I think its essentially the fear of death but I am discouraged/demotivated of continuing on the path of meditation by listening about what is at the end of it. The goal of enlightenment is sounding a bit depressing for me and I am scared of it. Its also the same as my fear of death. I am very much attached to my intellect and thoughts. Its something identify with. Yes my fear comes from being attached with my mind maybe? But ultimately its my mind which has to be convinced to continue. Ofcourse it doesnt want its own "death". After reading things about what will happen after enlightenment, I am backing out. I have tasked the bliss more than once. I know the feeling, its great, its literally the purpose of life. But I am again attached to my mind. Seems like I need an intellectual reason to transcend my intellect.

After a week and a half long meditation retreat, I’ve had pinprick sensations around my body, mostly around the head area but also around the body. I can feel them much more during meditation and when I’m trying to sleep (probably because I am not moving and it is quiet) but also during daily life as well. I felt them much more intensely (almost painful) during the retreat. Sometimes I am in a situation that makes me anxious the pinpricks also comes in full force. This has been bad mostly because it makes it hard to fall asleep sometimes. I do not remember having these sensations before the retreat. From my research, it seems some number of people have experienced this, but mostly during meditation, and not in daily life. I have not found any appropriate western “scientific” explanation. How should I combat this, short term in making it affect my life less, and long term in potentially getting rid of it? How would you explain this phenomenon? Should I find a teacher to deal with this? If so, where could I find an appropriate one? I live in Canada, but if I could talk to someone through call I would gladly do this as well.

In Yogācāra, the ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) is described as containing karmic seeds and functioning as the basis for the arising of the six manifest consciousnesses. However, since the ālaya-vijñāna persists from moment to moment and across lifetimes, it can appear to be an underlying metaphysical substrate. If all schools of Buddhism maintain the doctrine of anātman (non-self), then how is the ālaya-vijñāna not being reified into some kind of enduring essence? Is ālaya-vijñāna considered merely a provisional explanatory model that is ultimately eliminated or transformed upon awakening?

Should I see right practice as not self? The same question is phrased three times over, in different ways, below. As context, I am a householder that seeks to eliminate suffering. **Question from Buddhist point of view** I want to let go of everything but right practice. This allows me to see many things as not self, unphased. For example, feeling tired or aroused or discontent. These things are not part of right practice, so I am able to see them as not self and let them pass by. It then feels like a wave has passed by me, and fully knowing that the wave was not self, and fully footed in overcoming craving, I feel no need to look back at the wave. However, when thoughts of diligence come up, and of right speech, I am hesitant to see them as not self. I am afraid that if I see them as something that will just pass, something to be impassionate about, that I will then deviate from the right path. The concept of right path too, is something I am hesitant to see as not self. How to proceed? **Question with Christian example** In Christianity, there is the concept of the new man and the old man. Practitioners are said to never be able to hope to shake off the old man in them (until Jesus returns). Practitioners are told to strive continuously to *be* the new man. Is the Buddhist answer to let go of the new man too? **Question with concrete example** I have a thought about turning on the TV. The matters in that thought are not about giving up craving, not about mindfulness, not about being metta, so I give up the thought and don't look back at it. Then I have a thought about doing well at a new job. Usually I have doubtful thoughts about the new job. The thought of working hard at the job I see as related to diligence. I do not give up the thought and entertain it. Whereas the TV watcher is clearly not self - something that has arisen from a place that is not self - the thought of working hard at the job now feels like self. I am about the thought, the thought is about me. There is a self and the self is concerned with the thought. I don't feel it's possible to overcome the sense of self without giving up the thought, and giving up the thought I don't feel is possible without the giving up of diligence. If someone suggested that you could have not-self AND thought entertainment, I think I would brush that off as them not speaking from experience. Should I give up right diligence / right livelihood?

