After a prolonged struggle with various eating disorders (atypical, anorexia, bulimia, BED) over nearly two years, as well as ongoing mood disorders and severe anxiety for the past three, I've found conventional self-guided Western CBT therapies, and even standalone meditation, largely ineffective for me. Significant barriers (financial, temporal, locational, cultural conditioning) limit my access to consistent professional therapy, and will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future. Believe me, I've tried. I'm looking for an alternative path, a fundamentally different framework than modern psychology, to address a deep-seated lack of purpose and unresolved trauma, ultimately seeking peace of mind. I've long been drawn to the exploration of Western neuroscience and cognitive science on Buddhism, specifically the tangible benefits of mindfulness meditation. My "hope" is to find a Buddhist school that aligns with, and ideally offers a practical experience similar to, approaches like MBSR, MBCT, and DBT, despite their fundamental differences from traditional Buddhism. This leads to my core questions: 1. **Influence of Buddhist Schools on Western Therapies:** How much influence do different Buddhist schools (e.g., Theravada, Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan) have on the development and practice of: * Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) * Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) * Acceptance-Based Therapies (e.g., ACT) * Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) * Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) I understand that Western mindfulness, particularly MBSR/MBCT, is often linked to Theravada (Vipassanā, as seen in the Insight Meditation Society and "Mindfulness in Plain English"). However, I've also come across arguments for significant Zen Buddhist influence on Jon Kabat-Zinn's work, which resonates with the "non-dualistic" feel of modern mindfulness. 2. **Is it problematic to choose a Buddhist school based on these inspirations?** Given my past experiences and current limitations, is it a "wrong" approach to seek a Buddhist tradition that primarily contributed to, or feels practically similar to, these Western therapeutic modalities? My aim is not necessarily "enlightenment" in the traditional sense, but rather a path to alleviate suffering and cultivate inner peace, perhaps building positive karma for future lives (as a layperson, taking a stoic approach to the ultimate goal). 3. **Navigating Availability and Personal Preference:** I'm personally more attracted to Theravada's "down-to-earth" step-by-step Eightfold Path and emphasis on mindfulness, along with the sense of certainty from practices like one meal a day and abstinence from alcohol. However, in both my current city and home city, Mahayana denominations are more readily available (authentic Chan, Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, and a modernized immigrant Pure Land school). I've visited the immigrant Pure Land and authentic Chan centers, but they simply don't "click" with me; they feel "weird" and I don't like them. I haven't had the opportunity to visit a Theravada temple for comparison. If I choose Theravada, I'd likely need to rely on online sanghas, which may not accommodate my timezone. Given my intention to remain a layperson and focus on personal practice for peace of mind and perhaps future karmic benefit, I'm unsure how crucial an in-person or online sangha is for my goals. Any insights on these points, particularly regarding the historical influences and the appropriateness of my approach to choosing a path, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I’m wondering to what extent belief in some form of afterlife is necessary for one to be considered a Buddhist. Specifically, are beliefs in otherworldly realms such as svargaloka (heaven), pitriloka (spirit world), and naraka lokas (hell), as well as the idea of rebirth or reincarnation, central and non-negotiable within the Buddhist tradition? Is it possible to identify as a Buddhist while setting aside these cosmological elements, perhaps viewing them symbolically or metaphorically rather than literally? Or are these beliefs foundational in such a way that rejecting them would place someone outside the bounds of what can meaningfully be called Buddhism?

Usually in the evening, when I am about to retire, I commit myself to finding and entering into a residential Sangha permanently. When morning rolls in, I fall back into my usual patterns like work, hobbies, social, etc. Usually when I suffer, this emboldens me to seek the monastic life but usually doesn't last very long. When I think about it, I feel like the monastic life is the only way to proceed yet I don't follow through with it. Speaking from a general point-of-view, if a Buddhist knows that the lay life is not ideal, what barriers (overt and inconspicuous) are preventing them from seeking and living the monastical life. How can they be overcomed ?

Does the practice of Tibetan Buddhism reconcile with early Buddhist teachings? I have read a lot of books in that tradition, and it seems to me that it is; but it would be helpful to gain some insight from others.

