From the deafening silence that the Buddha experienced during the moonlit moment beneath the Bodhi tree, flowed the teaching of the Dharma. 2,500 years has since passed, and the accumulations of the Teachings into various versions of the Tripitaka have swelled into monstrous proportions. Numerous schools, countless interpretations and explanations of the teachings have been done. Buddhism and its literature have come a long way, and maybe some of its original luster has been lost among the clusters of information. Therefore, it ignites sparkles when one read suttas that are flowered with ancient simplicity and waltzed with the thunder of non-duality. The earliest chapters of the Sutta Nipāta do have such quality and, according to the erudite Professor Luis o. Gomez, "The significance of these passages cannot be exaggerated."[1]

   The supreme sacrifice, which he made in his life for the sake of the humanity, is the best example of ‘Dana’ or ‘Charity’. This small word, ‘Charity’ has occupied a great place in the Buddhism. He was the earliest torchbearer of individual welfare. He was a great humanist who aims at human welfare. He asked his disciples:

The basic difference between the Buddhism and the other Indian religions is the Origin theory, which is also the core idea of the Buddhism. According to the Origin theory, Buddhism believed that the society is composed of the cause, individual, family, social organization constituted the society.

Abstract：If we define the word “nation” we discover that there exist many concepts about it. But all these concepts about a group of people called “nation” are based on the limited experience and view of a certain place and time. In the same way as an individual identifies with a “self”, a nation identifies with its characteristics and typical features it proclaims. In the same way many Buddhists identify themselves with a certain national Buddhist tradition. But the Buddha didn’t give his teachings to a certain nation, but to everybody who asked for advice or a teaching.

When two moral systems have incompatible moral tenetssuch as Buddhism and Confucianism, and if a third moralsystem claims to have integrated the two conflicating moralteachings; serious questions arise on on theoretical andpractical grounds. One of the questions is whether theintegration is syncretism or synthesis. According to ThomasF. Hoult, "all religious doctrines are syncretic.''

The Praj~naapaaramitaa-hrdaya-suutra( 般若波罗蜜多心         经 )is not one  of the  Vij~naanavaada's  texts, but         Kuei-chi  (窥基  )in his PPHV(  般若波罗蜜多心经幽赞         )explains its meanings with Vij~naanavada's theories         by means  of not only  borrowing  the theories  from         LAS( 楞伽经 ), MSA (大乘庄严经论  )and YCBH 瑜伽师地         论 )

Engaged in life at the turn of a civilization, we must confront all crucial conflicts due to the chaos of differing ideologies mankind has been entangled in from the very beginning of civilization. The more we struggle and our efforts increase, the more exhausted and further down pressed into hopelessness and misdirection, and the heavier the loss of confidence in oneself.

"The Question" recently at the Washington Post's On Faith website was "do animals have rights?" Typically for this site, none of the answers are from Buddhists. So I began to think about how I would answer the question.

The moral of the Japanese fable is based on the Buddhist Doctrine of Impermanence or Anitya: people and events too can be looked upon simply as impersonal products of causes and conditions just like rain drops falling randomly on the pond. We mistakenly attribute intrinsic meanings and significance to them. Everything is in a flux: change is the only constant.