I'm brand-new to meditation! I have just completed one week of daily vipassana meditation -- 10 minutes twice daily; once in the morning, once in the evening. I'm unfortunately experiencing extremely uncomfortable back pain from meditating, and would appreciate some advice on how to fix the problem: The Details: 1. I'm flexible enough for a comfortable half-lotus, but have been utilizing Burmese position, as it lets me breathe deeper. I also really like the visual symmetry it provides. 2. The pain is in my mid to lower back, slightly above my kidneys, and just below the back of my ribcage. 3. I've used video / photography to verify that my posture is good going into meditation. I know I sometimes slouch a little after a few moments, but I usually correct myself upon noticing any slouching. I currently sit on a folded pillow, and have ordered myself a zafu-style cushion. 5. The pain is typically minimal to absent during the meditation itself, but sets in around three-four hours afterwards and often lasts the remainder of the day. I wake up feeling pretty sore, but not in "pain." 4. I have poor posture during my non-meditative moments, though I am working on improving it. Still, I have never experienced back pain before; are my back-muscles just weak from adjusting to a new sitting-style? Any thoughts? Is this just a beginner's phase that I have to power through, or should I meditate in a chair for a few days to give my muscles a break? Maybe a different posture? Thicker cushion / no cushion? Alternatively, any ideas on how I might better diagnose the problem? Really appreciate your thoughts. Best, Ian

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly in traditions like the Madhyamaka, the catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) operates as a dialectical tool that rejects the four extremes of affirmation and negation (“is,” “is not,” “both,” “neither”) to demonstrate the emptiness (śūnyatā) of any inherent essence (svabhāva). But conversely, Advaita Vedānta employs a similar deconstructionist method, the neti neti (“not this, not this”) utilising it as an epistemic negation process in order to systematically exclude all contingent identifications such as body, senses, mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), and ego (ahaṅkāra) — to arrive at Ātman, the absolute self conceived as pure awareness, distinct from all phenomenal processes. From a Buddhist philosophical standpoint, can the catuṣkoṭi be coherently applied to the Vedāntic conception of Ātman—understood as pure awareness beyond mind,ego and intellect? Would such an analysis deconstruct this posited ultimate subject , or does the Vedāntic notion of Ātman represent a category that eludes Madhyamaka negation?

My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family. At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age). But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good." --- So - Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it? - Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth? - Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth? - Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you"). - Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

Yesterday, I went on a psychedelic trip and felt loved and held by a divine presence, not lost, but ultimately belonging. It was so wonderful. I want to secure that feeling in my heart. I'm drawn to the idea of Jesus Christ, a savior, a personal relationship, a friend who loves me, always listening, a friend who always loves me. I want to integrate that feeling into a Buddhist framework. Should I recite Namo Guanshiyin Pusa or Namo Amitabha, which is more similar to the feeling given by Jesus Christ of having an intimate personal relationship with a divine presence that loves you and holds you and you are with them and you belong to them? EDIT: I read both the Universal Gate Chapter and the Short Amitabha Sutra and definitely felt avalokitesvara’s message hitting closer to home. However, I felt more emotinal impact when chanting Namo Amitiofo and also felt his visualization more concrete and powerful (the golden Buddha of infinite ligh) then Guanyin. So I’m kinda torn.

I understand that the ego is the root of all suffering — I’ve witnessed it in my own life many times, and I truly believe it. Over the years, I’ve worked hard on dissolving my ego, and today I feel much happier and more at peace. I can face the nuances of life with calm and clarity. However, I’ve reached a point where I feel so calm that I fear I’m not using my potential to do enough good in the world. I have unique capabilities, strengths, and talents that I feel could be put to better use. **How can I express and use the gift of being myself in a powerful and meaningful way — to do good — without letting the ego take the spotlight again?**

Some people liken Buddhist principles to turning yourself into a sheep. Criticism of this nature is often made by libertarian types. Relinquishment of craving and attachment, and mindfulness, are especially criticized. The focus in such verbalizations by critics is on other people who may want to take advantage of such a 'sheep'. Phrases like "don't think" are brought into connotation with "do not question anything, follow the masses". Further, the giving up of attachment and craving part is likened to a loss of individuality. An example insult that captures both aspects of the critique, is that Buddhists want people to "eat ze bugs". It's imagined that globalist dictators desire for the population to eat bugs and be happy with that. A relinquishment of craving and attachment is seen as turning yourself into a perfectly subdued subject for such a would-be oppressor. Focus is also put on a lack of will to fight back. How should one respond to such arguments, if they were proposed seriously instead of in a mocking way?

