, I better understood my native English language. I wondered if the same kind of thing can happen in the realm of religion. What are the pros and cons of studying other religions and their practices as a Buddhist? To be clear, I do mean "studying" (and not "practising") another religion's practices... not that answers about the pros and cons of "practising" another practice wouldn't be most welcome, I just assume that practising another practice would be too confusing. Maybe someone will give an answer that challenges this assumption - Metta

From a historical perspective where do the concepts of Karma, Nirvana, Dharma and Samsara come from? I'm aware that they predated Buddhism but do they come from the Vedas, Shramanic tradition or somewhere else? I appreciate that Nirvana might have started with Buddhism (maybe?) but this would be based on the concept of Moksha which definitely did predate Buddhism. If possible could people please refer to sources or reasonable authoritative sites with the answers.