What is the position of Buddhism in regards to free will and Determinism? What would be the correct position of Buddhism and could you use an analogy to describe to me the correct view of Buddhism Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

When should one practice meditation? Because, there are periods when it doesn't come naturally or easily, and may not be helpful at that time? Should one make more effort to practice it regularly, or should one leave it for a while, if it doesn't seem right to do it at that time (for a period of time)?

Abhinavagupta (fl. c. 975–1025 CE) was one of the foremost philosophers of Kashmir Śaivism , whose magnum opus Tantrāloka is widely regarded as the most comprehensive exposition of non‑dual Śaiva tantric thought. In the chapter of Tantrāloka dealing with causality , Abhinavagupta and the commentator Jayaratha mount a sustained critique of Buddhist theories of causality and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which they present as inadequate to account for real causal efficiency outside a unified conscious agent. Below are verbatim formulations from the Tantrāloka alongside an academic paper (based on Tantrāloka and Jayaratha’s commentary) mentioning Abhinavagupta’s key objections to the Buddhist theories of causality . ***Important disclaimer:-*** The paper contains a large volume of tightly argued material, textual citations, and sub-arguments. For the sake of clarity and length, I am summarising the main objections rather than citing every verse or passage. Any readers attempting to answer should ideally consult from Page 12 onwards of the said paper alongside the other provided citations alongside the text of Tantraloka from 9.10 to 9.37 for a thorough and accurate understanding of the opponent's objections. ---------- 1:- Causality and succession ---------------------------------------------- Abhinavagupta asserts that Buddhist theory causality is only succession of discrete events with no substantial connection, and therefore cannot explain real causal relations. Especially between phenomena independent of one another The direct Excerpt from the tantraloka 9.11-13 Jayaratha, the commentator, gives the example of Kṛttikā and Rohiṇī (the constellations Pleiades and Taurus): if mere succession were enough to establish causation, Kṛttikā would be the cause of Rohiṇī, since the latter always rises after the former. Yet despite this regular sequence, there is no causal relationship between them.The Śaiva critique here seems to be that Buddhist theory relies too heavily on perceptual succession to define causation. 2: True causality requiring an agent and agency: ----------------------------------------------------- Abhinavagupta argues that because Buddhists emphasize momentary entities, they lack a real connection between cause and effect. Abhinavagupta claims that “the relation of cause and effect is really that of agent and agency” and that the ultimate cause is a conscious agent whose will underlies causation. Excerpt from Tantraloka 9.14-18 Further Jayaratha asks that surely succession and simultaneity are not character- istics in the nature of the things themselves; they are attributes of perception. But it is consciousness which establishes the succession and non-succession when it per- ceives that a cloth is after a pot. The things themselves are not endowed with succession or non-succession as something super added to their natures. So the Buddhists cannot avoid the fact that they are superimposing contradictory attributes upon a single entity even though they are trying to get away by introducing succession (TĀV 9.18). 3: Multiple causes and unity of effects ---------- The concept of complex causality (Sāmagrī ) is used by both Naiyāyikas and Buddhists in their discussions about causality. Abhinavagupta accepts the Buddhist notion of causal totality but maintains that Śiva, as consciousness, is the ultimate agent. While a pot is said to arise from an aggregate of causes (TĀ 9.30ab), this aggregate must form a unity. Without such unity, diverse causes would produce multiple effects. Jayaratha clarifies how This unity has to be grounded in a single, all-pervasive agent of cognition, which alone makes a single effect possible. Excerpt from Tantraloka 9.29-37 ---------- Questions based on the above - ========= 1. How does Buddhist dependent origination avoid collapsing causality into simple succession with no real dependence? How would Buddhists justify dependent origination so that true causal relations are distinguished from mere chronological succession? 2. How do Buddhists account for singular effects arising from multiple interdependent conditions without a unified causal agent or totality? 3. How would Buddhists respond to the claim that causal succession and simultaneity are merely perceptual constructs rather than objective causal relations? 4. How do Buddhist theories of dependent origination articulate “necessity” such that effects follow causes for reasons beyond mere adjacency? 5. How would a Buddhist articulate the concept of momentariness and dependent origination without collapsing into either metaphysical nihilism or affirmation of a first, self‑existent cause? What logic would show that conditionality implies neither absolute self nor random succession? 6. Specifically address whether the criticism shows a misunderstanding of pratītyasamutpāda or momentariness, and why. ----------

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 .***

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?

