This is an extreme example to really get to the bottom of how permanent attainments are, and how dependent awakened people are to the monastic life. Could an enlightened monk start an office job, where people are both highly competitive and also perhaps abusive, and still retain peace while being productive?

I am basically an undergraduate Student in a university in Asia. My classes started in the month of August 2025. Now before coming to college, I made my mind in such a way that I decided that I will not speak with others, but instead if anyone asks me anything, then I will reply. But after coming to the college, my friends are repeatedly trying to speak with me and want to make me their friends. But I really don't want that. Not only the friends, but also the teachers of the university are also disturbing me repeatedly. I basically don't want to take the help of others, but the teachers are repeatedly asking me that if you have any questions then please ask. I want to stay alone and silent. But the environment is not permitting to do that. Every time someone is always available to disturb me. Please guide me how to get rid of these things. I want to know: How can I control myself?

So, I have a strong hunch that there must be a root emotional cause of anxiety and not in a worldly manner (*like not related to one's life story*). More like an error in judgment of relation to oneself and others. First candidate that comes to my mind is not being kind towards oneself which produces lack of confidence, which in turn produces anxiety given unfavourable external conditions (*like meeting new people etc.*). I have witnessed meditation to ease anxiety, but only seems like a partial temporary solution. What would be your understanding of the root cause of anxiety, and any possible practices to resolve it on more permanently?

I find it reassuring to be able to turn to the pali suttas for answers. I happened across comments by users that disparage against turning to the suttas for answers, one describing how it makes one come off as "Buddha's teacher's pet". Some amount of ego-hurt, but also genuine curiousity, makes me question if turning to the suttas for advice and certainty could be counter to reaching attainments. Would appreciate any perspective.

A Pali dictionary says the root of kāma is [√kam](https://dpdict.net/?tab=dpd&q=kam) ' meaning 'desire', 'wishing', 'delighting'. The Pali suttas contain the stock phase about kāma: > Pañcime kāmaguṇā. > > There are these five kāma strings. > > Katame pañca? > > What five? > > Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā > rajanīyā, > > Cognizable by the eye forms, wished for, desirable, agreeable, of endearing form, connected with kāma, leading to lust. > > Yaṁ kho ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ — ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo. > > Whatever truly towards these five kāma strings (accusative case), being dependent upon, arise (verb) pleasure & happiness - this is kāma's gratification/enjoyment/taste. > > [MN 13](https://suttacentral.net/mn13/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=true&script=latin) - DD attempted hyper literal translation In English, the term 'sensual' is supposed to mean: > "Sensual" refers to words that express sensations and pleasures that > appeal to the five senses. This term focuses on sensibility and > emotions, mentioning aesthetic charm and how things are felt. Sensual > things emphasize feeling and making others feel. > > For example: > > - Her sensual dance captivated the audience. > > - This sensual fragrance has a relaxing effect. In contrast, in English, the term 'seductive' is supposed to mean: > On the other hand, "seductive" expresses the possession of attraction > or alluring elements. This term focuses on the power to attract others > and attractive elements. Seductive things emphasize evoking people's > desires and interests. > > For example: > > - His seductive smile attracts everyone. > > - That seductive sweet voice is the secret to her popularity. In conclusion: > Thus, "sensual" focuses on sensibility and emotions, expressing > aesthetic charm and how things feel. In contrast, "seductive" > expresses the power to attract others and alluring elements. > > [HiNative](https://hinative.com/questions/24203881) To add: > Sensual - expressing or suggesting physical, especially sexual, > pleasure or satisfaction > > Seductive - making you want to do, have, or believe something, because > of seeming attractive > > [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/seductive) Yesterday, I was pondering MN 115, the sutta about the many types of elements (if fact, i did a 65 minute audio/video on it) and, today, I was attempting to put MN 115 into practice in a certain highly sensory environment, for the sake of developing more clarity about MN 115, My mind sensed the term 'sensual element' was not strongly realistic, pertinent or meaningful in relation to the sense experience or sense impacts because the term 'sensual' implies 'beauty' and thus overlooks the underlying 'defiled', 'oozy' or 'sticky' aspect of kāma. In pondering the sense objects around me, it was not only the operation of my mind's mentality i was attempting to discern; but i was also attempting to discern the kāma dhatu within those very sense objects, particularly the sense of 'expression' or 'assertiveness' or 'need' manifesting from within those sense objects which themselves also have a desire to look attractive and to be noticed. Thus, my mind concluded, the most realistic & pertinent translation of 'kāma' is '[seductivity](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seductivity) '. I guess this post may already be a strong argument however I wish for the opinions of others. What are the pros & cons of 'kāma' translated as 'sensuality' vs 'seductivity'? Note: I am reviewing the translation of each of the elements in MN 115

