Health anxiety is defined in the quote below. A person suffering from it may mistakenly believe certain fluctuations in bodily sensations to be dangerous or a sign of impending critical illness, and this may cause them to become anxious. When they become anxious, they may get symptoms of anxiety (like rapid heart rate and chest discomfort) which may lead to a positive feedback loop, resulting in a panic attack, where they may think that they have a heart attack and go to the ER. That's the worst case. The best case is frequent unnecessary visits to the doctor. Based on Buddhist techniques, what could a health anxiety sufferer do to help himself or herself? On the other hand, if he really did have some critical illness, but convinces himself that it's not really the case, then it's not good for his health. So, how could Buddhist techniques help him find the balance? According to this article on health anxiety: > **The False Alarm** > > Health anxiety is the misinterpretation of normal bodily sensations as > dangerous. Healthy bodies produce all sorts of physical symptoms that > might be uncomfortable, painful, unexpected, and otherwise unwanted — > but not dangerous. Picture a car with an alarm system. It’s useful if > your car alarm goes off when a criminal is breaking in, but it’s > problematic if it goes off every time someone walks by. Your car alarm > would be misinterpreting innocent pedestrians as dangerous criminals. > > Normal physical symptoms that often produce fear and worry include > changes in visual acuity, heart rate and blood pressure, saliva > levels, depth of breathing, balance, and muscle tone, to name a few. > These are normal and harmless. But when a person misinterprets them as > symptoms of some terrible disease, it creates undue worry. This > explains why medical tests come out negative: The physical sensations > are real, but they are not symptoms of a disease. > > **Overestimating Danger** > > Misinterpretation may be due to assumptions about health and illness, > such as, “My cousin died of cancer, so it’s only a matter of time for > me.” Or, “Viruses spread quickly. Since people in Africa are dying of > Ebola, it could easily spread to the United States.” People with > health anxiety might hold rigid definitions of good health, perhaps > believing that any discomfort means bad health. > > If they hear a news story about a few cases of a serious virus, people > with health anxiety might start scanning their own bodies for symptoms > of the virus. Looking for symptoms makes you notice subtle sensations > that you might otherwise ignore. With uncertainty, the imagination has > room to create stories. And that’s when your body’s alarm sounds off > as you imagine the worst. > > **It Gets Tricky** > > Symptoms of anxiety produce very real physical symptoms: Dizziness, > stomachaches, rapid heartbeat, tingling in the hands and feet, muscle > tension, jitteriness, chest pressure, and the list goes on. These > symptoms add fuel to the fire. Now you have real evidence that > something is seriously wrong. Or do you? Perhaps it’s anxiety. So how > do you know if these symptoms are serious? You go to the doctor… and > then to a therapist. > > Health anxiety persists despite reassurance from the doctor. Seeking > reassurance from doctors, insisting on repeated medical tests, and > visits to the ER and urgent care are common if you have health > anxiety. This habit leads you to rely on such reassurance to obtain > relief from health worries. A vicious cycle develops of noticing a > sensation or learning of an illness in the world, misinterpreting it > as threatening, then becoming anxious, and finally going to the doctor > for reassurance. Reassurance from the doctor reduces the anxiety and > brings relief temporarily. Soon the cycle starts again.

In AN 10.176 idle chatter is defined as > He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance > with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth > treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the > goal. Bearing this in mind - is right speech purely connected with the Dharma? Should one speak of the Dharma and nothing else? From my own perspective some idle chit chat which has the effect of putting someone at ease in a social situation is a kindness. Similarly chatting to the daughter about nothing in particular is building the bonds of caring and again feels like the right thing to do. However would both those actions be classified as idle chatter and would not be right speech? On a personal note I probably do talk too much so a bit less idle chatter would do me some good i think.

I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance. If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear. Where is the middle path in this? Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self? Again, where is the middle path in this?

Looking for a primary source (an actual historical text) or a secondary source (a formal study of a historical text or texts), on how it is that this world is or isn't a "pure land". Presumably the Buddha Sakyamuni has or had a pure land? I've read a lot of Buddhist scholarship, so please don't be shy in recommending anything at all, in English or translatable somehow.

One thing that I find Buddhism fascinating is the "true contradictions", which says that there are statements that can be both true and false. I was googling and found Dialetheism and Catuṣkoṭi on Wikipedia, but I have not found a truth table that represents this idea. Do anyone know if there are web pages talk about this idea more clearly, and if we can also do a truth table about this idea, compared with the standard mathematical [Truth table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table) ? Namaste

"Trivialism is the theory that every proposition is true. A consequence of trivialism is that all statements, including all contradictions of the form "p and not p" (that something both 'is' and 'isn't' at the same time), are true."

It's said that Buddhist practice can cause the arising of certain psychic powers. This answer hints that one of those physic powers might be precognition. Have I understood that correctly? I've never read anything about this in any of the texts. I wonder if anyone else has and can provide a reference where precognition is written about.