Many scholastic systems of Buddhist thought seem to have develop highly sophisticated systems of epistemology and logic (e.g., pramāṇa theory in the works of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti), as well as dialectical reasoning in Madhyamaka (e.g., Nāgārjuna).The question which arises here is Can inferential cognition and logic ever give rise to liberating wisdom, or is liberation strictly dependent on non-conceptual perception? If ultimate truth is said to be beyond conceptual elaboration, how can logically mediated analysis contribute to its realization without remaining confined to the conventional level?

In the early Buddhist cosmological framework, the “formless realms” (arūpa-lokā) namely the spheres of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception are frequently described as planes of rebirth accessible through mastery of the corresponding immaterial attainments (arūpa-samāpatti). However, the precise ontological status of beings reborn in these realms remains ambiguous. ---------- **1. What constitutes the “individual” in the arūpa realms?** If rūpa is entirely absent, are such beings to be understood purely in terms of residual viññāṇa (consciousness), or as configurations of the remaining aggregates (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, viññāṇa)? **2. How should we interpret the apparent continuity of identity in these realms?** Do the Nikāyas support a model of minimal subjectivity (e.g., “bare consciousness”), or do they resist any substantialist reading even at this level?

Recently I have come across A Social media post which happens to be circulating across several platforms that claims Siddhārtha Gautama and the Śākya clan were originally devotees of Śiva i.e, followers of Śaivism before abandoning this earlier religious affiliation and later embracing Buddhism. The post also cites various textual sources in support of this assertion. ---------- Enquiring From a purely academic perspective grounded in the scholarly study of early Buddhist history :- 1. I would like to know whether the sources cited are authentic and whether the conclusion presented in the post is accepted by mainstream scholars of Buddhist history. 2. Additionally, do the Nikāyas, the Vinaya, or early non-Buddhist sources provide any indication of Śaiva devotion by Siddhārtha Gautama or among the Śākyas? Seeking a Proper fact-based assessment grounded in proper citations of primary sources and established academic research. ----------

In Buddhist teachings, phenomena are said to be conditioned and impermanent. Could you explain the various types of conditions that are recognized in Buddhism, and how they contribute to the cycle of samsara and the development of individual experience? What are some of the types of conditions in the Abhidhammas or even modern understanding. Answers could include perhaps a physical condition, mental condition, conditioned by absences or so on.

I heard that in some suttas, it is mentioned that our world is destroyed by the heat of the sun, and that this heat rises up to the Brahma loka. Some Buddhists and Hindus believe that the deva lokas are located vertically upward in space from Earth, possibly millions of kilometers away. So according to these suttas, humans, animals, hell beings, and deva lokas will be burned, but the Ābhassara Brahma loka will not be destroyed. This seems to suggest that it is not the end of the entire universe. If we think in terms of our solar system, the Sun will become a red giant, and regions within about 200 million km may reach temperatures around 1000°C. So Earth would be destroyed in that process, and hell, animal, and human realms would also end and be burned. If we interpret that sutta as referring to the end of our solar system, then a kalpa might be around 10 billion years. Hindu scriptures describe a kalpa as about 4.2 billion years. Maybe I am wrong, but do the scriptures mention a kalpa as the lifespan of all lokadhātus, like the whole universe? However, my main confusion is that in Buddhist texts, a kalpa is sometimes described as an extremely long time period (by examples), even hundreds to thousands trillions years. Why are such extreme numbers given? If a kalpa means the lifespan of one whole universe, then how do Buddhist texts say that some Brahmas live for 64 kalpas? Where do they live during the next universes? Please do not treat this as a non-Buddhist argument. I am a Buddhist, but I have this question.

