There are several scientific methods to treat the psychiatric condition depression. Is there a method to overcome depression by Lord Buddha's teachings?

What prevents us from attaining Nibbana? Is it the **ignorance** or the **craving**? So, what should we focus on, in order to attain Nibbana? Is it **uprooting the craving** or **uprooting the ignorance**? Because of what reason the **uprooting of craving** happen? and Because of what reason the **uprooting of ignorance** happen?

I am new to Buddhism and have a question I am hoping someone can answer. My understanding is that realizing enlightenment is universally desirable. In other words, it is considered “better” to realize enlightenment than to not (i.e. if a genie ever offered to magically grant someone the realization of enlightenment, no one should say “no”). When it comes to what happens to arahant after death, my understanding is that Buddha did not give a very concrete answer. I've read a couple of answers such as, "it falls under the category of things that are not known" or "the answer will not end suffering so it is irrelevant” or “arahant are extinguished like a flame”, etc. He did seem to concretely say, however, that arahant are definitely “freed” from the cycle of death and rebirth. And when it comes to what happens to non-arahant after death, he seemed to have a very concrete answer with no hesitation: they/we die and are reborn in an endless cycle of dukkha (suffering). My understanding is that both happiness and sadness are dukkha (suffering/impermanence). But isn’t happiness generally considered a pleasant feeling? And aren’t some non-arahant more happy than they are sad in life? I’m not saying I’m one of those people, but don’t those people exist? So for them, perhaps an endless cycle of death and rebirth isn’t that bad? Life can be net-positive in happiness for some, can’t it? For those people, does it make sense to exit out of this endless cycle of mostly-pleasant life and instead enter....nothingness? The unknown? Become an extinguished flame? I have read that arahant experience “happiness” in an unfathomable way, far beyond the happiness of the laymen. Even if that is true, that “happiness” is only guaranteed for the rest of their current life is it not? After that, even the Buddha is not sure what will happen except that they will for sure not be reborn to experience that happiness again in the next life because they will have been freed from the cycle. If it was just laid out as, “following the eight-fold path will end your suffering in this life” then that would be simple. But then there’s also that added bonus of “if you realize enlightenment, the illusion of ‘you’ will forever be nothing.” But what if I’m not suffering all that much? What if I have a pretty peaceful, happy life? Does it make sense for me to say “yes” to that genie? Thank you in advance.

I've long felt that some people engage in unskillful behaviour as a consequence of not valuing themselves. For example, they engage in drugs to numb or detrimental sexuality, seemingly because they feel unworthy or undeserving. **Would Buddhism link such a behaviour to self-compassion or self-esteem? Is there such a thing in Buddhism as instincts of self-harm?** Or, even, can such self-impeding behaviour be linked to some other cause, such as not seeing the consequence of actions or something of the like? Thank you

My career involves lot of self-learning, and self-motivation. I like my work, which is a reason why my work doesn't feel like work. However, I am finding it hard to incorporate Vipassana into my work. For example, if I'm working and I'm in the *zone* there's a general pleasurable feeling associated with motivation/focus. It's what keeps me going. I feel like it's a mental state that's actually valuable specially in today's society full of procrastination. However, if I mentally note that sense of motivation/focus, it does fade away, but it makes it harder for me to concentrate and enjoy work. In fact, I even get slightly depressed and begin to hate the work. Then I would mentally note those negative feelings, but they will come back and I begin to feel miserable, and like a robot. Will this go away? Should I constantly "mental note" my feeling of motivation/focus, similar to how one "mental notes" a feeling of anger? How am I suppose to apply Vipassana in this situation?

I'm going through a period of meditating every day which is not how I usually practice. Before I would meditate 5-6 times a week then deliberately not do more as I would seem to 'run dry' and lose my feeling for it and felt like a needed a gap. So I'm trying just to keep going and see how that works. But how important is constancy in meditation? - is it better just to ease off for a day if you feel depleted with it or would the thing be to keep with it even if the practice feels dry and barren. Many thanks as always

How would/should a perfect monk appear, act and possible serve you? Or from Buddhas view if wishing to try to answer this? Good if remarking whether a claim one would have or possible good for a monk (the used perspective of individual "issues") *[One may render it how ever wished for better lucie to nurish stackes and much exchange and no fear if not wishing to use it for liberation]*

If it's possible to do it, how should such practice look like? Will it be inferior to the practice of those who meditate?