So the Heart Sutra is one of the most popular sutra in Mahayana Buddhism, said to be the summary and heart of the Prajna Paramita Sutra. It was popularized by the famous monk Xuanzang. It was said that he chanted this sutra when he was lost in the Taklamakan Desert on the way from China to India. Apart from its terse nature and convenience for chanting. Why is this Heart Sutra so important to Mahayana Buddhism? Some people even describe the sutra as a kind of 'crazy wisdom' that seems to intentionally tear down all purposeful cultivation. http://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/ It was even jokingly described as the 'heart attack' sutra. > "Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of > the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and > there is no attainment whatsoever" Why would this sutra be helpful or useful - when it basically denies the fundamental teachings of the Buddha on the Four Noble Truth? Presumably the message of the Heart Sutra was so troubling that Thich Nhat Hanh had to 're-translate' the sutra into something that fit in with his own conception of Buddhism: http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/ What is the purpose of this sutra? Is it just sheerly for the shock factor? Maybe like a Zen Master whacking a student with a stick? I find other Prajna Paramita sutras such as the Diamond Sutra just as troubling. Note: I do enjoy some of the messages of Mahayana Sutras such as Amitabha Sutra and Universal Gate Chapter of the Lotus Sutra and is from a Chinese Mahayana Chan organization.

In the United States, many people find it cringy and even offensive when someone says "I'm sorry," especially when he or she does it frequently. Did the Buddha or any Buddhist teachers have any guidance on this point?

I recently found a book called "A Buddhist Bible". In it, Buddha refers to that there have been many Buddhas before him. If Buddha was the one to put the foundations of Buddhism, what "religions" did the previous Buddhas practice? Does this question even make any sense?

How do bodhisattvas, and those who would emulate them, respond to a tyrant or despot, e.g. a Hitler or Stalin? Are Buddhists / Bodhisattvas suggesting a "non-resistance to evil by violence" (Tolstoy) and some strange notion of absolute forgiveness, practically or otherwise? To have someone preach that we all forgive tyrants, as they may go for our throat, seems like a peculiar and sadistic form of madness.

Aṅgulimāla and Moggallāna both were Arhants. Aṅgulimāla killed 999. Moggallāna killed his parents in a past life. Only Moggallāna had to face karma? Moggallāna was killed by being cut into pieces, whereas there is no story of much suffering concerning Angulimāla. What is the difference?

Is there a rule where if a monk is an arahant and if he is to tell he is an arahant, he can only say it to a Upasampada monk and not even a samanera monk? If so, please provide the source of the rule

What is 1) the meaning word by word 2) the meaning of the whole sentence 3) the origin of “Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhasa”?

(1) Enlightenment is inherently desirable (2) Self-Interested desires prevent us from attaining enlightenment (3) In order to attain enlightenment, one must train oneself to give up self-interested desires (4) One does not engage in deliberate action unless one desires the foreseen result of actions

**The Vinegar Tasters** is a very interesting subject in Chinese art. It depicts Confucius, the Buddha and Laozi tasting vinegar. A common interpretation is the following: > Confucius is depicted with a sour face, because in confucionism life is "sour", that's why we need rules etc. The Buddha is depicted with a bitter face, because the Buddha saw life as full of suffering etc, while Laozi is depicted smiling, because the vinegar is sweet to him, because he understands "the perfect nature of vinegar". Despite the point of view of the Buddha (that life is full of *dukkha*), he understood that vinegar is vinegar, just as Laozi; and, knowing that, why would he have a bitter face? Is this depiction raising the image of Laozi and daoism and mistreating buddhism as pessimistic? Or is it more like a "Buddha sees the vinegar as it is" thing while Laozi sees it as sweet and thus "lying to himself"?

Does anyone interpret karma to mean that the future itself arrives twice, "now" and again in the future? Is there any reason to think that karma itself is that movement of impermanence, so that it cannot be entirely dissolved?

I have heard from the Vimalakirti Sutra that Vimalakirti was a householder who drank and visited prostitutes; but he was foremost in wisdom and Buddhist practice?! I heard the Buddha sent monks to him to observe and study under his guidance?! Is this true?! Why would the Buddha do this?!

I am speaking of a state of mild but persistent agitation in which one notices the arising of the habit of (1) sorting through the current collection of unresolved discomforts with the intention of picking one to latch onto, (2) orienting oneself towards the desired sensory experience and (3) re-entering the cycle of greed, hatred and delusion with respect to that desired sensory experience BUT chooses not to re-enter the cycle. I am speaking of a very unusual state in which the cycle of samsara is not entered but neither has the agitation to re-enter it ceased. Kind of like “craving without a target”. Kind of like an inner conflict between (1) a part which wants to relieve the agitation by latching onto a target for craving and (2) a part which wants to find a more skillful means of extinguishing the agitation. Kind of like being in a hinterland between suffering and the end of suffering. I have a vague intuition this state *might* be related to “stream entry” but I am not certain about that. Does this sound similar to anything the Buddha spoke about?

I have a vague recollection of a Dhamma teacher saying that, in the process of awakening, the practitioner eventually reaches a stage of development where they either awaken fully or they die. I'm not sure if my memory of this is correct or not. I have a vague recollection of the Dhamma teacher treating this as a myth which is not to be taken seriously. For this reason, I may have discarded it. However, I am intensely curious. Is anything like this mentioned anywhere in the suttas?