Mara is not considered a positive entity in Buddhism. Is ‘Wasawaththi Mara’ a god or a demon? I heard he is one of the powerful gods. Is that true?

In the Satta Surya Sutta, it says: “The ocean will sink by one hundred yojanas, two hundred, three hundred, four hundred, five hundred, six hundred, even seven hundred yojanas.” However, the ocean’s maximum depth is only about 11 km. One Yojana is generally considered to be around 10–15 km, so 100 yojanas would be about 1,000–1,500 km. Does this mean that the yojana used at that time was shorter than this?

While reading the book 'Idealistic Thought of India by P. T. Raju' (p. 217) . I came across a statement suggesting that the Abhidharmakośa declares the Buddha in the same way as the Upanishadic Brahman. Is this claim correct? And if it is indeed true , What is the philosophical rationale behind claiming Buddha is the same as Brahman? More importantly, how would those who maintain that no Buddhist schools posit anything like a God or Brahman respond to or reconcile this claim?

So far as I understand the terminology, there are two levels of knowledge: 1. "conceptual knowledge" like "man" and "woman" 2. "ultimate reality" like the five khandas The importance of understanding Anatta or Anatman (egolessness) as the "ultimate reality" is explained in Access to Insight article on Egolessness: - [The Three Basic Facts of Existence III. Egolessness (Anatta)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html) Anatta contemplation is about a clear understanding of egolessness. Does this insight come from Dhammanupassana (contemplation on the teachings of the Buddha)? As an example of this question, how do these two fit together: - “There is no doer, but only the doing” - The yogi should just note “seeing, seeing”.

In modern internet slang, "cope" means that you are saying something outlandish that you only espouse because you are unwilling to face a harsher truth. It could also mean that you are using a fact as a shield to hide from a more painful reality. It is a very specific and mainly derogatory usage of the original word "cope", as in "coping mechanism". For example, when a religious guy sees a man having fun with a very beautiful girlfriend, being envious, the guy might say "this is nothing compared to the joy of heaven, they're going to hell because they're not married so actually they've won nothing, god gave me a worse hand because I'm his toughest soldier" etc In modern internet spaces you might say that this man is coping. He is saying (or rather, trying to believe) things to regulate his emotions, not to state facts. He's not facing reality. "The economy is so bad because the politicians are messing things up, that's why we have this massive job scarcity" said by an unemployed person with potentially unimpressive qualifications is another example. It doesn't have to be religious. I believe another term for this is "slave morality", as defined by Nietzsche. Is there a concept like it in Buddhism?

It’s a plate from the shambhala dragon tibetan book of the dead (fremantle & trungpa, 1975). the caption says > the central figure is the supreme dharmakaya buddha and represents the dharmata. he is surrounded by the mandalas of the peaceful deities, the vidyadharas and the wrathful deities represented by their mantras could anyone help me find a legend/source for which deities are represented by which mandalas, and what deities are represented by the mantras (and also a translation of the mantras) ?

Hello Buddhists namaste! Would it be wrong of me to suppose the anatta means at least partly, the following two theses? 1. No explanation of a conscious thought is complete: mind is not absolutely transparent to itself. 2. Consciousness is only explicable by way of an explanation of some particular conscious thought. IMHO that would make the "hard" problem, disappear :)