I have been practicing insight meditation daily now for over 6 years. I have learnt the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. I focus on my abdomen rising and falling and notice when my attention goes to something else which seems to be mostly thoughts and then I gently bring it back. When my attention goes to a sensation I watch the sensation for a while until it is no longer holding attention then I bring it back to the breath. After 6 years of doing this I can't say that I have had profound insight into the true nature of reality etc. Most of the time I just feel really bored and doubtful that sitting all this time is actually changing anything. My concentration is only marginally better. I understand Dukha, Anicca and Anatta but its more from reading about it than sitting. I sit for an hour in the morning and 45 mins at night. Im not sure whats going on but just feels something is missing. I read about and hear people talking about the profound changes they experience and how their lives are filled with peace and joy from practicing so I wonder where Im going wrong? As far as Metta practice goes I am told that at first it may feel contrived but if you keep going it begins to work but I have to say that after all these years not much has changed on that front either. It seems that the effort and energy I apply massively out weighs the benefits. So I'm confused about this.

I was reading this answer, in which an essay is cited. In this essay, *Freedom From Fear*, an example is given of a hunted deer which experiences anger, and thus aversion. In contrast, the desire to escape isn't aversion, but considered potentially skillful. I have always thought aversion involves aversive states such as avoidance from painful experiences. **Is aversion strictly about anger, and irritation? Does it have nothing to do with avoidance (though the English term somewhat suggests this)?** In sum, I wonder what the nature of aversion actually entails and encompasses.

According to the historical story before the day of enlightenment, Mara apparently lured the Buddha with various worldy pleasures. Now, I am not arguing whether Mara really existed or is just Buddha's mind (which would be rather my interpretation). But The Buddha should at that time be a non-returner and he must have abandoned the fetter of sensuous desires. He should've chilled in the 4th Jhana not giving a damn! So my question is: Why was it a struggle for the Buddha if the conditioned fetter of sensuous desire was already uprooted as an anagami?

I have four parts of this question, 1. Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma? 2. If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving? 3. If the answer for the second question is **"Yes"**, then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving? 4. "One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

I've heard even though two people do the same good Karma their returns can be different on what they were thinking. And when coming to effect these different Karmas can give different births ("Trihethuka pratisandhi") to the beings who did those Karma Unlocking or Locking the ability to realize Nirvana in that life itself. Can someone explain how Birth Karma effect a being?

Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release? Would it be conflicting if one is under the branch Theravada Buddhism but perform animal release?

That is a question that emerged from a previous discussion, but here I would like to focus on this story. From the background story: "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil." Question: Does it mean that if you work for a company that sells weapons or intoxicants and you do not directly sell or produce it, you also had no opportunity to find another job (it is what you got to pay your bills), you are blameless like the wife of the hunter?

I don't see any other questions, in the suggestions of the site, linked with this precise topic. What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped? Thank you.

What is the right way of living in the Present? Present day living is full of challenges and with forces in play and to act in certain way. How does one follow the Path in these conditions without incurring karma and its after-effects?

Approaching yr68, I have committed my share of unwholesome conduct over the years, the typical errors of middle-class youth and adulthood in this USofA. I've been practicing sitting meditation for close to two years, and am most comfortable with Theravada vipassana concepts and practices, though I have not taken lay Buddhist vows. I generally sit "with the breath" for one hour most every day, some days see two sessions. I have not yet realized "access concentration". I am perplexed that I never have feelings of remorse or shame or guilt over past deeds arise during sitting, and only rarely have I experienced strong feelings of gratitude or happiness. Might I assume that it is only a matter of time before "the stuff hits the fan" and I find myself overwhelmed with "remorse or shame or guilt" during sitting meditation?

My current understanding of dependent origination is that things cause other things to arise and cease and ultimately it a big interconnected web of influences. If that's reasonably correct (on a provisional level) then what meaning does right effort or just effort generally have in that context. If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web? I appreciate that this kind of questioning can be (rightly) criticised as metaphysical nitpicking. However when I meditate (or even just sit around and reflect) this kind of question comes up for me. It's like a little personal koan that keeps nagging at me so I would appreciate any input - even if it is just a reminder not to worry and get practicing.

Many western Buddhists have non-western names: - **Jeffrey Block** - *Bhikkhu Bodhi* - **Geoffrey DeGraff** - *Thanissaro Bhikkhu* or *Ajaan Geoff* - **Deirdre Blomfield-Brown** - *Pema Chödrön* Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like *Dances with Wolves*), or are they more informal (e.g. *Ajaan Geoff*)? Just curious.