Definitions: - I want to emphasize the mind, the body doesn't ache, isn't sore, isn't itchy, nothing at all; that is the 'an lạc' of the body (bodily ease/well-being). - 'Thanh thản' (serenity) is when our mind doesn't ponder, isn't busy at all; that is 'thanh thản'. - 'Vô sự' (actionlessness/nothing-to-do) is doing nothing at all; the body also does nothing, and the mind also doesn't ponder, meaning it does nothing; that is 'vô sự'. It is normal, very normal like a normal person, yet doing nothing at all. That is: the head/mind doesn't work, and the hands and feet also don't work; that is 'vô sự'. As for the mind that doesn't ponder, doesn't worry about anything at all, that is 'thanh thản' (serenity). As for the body that doesn't ache, isn't sore, itchy, nothing at all, that is 'an lạc' (ease); it is normal. Just like right now, [if] our body has no aches or pains, that is the 'an lạc' of our body. That is the state right now; it's not anything strange or different. It is the normalcy of a normal human being. Therefore, once you recognize that normalcy, now you just need to use the method of Right Thinking (Như Lý Tác Ý), guide it [the mind]: > "A mind unshaken, serene, at ease, and free from involvement.” You just fear it [the mind] will move and ponder about this and that, so you remind it: ‘Mind immovable, serene, at ease, actionless,’ and then just sit relaxedly/idly like that. So, can I use "unshaken, serene, at ease, uninvolved" as a mindful reminder throughout my day to make my mind feel better?

How is the connection between *bhava* (as *kamma-bhava* and *upapatti-bhava*) and *jāti* as links in the twelve link formula of dependant arising to be understood?

Buddha has taught that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. I agree, however being an ignorant fellow, I believe I am body, I am eyes, I am intelligence, I am consciousness, my wife is mine, my son is mine. What do you find as you, yours, or yourself, honestly? (This question attempts to find out depths of our ignorance)

I wonder if Buddhism has a concept or teaching surrounding what is happening in my personal practice right now. In my practice right now I want to reduce my focus on things that are certain. It's certain that I am typing on my phone right now, and breathing in. Then a idea pops up of something relating to the future, and I recognize the uncertainty around any theories surrounding the future. Earlier I came up with theories about craving and other things, and recognized the uncertainty of any such theories. I had many theories about how the mind works in the past but now I see the uncertainty in these theories. I try to synthesize insights based on what I learned from Buddhism but I'm uncertain of the theories in the end. Those mind theories I have are impermanent too, always changing and coming up with a new theory. But now the only certainty is my thumbs hitting my phone. Then a craving pops up and I'm led away from the certainty of breathing. Is there anything surrounding certainty or uncertainty in Buddhism being taught?

I’m in Drikung Kagyu and have a lama in that lineage and find the Gelug approach to emptiness to be extremely helpful to viewing emptiness. I know all these philosophies in Rime point to the same truth, but I still wonder how its viewed to hold philosophical positions from another lineage but of course keeping the practice your lama outlines for you? I’ve read Tulku Rinpoche book on Rime and in the beginning it says to keep integrity of lineages, but obviously now many lamas receive teachings from multiple lineages. Am I ok in viewing emptiness from a Gelug pov as a Drikung Kagyu if it’s helpful for me?

In several discourses, the Buddha is said to have chosen not to answer certain metaphysical questions, such as whether the soul or a God exists, whether the world is eternal or finite, or what happens after death. He often said that these questions do not lead to liberation or the cessation of suffering, and that his teaching is primarily concerned with understanding and overcoming dukkha, rather than engaging in speculative or philosophical debate. This has been described as the soteriological focus of Buddhism: the Buddha taught only what was necessary for liberation, leaving aside what does not lead to direct insight or release. However, for many people, uncertainty about such questions is itself a source of deep anxiety and suffering. The human mind naturally seeks stability and assurance about its own continuation or fate. - Some people fear the idea that there may be nothing after death, the thought that consciousness may simply cease forever. - Others, especially those raised in theistic traditions, are troubled by the possibility of divine punishment or eternal suffering if they have failed to live or worship their god correctly. - Equally there are also some people from traditions that accept reincarnation who experience distress over the possibility of reinacarnating again and again to unsatisfactory existences or being reborn in lower births such as of animals etc. due to moral mistakes, even those committed unintentionally. Given that existential uncertainty itself can cause real mental distress, how does Buddhism approach this kind of suffering? If the Buddha refused to give metaphysical reassurances, what methods or insights does the Dhamma offer to help a practitioner find peace even amid uncertainty about the soul, God, or the afterlife?

