u/Anon_SL_2000

There might not be an exact number, but I wonder if there is at least an approximate total number of Mahayana sutras.

Also, are most Mahayana sutras found in both the Chinese and Tibetan canons, or are there many that can be found only in one of the two canons?

Edit : Okay, let me be specific. How many Mahayana sutras are there in the Taishō Tripitaka?

බෞද්ධ පාලි ග්‍රන්ථවල සිංහල පරිවර්තනයන්ගේ තැන් කිහිපයකම මේ වචනෙ තියනවා. මේ වචනෙ හරි ම අර්ථය දන්න කෙනෙක් ඉන්නව ද?

උදාහරණයකට බුද්ධ අපදාන කියන කොටසෙ සිංහල පරිවර්තනයේ 'ඉටා' කියන වචනය භාවිත කරල තියනවා.

> ඇති තාක් බුද්ධක්‍ෂේත්‍රයන්හි අහසෙහි වූ ද පොළොවෙහි වූ ද අනන්තරත්නයන් සිතින් (ඉටා මාගේ ප්‍රාසාදය හාත්පස) රැස් කෙළෙමි.

If a person is simply a Buddhist, without having started the preliminary practices and only has a general understanding of Buddhism, are they allowed to receive the 1,000-Armed Chenrezig (Avalokiteshvara) initiation? If yes, is there anything they can do to prepare before the initiation?

The earliest Buddhist texts mention karma (kamma in Pali) as an idea that already existed in the Gangetic plains. The Upali sutta (MN 56) describes a debate between the Buddha and a Jain lay follower named Upali about the nature of karma. The scholarly consensus is that the Buddha lived around 480–400 BCE, or possibly several decades earlier.

What are the oldest texts known to scholars that mention the concept of karma? Is there any evidence that this idea existed during the Indus Valley Civilization? Are there references to karma in the Vedas? Did this concept originate in the Indian subcontinent?

I would also like to learn how the idea of karma developed and changed across different Indian philosophies and religious traditions.

Thank you for your time!

What is the difference between the terms "Buddha-field" and "Pure Land"?

Does the term Pure Land used specifically to refer to Sukhavati? If not, what is the English translation of Sukhavati?

I'd also like to know the Chinese and Japanese terms for "Buddha-field", "Pure Land", and "Sukhavati".

Thank you for your time!

I was raised in a culturally Buddhist society, and I've been practicing Buddhism seriously for about three years. But I still struggle a lot to understand the Buddhist view on karma. I would appreciate it if anyone could help answer my questions. I'm open to views from any Buddhist tradition, even heterodox ones.

01. Many Buddhists say painful or unfortunate incidents are caused by previous unwholesome or negative karma. But for some people, these incidents are the reason they turned to Buddhism. So for them, was it their negative karma that essentially led them to become Buddhists?

02. Many Buddhists say joyful or fortunate circumstances, such as wealth, worldly achievements, social status, physical attractiveness, good health, and longevity, are caused by previous wholesome karma. But for some people, these blessings make them proud and lead them to indulge in a hedonistic lifestyle, causing them to drift away from Buddhism. For them, was it their wholesome karma that essentially led them away from Buddhism and caused them to engage in more unwholesome/negative karma?

03. Many Buddhists I know, even if they don't use those exact words, seem to believe that karma and karmic results (vipāka) are a kind of universal or cosmic law. If karma is a law of the universe, what makes that law remain fixed instead of changing arbitrarily? For instance, in the Abrahamic religions, believers have a covenant with an almighty God, and there is a holy book or a true church that represents and teaches that covenant. How does Buddhism explain why the law of karma remains constant, and why wholesome karma will never produce unwholesome results?

04. Even before the Buddha, the idea of karma was already rooted in what is now northern India (Gangetic plains) because it was a central teaching in early Jainism and similar traditions. How can we know that the Jain understanding of karma did not become mixed with the Buddhist understanding after the Buddha's time?