How can the deliberate discipline of sitting in stillness, which feels like a form of self-bondage, be the very path to ultimate mental and emotional freedom?

A sports article says this > Do you want to take first place in an upcoming triathlon? Want to > break your personal record in swimming laps? Want to be faster than > your best friend in the pool? Whatever it is you want, visualize > yourself accomplishing it. Would buddhism condone such visualization of success?

Dependent origination is interpreted by users of this platform to mean that craving and grasping can give rise to a sense of self. It's also advised on this platform to reflect on not-self of various things like mind and body. Not-self is described elsewhere as "not in control of", although people caution against conceptualizing not-self. I take this to mean that whenever I feel I "am", that "I" is an illusion built on a layer of craving and grasping. So, whenever I feel I "am", I reflect on an inability of me as an illusion to change anything - to move a body part, to breathe in a different way, to change thoughts, to prevent something, etc. Is this a wrong view?

In my current considerations, there are two options regarding self view and suffering, and I am not sure which one applies. Would appreciate any advice. Option 1: there is a true self that can be deluded into identifying with the aggregates. While there is a lot of talk about how there is no self at all, Zen Buddhism to my understanding teaches that there is a "big I" and "small I", and that the big I should be revealed. The big I in option 1 could have the property "asleep" or "misidentifying". Option 2: it's the aggregates themselves holding self-view which causes suffering *within the aggregates*, and through the Dhamma it is our aggregates that learn to stop holding self view. There is no separate self beyond the aggregates at all, not even realized after awakening nor in a conceptual manner. Which one is correct? Possibly neither of them?

I don't know how else to phrase this question, but please advise. I have this constant irritating feeling that I am kind of enlightened. It is confusing. I don't really know if it is my ego which is trying to assume this sort of "super self", when in reality I am just a normal person, making normal mistakes. I become unaware of my mental formations sometimes, or careless about what I say, or I get angry at times. A little more about this. I know about this ultimate goal, like Nirvana or Moksha or call it anything. I listen to talks by Ajahn Brahmavamso, Alan Watts, J.Krishnamurti and some other yogis. Then I think my ego blends into acting like that enlightened being. I sometimes advise my parents on some matters also. It is definitely weird. You see I want to achieve that final goal, but I accelerate towards it in a moment. It definitely seems wrong. Or is there a final goal at all? It seems like I am constantly checking myself against enlightenment. It is funny too. So please advise. And also I would like to know if there was any such situation(in the texts) which the Buddha faced.

So far I learned the following methods, derived from the pali suttas , to bring an end to defilements via cognitive behavior: - contemplating on thoughts of pleasure, cruelty and ill will, in respect to them leading to suffering for self, others and both (example MN 19 ) > “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of > sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of > sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to > others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs > wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I > considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me;... - observation of the Nidanas, like how contact of senses with things gives rise of consciousness and attention, which gives rise to pleasant or unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings, which can lead us to crave, which can lead to grasping and so on (example SN 12.2 and DN 15 ) > So: name and form are requirements for consciousness. Consciousness is > a requirement for name and form. Name and form are requirements for > contact. Contact is a requirement for feeling. Feeling is a > requirement for craving. Craving is a requirement for grasping. > Grasping is a requirement for continued existence. Continued existence > is a requirement for rebirth. Rebirth is a requirement for old age and > death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. > That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. - mindfulness of breath (MN 118 ) > Bhikkhus, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated, > it is of great fruit and great benefit. When mindfulness of breathing > is developed and cultivated, it fulfils the four foundations of > mindfulness. When the four foundations of mindfulness are developed > and cultivated, they fulfil the seven enlightenment factors. When the > seven enlightenment factors are developed and cultivated, they fulfil > true knowledge and deliverance. What other cognitive behavioral shifts can be learned from the pali suttas? Feel free to correct me or suggest improvements to the descriptions above in the comments