I just completed my first 10 vipassana retreat. I'm wondering if anyone has had this experience and how long it took for it to subside- I've seen the question posted by other users experienckng it, but no follow ups. Around day 5 of the retreat i started to experience a floating, swaying sensation after the meditations, during the evening discourse i couldn't look at the tv as it felt like it was moving. By day 9 i had some intense experiences during the meditations, like I was no longer in my body but merely a witnessing the body and everything around me seemed fragmented, and i was also having a hard time narrowing my focus on my body, like my awareness of my body expanded way beyond my body and i couldn't actually feel sensations in 'my' body. Also i would feel an energetic force move through me, sometimes moving my body (head would raise, arms would move) it wasn't intentional, and felt natural, and resisting it (to maintain determination) felt like it was creating stress or tension. I'm home now and this energetic force feeling continues to pulasate in my body and gives me a swaying /rocking feeling, it makes me dizzy nauseas, unable to fcous. I try to remain objective and merely observe. But it has made day to day life impossible, i can't drive or walk, and I'm not sure if I should continue to meditate, or take a break, or not go as deep into meditation. When we started vipassana in the retreat I was very able to narrow my focus precisely and feel every subtle sensation, now it feels like if I try i don't feel much, eveeything seems very light and airy. Trying to give as much info as possible. But also very dizzy writing this and having difficulty.

I've just started to use AI and it making my mind very scared & frightened. Firstly, the Pali GPT Translate I am using is far superior & far more nuanced than any Pali dictionary. It has made all of those begrudging tight fisted internet monks & scholars, who won't help you with Pali, except on their interpretational terms, second rate & redundant. Secondly, I just uploaded a new paper about non-returner & once-returner to [Academia.Edu](https://independent.academia.edu/DhammaDhatu) and an automatic podcast was created as though the speaker had already read my paper and then paraphrased what is written within in their own words. This was super scary to listen to. Immediately, your ideas are being taken, processed & interpretated by a piece of technology. Since my impression is ChrisW is a tech guru, my questions are: 1. How is all of this done? How are various (a multitude) of valid interpretations for Pali words & phrases, often very obscure, programmed into a GPT Translate? 2. How is an instantaneous paraphrased Podcast created as though the audio speaker knows my broader intentions?

EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. Although I have a position for this, I think it could be helpful if I make my question clearer (but, please, read the whole post if possible): What is the role of altruism in Buddhism? - a) Do you need to be actively altruistic to attain Nirvana, which I interpret as the primary goal of the training in the Dharma in Early Buddhism and in Theravada Buddhism? Or is it rather a useful means for attaining that goal, but not a necessary one? - b) Do you need to be actively altruistic if you follow other buddhist paths (like the ones mostly associated with the Mahayana Schools)? Or is it rather a useful means for attaining that goal, but not a necessary one? --- In discussions about how to translate words such as *averena* (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of *averena*, the first method renders '*love*', '*loving-kindness*', or whatever translation is used for *metta*; in the second, '*non-hatred*' is the translated concept. This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first). I know there are suttas like [AN 11.1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html) which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like [SN 47.19](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.019.olen.html) state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of *Brahmaviharas*, with *metta*, *karuna*, *mudita* and *upekkha* as mind-states to cultivate. Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from *sotapanna* to *arahant*) *Samma Sankappa* is broken down as *nekkhamma*, *abyapada* and *avihimsa*, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate **the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome**, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness. After considering all of above, here's the question: **What would you say is the role of altruism** (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) **and other forms of positive** (as "presence of something", not as "good") **wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions**? **How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative** (as "absence of something", not as "bad") **wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?** EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective: As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know **how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter**. With that I mean: **what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?** My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough. I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views. I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

If, according to Buddhist doctrine, it is not the ego-consciousness but merely karmic continuity that transmigrates across rebirths, then on what grounds should one be motivated to seek liberation from saṃsāra? Since there is no enduring self that experiences the cumulative burden or existential drudgery of suffering across lives, and since the sufferings of past or future existences are not personally felt by the present individual, what compelling basis remains for the soteriological urgency central to Buddhist thought?