05. In Buddhist cultures, people sometimes mix existing social or moral norms with ideas of wholesome and unwholesome actions. For example, some cultural Buddhists in my country consider homosexuality to be an offense comparable to murder. But based on my basic understanding of the Abhidharma, I don't see any reason why homosexual intercourse would be more or less unwholesome than heterosexual intercourse. So how can we understand the Buddhist view of karma without mixing it with the moral norms of a particular society?

In the Sutta Pitaka, several suttas, such as the Dhammaññū Sutta (AN 7.68) and the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22), describe nine categories of teachings: sutta, geyya, vyākarana, gāthā, udāna, itivuttaka, jātaka, Vedalla, and abbhūtadhamma. While there are convincing explanations for what the other eight categories refer to, I have not found a clear explanation of Vedalla.

The Majjhima Nikāya contains two suttas with this name: the Mahāvedalla Sutta (MN 43) and the Cūlavedalla Sutta (MN 44). However, these are teachings given by arahants (Arahat Sāriputta and Arahat Dhammadinnā) which were later approved by the Buddha. Is it possible that the entire category of vedalla refers to teachings given by arahants that were later accepted or endorsed by the Buddha?

According to Bhikkhu Sujato, another possibility is that vedalla originally referred to a proto-Abhidhamma text, which he tentatively calls the Vibhaṅga Mūla. However, he also notes that there is not enough evidence to reach a firm conclusion about what the term originally referred to.

In the Sanskrit textual tradition, the teachings are classified into twelve categories, one of which is called Vaipulya. Since Vaipulya refers to extensive or elaborate teachings, and Mahāyāna sūtras were classified under this category, could vedalla be comparable to the Sanskrit category of Vaipulya, or is there too little evidence to support such an identification?

It's confusing because different sources give different dates. The current scholarly consensus is that the Buddha lived around 480–400 BCE.

But when I read the Wikipedia page on the Buddha, it also includes 563–483 BCE as another possible dating.

According to Theravada tradition, the Buddha lived from 623 BCE to 543 BCE. I also heard that according to East Asian Buddhist records, the Buddha lived much earlier, possibly as early as the 9th century BCE.

What's your understanding of this? I'm asking because I think knowing the historical basis of Buddhism is important for gaining a deeper insight into Buddhism itself.

How long can you sustain mindfulness during a particular period before a thought or another phenomenon completely shifts your focus and breaks your mindfulness(sati)?

For me, during simple tasks like showering or doing the laundry, I often lose mindfulness and get lost in thought. I usually don't realize I've zoned out until 10–15 minutes later :(

As a Pure Land Buddhist, I personally feel astrology is just another distraction from my practice. I still ask this question because some Pali commentaries mention things such as the time a person is born (nakshatra) affecting their behavior and actions. I have also heard that there are astrological beliefs in Tibetan Buddhism. Is this because there is some truth to astrology, or did the monks who composed these texts simply use an existing knowledge system in medieval India to explain the Dharma?

Some of my family members and relatives are obsessed with astrology. One of my distant relatives believes they will die in an upcoming year just because their horoscope says so. This feels absurd to me.

These are my problems with astrology. Let's assume it's true. A person is born with certain behaviors and attitudes, and they are going to experience certain worldly gains or pains based on those behaviors and attitudes. Even if they check their horoscope, they cannot change these things because that is supposedly how events are meant to unfold. Either way, believing in astrology doesn't seem to help and only creates anxiety or pride.

The solutions astrology suggests for future or ongoing misfortunes are also problematic. What my relatives believe in is a form of Jyotisha, or Vedic astrology. Their solution is to perform rituals and pujas for deities or devas. This feels like a Trojan horse with Hindu beliefs hidden inside it.