I am new to Buddhism & exploring it. Recently I came across this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6E8er3XqN0) which made me ask few questions & they are:
1)They have shown image of Lord Shiva at 13:50 above the baby(Lord Buddha). Even in Hinduism Buddha is considered one the avatars of Lord Vishnu. So is there a connection between Buddha,Shiva & Vishnu.
2)Lastly in this video they said child's(Buddha) parents are Brahmins. So was Buddha a 'Hindu Brahmin' before he attained enlightenment?

I heard that “miccha dhamma” means homosexuality, especially in Sri Lanka, where the Tripitaka was written.

I currently try to get better at returning focus and attention from thoughts to breathe. I do this in daily life. I would appreciate if there were suttas on focusing on breathe in daily life outside meditation. I would see it as encouragement. I know that the Buddha focuses a lot on craving and ill wishes and cruel thoughts. These things helped me a lot, they help to return to breathe. Then there is a sort of lightness, as opposed to the heaviness of suffering. I identify a shifting of focus from thoughts to breath as a victory of having applied Buddha's teaching. Unfortunately, I don't have clear wording of the Buddha that this is a sign of cessation on suffering. I'm like a son that needs validation. Are there suttas that talk about breath, as opposed to just talking about contemplating on thoughts?

In general all Buddhist practice seems to help with the concerns mentioned in the Title. Equanimity helps with all unwanted, changing conditions (from minor challenges to "aging, sickness and death". Lessening (or even losing) the sense of "self" also seems powerful each day and especially on the last one. If anyone, especially anyone currently preparing for the eventual laying down of the body has: insights, dharma, experience (thus far)...please reply.

In many early Buddhist suttas (Pāli Canon), one of the formless absorptions is ākiñcaññāyatana (“the sphere of nothingness”). It is described as a refined state of concentration, attained after transcending sensory form, space, and consciousness. What I’m trying to understand is Once one attains the sphere of nothingness in meditation, is “nothingness” regarded doctrinally as ultimate reality, or is it always considered a conditioned, temporary state? How is this “nothingness” distinguished from emptiness (suññatā / śūnyatā) in Buddhist philosophy especially in Theravāda vs. Mahāyāna?

I know that there are several stories of monks and nuns leaving behind their families and even young children. However, how realistic is it to live among people and detach from them while in that environment? Also, all the stories of monks/nuns leaving behind their children stem from sayings/religious text. How realistic is it in general to overcome attachment to people? As answers, anecdotes would suffice

A friend wanted to know the Buddhist position on rebirth/reincarnation since we don’t believe in a permanent soul. Specifically, what is it that pass from this life to the next? “Karma” was my reply then. There was a look of disappointment; the answer was obviously unsatisfying. I have seen this question asked in this forum in some form or another; here (1) , here (2) , here (3) , here (4) , here (5) , here (6) and there (7) . Looking at the number of times this topic appears, I am not trying to get a definitive answer. Instead, how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition (with some inclinations towards an eternal soul). Note that the target audience do not have a deep understanding in Buddhist concepts e.g. the 5 clinging aggregates. Hopefully, the next time another non-Buddhist friend ask a similar question, I won't turn them off but to **entice** them to investigate further. (Interestingly, looking at the tag info on rebirth in this forum, it says: “The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream”, I wonder who wrote this.)

In his book Buddhist Illogic: A Critical Analysis of Nāgārjuna's Arguments , Avi Sion makes strong criticisms of Nāgārjuna and the Madhyamaka school. Have any Madhyamaka scholars (either traditional or academic) directly responded to Avi Sion’s arguments in this book? If not specifically to Sion, are there published scholarly works that address similar critiques of Nāgārjuna’s reasoning (e.g. accusations of sophistry or inconsistency)?

In the book *In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from Pali Canon* by Bhikku Bodhi, I read: > When there is no *name-and-form*, consciousness does not come to be; with the cessation of *name-and-form* comes the cessation of consciousness. What is the meaning of *name-and-form*; whose name and what form? How is the arising and cessation of consciousness linked with it?