>Once upon a time there was a beggar who wanted to sit in the Buddha's seat in a temple. The Buddha agreed, with one requirement: keep silence. > >At first, a rich man went to the temple to ask for virtue. When the rich man went out, his wallet felt out without his notice. The beggar was about to call him back, but remembering his requirement he kept silence. > >Then a poor man went in and ask for a better life. When bowing he saw the rich man's wallet, and thought that the Buddha gave this to him. The beggar was about to call him back, but remembering his requirement he kept silence. > >Then a fisherman went in and ask for a good journey in the sea, because the sea was so violent (large waves, strong wind). Suddenly the rich man returned to find his wallet. Seeing only the fisherman, he thought it's him who stole his wallet and hit him. This time the beggar couldn't hold back and explain the whole story. > >Then the Buddha returned and told the beggar that had he kept silence, then the rich man had learnt his virtue lesson, the poor man had had a better life, and the fisherman's life had been rescued because he would stay home otherwise. > >The lesson here is that we just need to keep observe and not influence our wants and needs. Do you know what story is this? Which would be its origin? Source: [Chuyện kẻ lang thang muốn đổi chỗ ngồi với Bồ Tát](https://nguoiphattu.com/thu-vien/tho-truyen-sach/8608-chuyen-ke-lang-thang-muon-doi-cho-ngoi-voi-bo-tat.html "Chuyện kẻ lang thang muốn đổi chỗ ngồi với Bồ Tát | Người Phật Tử - nguoiphattu.com - Phật giáo Việt Nam") (Vietnamese)

I am new to Tibetan but am interested in the Tibetan script versions of the texts. Not knowing much Tibetan script yet, I am not totally sure I am looking at the right thing and so wanted to clarify to see if these 23 items are the Perfection of Knowledge collection. The list of titles in Tibetan script I have found [here](http://read.84000.co/section/O1JC114941JC14665.html) . The first two or three I have found (I think) the corresponding Tibetan script text [here](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur) (འབུམ། and ཉི་ཁྲི།, basically). In [that](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur) collection, does it contain all 23 of these texts? If so, where would I find them? If not, do they exist elsewhere online in Tibetan etexts? If it's too complicated, primarily I'm interested if this collection has the 8000 line one, such as [here](https://github.com/7-rabbit/riff-text/tree/master/content/kangyur/%E0%BC%A0%E0%BC%A7%20%20%E0%BD%A4%E0%BD%BA%E0%BD%A2%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%95%E0%BE%B1%E0%BD%B2%E0%BD%93%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%A6%E0%BE%A3%E0%BC%8B%E0%BD%9A%E0%BD%BC%E0%BD%82%E0%BD%A6%E0%BC%8D) ?

I'm looking for a slightly better theoretical understanding of "crazy wisdom", as if that's possible. I've seen two superficially-sensible mentions of it on this site. - [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/25658/254) -- > If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego. - [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20701/254) (quoting Chogyam Trungpa) -- > The rest of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's development as a teacher and his relationships with his students. Toward the end of his life he had completely perfected the transmutation process to the point where he could be called the Vidyadhara or "Holder of the Crazy Wisdom." No longer could he be swayed by the winds of hope and fear. The gods and goddesses and demons, his passions and their external projections, had been completely subjugated and transformed. Now his life was a continual dance with the dakinis. > Finally Milarepa reached the "old dog" stage, his highest attainment. People could tread on him, use him as a road, as earth; he would always be there. He transcended his own individual existence so that, as we read his last teachings, there is a sense of the universality of Milarepa, the example of enlightenment. I suspect it's specifically-Tibetan, perhaps there are some pretty eccentric Zen teachers too. So some questions: - Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"? - What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one? - Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)? - Does it have any limits, precepts, actions that wouldn't do? And why *not* those, to be clear? - If someone appears to be, for example, homeless, drug-addict, alcoholic, prostitute, thief, con-man, bully, rather mad -- are these states distinguishable from crazy wisdom? - Is there any particular reason to call it "long standing and *very respected*" -- is the principal reason, that some people are very respectful of *everyone*? Or is it, not that they teach a new dhamma but that they're willing to bring that to a new unpromising audience? I don't know. If my questions sound insane and horribly rude, it's I must be deeply ignorant of the subject ... sorry! Hoping to learn better. I gathered that Trungpa for example *did* hurt *his* public image -- stories I've read of *him*, presented as an exemplar of crazy wisdom behaviour, are at least a superficial reminder of remarkable or 'anti-social' behaviour of other people one can meet -- social outcasts; 'underdogs'.