The logic of these astrologers is that karma is expressed through zodiac signs and planetary positions. But for this to work, they must presuppose a fixed universal law that determines how events unfold. If planetary positions are supposed to correspond to specific outcomes across the universe in a consistent and orderly way, then there must be some principle that maintains this correspondence. For that, it seems necessary to presuppose the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god who keeps the universe running in this fixed and orderly way, which is not compatible with Buddhism.

If a monk actively calls for war during a relatively peaceful period, or advocates violence, and then supports an ongoing war or military action, with the result that thousands of people, including civilians, are killed, does this constitute a Pārājika offence? In other words, would the monk's upasampadā status be automatically revoked, resulting in his immediate and permanent expulsion from the monastic order?

If it is not a Pārājika offence, would it still be considered a serious Vinaya offence? Are there any circumstances under which such conduct would not constitute a Vinaya offence?

If a monk actively calls for war during a relatively peaceful period, or advocates violence, and then supports an ongoing war or military action, with the result that thousands of people, including civilians, are killed, does this constitute a Pārājika offence? In other words, would the monk's upasampadā status be automatically revoked, resulting in his immediate and permanent expulsion from the monastic order?

If it is not a Pārājika offence, would it still be considered a serious Vinaya offence? Are there any circumstances under which such conduct would not constitute a Vinaya offence?

I've heard that beings born in the Asaññasatta Brahma realm are reborn there through attainment of the fourth jhāna. But beings in that realm have no consciousness, so it seems that this has no importance for enlightenment.

Also, some beings who attain the fourth jhāna are reborn in the Vehapphala realm, where consciousness is still present, while others are reborn in the Asaññasatta realm and become unconscious. What causes this difference?

Can beings in the rūpa realms (Brahma worlds), other than those in the Suddhāvāsa realms, practice the Dhamma?

I've heard that beings born in the Asaññasatta Brahma realm are reborn there through attainment of the fourth jhāna. But beings in that realm have no consciousness, so it seems that this has no importance for enlightenment.

Also, some beings who attain the fourth jhāna are reborn in the Vehapphala realm, where consciousness is still present, while others are reborn in the Asaññasatta realm and become unconscious. What causes this difference?

Can beings in the rūpa realms (Brahma worlds), other than those in the Suddhāvāsa realms, practice the Dhamma?

I understand that Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are primarily linguistic categories and do not necessarily correspond to distinct ethnic groups with significant genetic differences. My question is not whether they are ethnic groups or whether there are major genetic differences between them. Rather, I'm asking about the historical origins of the idea that Aryans and Dravidians are separate peoples with different ancestral origins.

In Sri Lanka, from the late 19th century onward, some Sinhalese nationalists argued that the Sinhalese were Aryans and therefore a distinct and superior ethnic group compared to Tamils, although this view is far less prominent today. As a counter-narrative, some Tamil nationalists argued that Tamils were the original inhabitants of the island and that the Sinhalese were later Aryan settlers.

What are the historical origins of these ideas, and when did they first emerge?

Thank you for your time!

I understand that Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are primarily linguistic categories and do not necessarily correspond to distinct ethnic groups with significant genetic differences. My question is not whether they are ethnic groups or whether there are major genetic differences between them. Rather, I am asking about the historical origins of the idea that Aryans and Dravidians are separate peoples with different ancestral origins.

In Sri Lanka, some Sinhalese nationalists have historically argued that the Sinhalese are Aryans and therefore a distinct and superior ethnic group compared to Tamils. As a counter-narrative, some Tamil nationalists have argued that Tamils were the original inhabitants of the island and that the Sinhalese were later Aryan settlers.

What are the historical origins of these ideas, and when did they first emerge?

Thank you for your time🙏

According to the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni became a Buddha eons before his birth as Siddhartha Gautama. I saw some Mahayana Buddhists in this subreddit saying that Siddhartha Gautama attained Buddhahood under the Bodhi tree. But this seems to contradict the teachings in the Lotus Sutra. Is that a minority position, or do most Mahayana Buddhists not accept that specific teaching in the Lotus Sutra?