As we would all know, the Buddha found/explained that self mortification like extreme fasting is not the correct way to liberation. So is dealing with extreme suffering also not an extreme? If one was in extreme poverty and/or extreme illness would it not be wiser to take the knife? Is there any precedent the Buddha explained in regards to dealing with extreme suffering and/or illness? a level of how much suffering we can or are able to endure? I know there is the story of the monk who took the knife because of extreme illness and the Buddha said he was blameless but he was already a high level attainer (not sure what stage of liberation he was) **EDIT:** wanted to bounty this as the question has not been answered and people seem to misunderstand the question and think it is related to suicide, and tag it as such just because I mentioned about taking the Knife. **The question is about what limits, if any, of suffering we should endure. Is there any precedent about when we should no longer endure suffering because it is too great.** Hypothetically imagining one is homeless, destitute in extreme poverty, starving, no limbs or illnesses akin that cause ones life to be extreme suffering or even extreme mental illness, all family and friends have died of illness or murder. Essentially one has serious negative karma where ones life is full of painful memories and painful present experiences. Is one still supposed to continue to endure such suffering forever. Well until natural death.

> Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the fire > of delusion; burning with birth, aging, and death; with sorrow, > lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair, I say. > > Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences > revulsion... Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through > dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the > knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘**Destroyed is birth**, the > holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is > no more for this state of being.’ What does "destroyed is birth" refer to here, especially regarding a supposed person that manages to overcome, let's say, hatred. The person has a Eureka moment and proclaims "destroyed is birth". What do they mean with that, or rather, **what are they trying to express about their life**?

Kundalini yoga, as described in certain Hindu tantric lineages, describes the process of awakening a dormant spiritual energy located at the base of the spine. This energy is said to rise through a central channel, activating chakras along the way, and facilitating transformative shifts in consciousness leading to liberation. I am curious whether similar concepts or practices are found in Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism. Specifically, do these schools recognize a comparable energy system involving chakras or subtle body channels? Are there practices aimed at awakening and directing this energy in a way that parallels Kundalini yoga? References to authoritative texts, tantric commentaries, or the instructions of qualified teachers within these lineages would be especially welcome.

So, could attainments 'rot' / be forgotten, and is this a commonly observed thing? Does the Buddha warn about taking 'breaks', or does he talk about people leaving spiritual practice and as a result losing things? Is there a sort of 'wagging the finger' attitude from high attainers/authorities toward people sidelining spiritual practice for a while?

Throughout the journey toward enlightenment and letting go of attachments, we cling to various tools given to us by the Buddha. So 'clinging to something' in general might not be bad, as long as it helps liberate from suffering. Would it be fair to say that the idea of reincarnation is then something that high attaining people cling to, in order to be liberated from fear of death? Or does the teaching primarily come from direct perception of reincarnation itself, not of it's value in liberation from suffering.

A while ago I noticed that dispassion (viraga) toward arising thoughts can give great peace. It wasn't really a artificial dispassion, rather, it came naturally after contemplation. Now I'm wondering if it makes sense to actively nurture such dispassion toward not just thoughts but also emotions - like anxiety due to worries of personal outcome. Is this something that actually exists in buddhism? I only know of advice to just observe and be with emotion as they come and go, and never heard of the idea of having a certain view or stance or attitude toward emotion.

In this answer , a user writes: > The Buddhist scriptures attributed to the Buddha contain > contradictions, obvious frauds, obvious later-day insertions, etc., > therefore there can be no scriptural authority in Buddhism; apart from > what can be verified for oneself as being true & real that leads to > the ending of suffering. This raises the question:- How can one objectively determine which parts of the Buddhist scriptures, particularly the suttas are likely to be original teachings of the Buddha, and which may be later interpolations or corruptions? What criteria are used in this process? Are there scholarly or traditional methods that help identify interpolations, such as historical analysis, linguistic patterns, consistency with core teachings, or comparisons across early textual traditions? Additionally, how can we be sure that what some modern practitioners or scholars label as later additions were not already part of the original oral tradition? Why could some of these elements not be understood through reinterpretation rather than being dismissed outright? Are there critical editions of the suttas or major academic resources that address this issue? I am interested in perspectives based on traditional commentaries, scriptural analysis, and modern scholarship.

Even though the Pali Suttas appear devoid of the idea masculinity & femininity are results of past kamma, such ideas appear to remain fertile in worldly Buddhism. I read the following on the internet: > I think this is pretty obvious. Karma functions as a universal law and > our situation, the form we are born in is decided by karma. One of the > sexes is naturally more advantageous than the other, despite women > having an easier time in modern society, even just anatomically they > are less fortunate. **Then of course like the Buddha explained, women > are unable to shake their desire for sex, reproduction** and no Buddha > will be born in the form of a woman. Indicated males are more > advantageous. Also hence why there are more vinaya rules for women If the above is true and if desire for sex and reproduction is the cause of rebirth as a woman, what is the cause of rebirth as a man (including as men with multiple wives, as mentioned in SN 55.7)?

I read the following on the internet: > So beings are born into a sex due to their past actions and results. Which Pali suttas explain the above?

Is there such a chant, that deals with thinking in this manner? I have come to recognize that I can cease adding unskillful thinking, but right now, I feel like I need to remind myself that I have this conviction. Only through remembering, can I disidentify with unskillful thought patterns when they arise, "this is not me". So I was wondering if any such chant exists.

Over the years, I’ve lost friends and family connections, and I often find that people distance themselves from me for reasons I can’t understand. I try to build friendships, but others rarely accept my invitations or respond. Even those I’m on good terms with tend to keep their distance. I've stopped inviting people out to do things because of so much rejection. Even when they do accept, I can't seem to make connection with them. Sometimes, people that I know for long start turning against me, as in they actually become like enemies. Meanwhile I don't recall doing anything bad to them intentionally. This repeated pattern makes me feel that the world is against me, and since human connection is such a large part of life, I feel doomed. I’ve reflected deeply but haven’t found clarity. How can one overcome such a state? I'd like concrete things that I can do to measurably improve in this. (I know of metta, but I doubt it is much helpful in my case?). Thanks!

What are the actual suttas in which the Buddha described how to meditate? A list of all such suttas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I usually focus on breath at the stomach but recently decided to try at the nostrils as I read it's better and also that's what the Buddha taught. I have no problem feeling the breath going in as it feels cooler but 99% of the time I feel nothing breathing out. So I just try to focus my mind in that area even though there's no sensation bring felt. Is this OK or should I just stick to stomach?

[This answer on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/12flgq9/what_are_some_arguments_for_reincarnation_from_a/jfgry4f/) gave a basic outline of [Dharmakīrti's argument for rebirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Metaphysical_arguments) in the form of a syllogism: 1. Matter and consciousness are metaphysically different, their characteristics and nature are different 2. An effect must be of the same nature as its substantial cause 3. Thus consciousness cannot arise from or be produced by matter (1, 2) 4. Conclusion: Therefore, there must have a been a consciousness prior to any person's conception which causes the first moment of consciousness in this life For the sake of the question, let's assume that you accept this line of argumentation. The question then becomes, how did the first mental event arise according to this framework? Of course, there is the idea that many immaterial intellects exist in the transcendent realms some of which stretch beyond iterations of the universe and many eons, but at the same time, for there to be so many creatures on just this planet with consciousness would implicate that billions upon billions, if not more, immaterial entities survived the past iteration(s) and eons and made it to this one, and also never achieved enlightenment during that time, which seems highly implausible. Perhaps the Yogacara idea of the store-house consciousness must be of use here, but it would be difficult to prove, I'm not too sure. If anyone knows more about Dharmakīrti's thinking with regards to this, please share your knowledge.

Ānanda, the earth rests on water, the water rests on air, and the air rests on space. When a great wind blows, the water is stirred, which in turn causes the earth to shake—resulting in an earthquake **Is that scientifically accurate regarding how the Earth is *structured*? And *cause* for earthquake**

I’ve heard many people say that Buddhist texts refer to a flat Earth. Is it true that Buddhism considers the Earth to be flat? Please give an unbiased answer.

I feel curious about what it actually feels like when someone directly experiences anatta. How do practitioners describe that experience? Is it sudden or gradual? Does it come with a sense of liberation, fear, or something else entirely? I’m especially interested in how this experience is understood or explained within different traditions, like Theravāda or Zen, if there are differences. Please note I'm not looking for just theoretical explanations. I’d really appreciate if there are descriptions from those who lived and felt experience of realizing anatta.

A blogger writing under the name of 'Durga Bhakti Tāraṅgiṇī' has published an article in which Vajrayāna Buddhism is directly accused of outright plagiarising deities and theological concepts from the Śākta and Śaiva streams of Āgamic Hinduism. According to the author, Vajrayāna did not merely absorb superficial cultural elements. It is accused of deliberately lifting and distorting core elements of the Āgamic traditions. To quote directly from their article - > Vajrayāna, a later Buddhist sect was influenced by Śaivism and > Śaktism. Rather than influencing others, it stole many concepts from > Āgamic cultures. Ancient Buddhism didn't observe Āgamic culture. Upon > entering Eastern India, it became influenced by Āgamic sects ( > Ḍāmarika, Kāpālika, Śākta, Kaula, Śaiva). They started to worship > various Devatās and Devīs. Thereafter they tried to destroy real > Āgamic rituals, sculptures and concepts. Here are some evidences of > their destructions. And further: > **the concepts of Pañca Dhyānībuddhas (Vajrōcana, Akṣobhya, > Ratnasambhava, Amitābha and Amoghasiddhi) came from the five forms of > Sadāśiva (Īśāna, Sadyojāta, Tatpuruṣa, Aghōra and Vāmadeva). They > destroyed the Rudra Khaṇḍa of Śivaliṅga and made the idols of Pañca > Dhyānībuddhas on the Yonīpīṭha or Gaurīpaṭṭa**. The author includes the Bodhisattva Tārā in this purported list of deities involved in iconographic plagiarism. > Vajrayānī Buddhists worship a different iconography of Tārādevī. She > is green in color and she has two hands. Except her, they also worship > 21 forms of Goddess Tārā. But the ironic fact is, the Green Tārā > iconography was also stolen from Śākta Śāstras This line of argumentation, which is not without precedent in polemical literature, raises significant questions for those versed in the historical evolution of Vajrayāna doctrine and praxis. The article cites a number of scholars and textual references to support its thesis of ideological and artistic borrowing. I would respectfully request insight from those deeply familiar with the doctrinal, historical, and ritual development of Vajrayāna Buddhism and comparative theology to offer clarification or rebuttal to the above claims based on historical sources and textual references.

Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods? Did he teach not to worship them? Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism. Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

In SN 44.9, the wanderer Vacchagotta declares: > So I was simply befuddled. I was uncertain: How is the teaching of > Gotama the contemplative to be understood? Then, later, the befuddled Vacchagotta asks the Buddha: > And at the moment when a being (satto) sets this body (kāyaṁ) aside > and is not yet reborn (anupapanno) in another body, what do you > designate as its sustenance (upādānasmiṁ) then? The Buddha replies: > Vaccha, when a being (satto) sets this body aside and is not yet > reborn (anupapanno) in another body, I designate it as > craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance (upādānaṁ) at that time. Is SN 44.9 a supramundane ([lokuttara](https://suttacentral.net/define/lokuttara?lang=en)) sutta?