Numerous philosophical traditions and religious doctrines espouse disparate—and at times, mutually contradictory—conceptions regarding the nature of ‘absolute reality’ or ‘ultimate reality.’ Some schools of thought posit that the entirety of nature constitutes the fundamental substratum of existence, while others ascribe this foundational status to a particular transcendent and personal deity. Still others conceive of absolute reality as an amorphous, omnipresent consciousness that pervades all of existence. With regard to Buddhism, how is ‘absolute reality’ understood within its doctrinal framework? Does Buddhism, in any of its various philosophical interpretations, affirm the existence of an ontologically ultimate reality, or does it reject such a notion altogether?

I've watched on t.v that a monk had dreamt that Lama told him a lady will come to monastery and will request him let her with them when this was only for monks though he going to let her with them and teach Dhamma. Next day it happens what he had dreamt about; first he disagreed but later on he remembered his dream last night he had and then she became nun. So does dreams making sense ? I had one on full moon day that I'm crying next Buddha's statue in vihara saying give me power and peace.

Those yoga sutras of Patanjali and have come across called vritti . It's like a whirlpool in the mind not ocean. But what is the equivalent of *vritti* in Buddhism?

What arguments does buddhism have to hold that consciousness is dependently originated when majority of non-buddhist philosophies/theologies hold consciousness/soul to be immutable/unchanging, without any origin and independent of matter and external factors?

My Vijnana view from advaita Vedanta is deep and ingrained, it is false I know it but I need help to improve it because I read long time about conciousness the self I read much like these things like this : what about Consciousness. Have you ever experienced Consciousness without Being? For Consciousness to be known, it must be present. The reason we can say ‘I am,’ is because we know that ‘I am.’ And that which knows ‘I am’ is by definition, present, that is, being. I ceary now undertand that all these views are wrong. Honestly I knew it then to!. But had no other option. To my questions ... 1 ) When one experiences Nibbana is Nibbana experienced as in subject object relationship from the perspective of a subject or maybe there is no subject nor object during Nibbana like a state that transends that duality, In short what is happening in Nibbana what is the correct undertanding of what is happening. 2) Also more clarification needed regarding vinjana from my last question. Conciousness can be aware of itself you said, When I see something I (the mind) know what I am seeing. Isnt the knowing of what I am seeing " the knowing of what is seen and not conciousness conciousness of itself. Is conciousness conciousness of conciousness just the fact that there is the knowledge of what is happening, and is this not a thought and not conciousness conciousness of conciousness. Maybe I do not know because of my advaita even what conciousness conciousness of conciousness is so what is it. Isnt conciousness only an activity of cognizing with no cognizer. What am I missing. In which way would the conciousness of seeing imply conciousness conciousness of conciousness. 3) Also the experience of conciousness being concious of conciousness in advaita they say to experience this the same way you cannot take a step towards yourself beacuse you are already standning where you are the same way your attention cannot find conciousness as an object "relax your attention from all objects and that nothingness is conciousness awareness of itself" or ask yourself am I aware. (Do you agree that this relaxing your attention from all objects into a objectless-nothingness state is conciousness awareness of itself?), they say it seems like nothing from the point of view of the mind which knows only objects in subject object relationship while conciousness knowledge of itself is without subject or object. 4) They describe the state of relaxing our attention from all objects to come to the nothingness state as aware-being or the presence of that which is aware so they say awareness is knowing but it also IS it exists the knowledge of our own existence the knowledge I AM is conciousnessnes knowledge of itself "I know that I am" I know this is wrong view but please clarify why this nothingness state has nothing to do with how it is described. 5) When you said infinite conciousness in your last answer I suppose that doesnt include something metaphysical like infinite in space ?. 6) Also what struck me from your answer and is different from what I read and you said in the Jhana of infinite conciousness there are mental factors participating or enabling the infinite conciousness Jhana which shows this is not a blank state of nothingness , but a state you "built" up with intention,attention,perception etc am I right about this. This means if I or the mind is percieving this state I think that means that while I am percieving this state of infinitude of conciousness I am aware percieving the state of infintude of conciousnes (it is tricky because ifinitude to me indicates a infinite state where there is no mind or subject to know it) (I may be wrong) but as you described it (if I understood it) percieving this Jhana is something while we do it we know that we do it. Not like in advaita where when we relax attention from all objects and come to a nothingness we dont know anything about that state of nothingness in Buddhism this state seems to be something that during that state we are in it and percieve that state as an object to us as opposed to advaita which says there is no subject nor object when we relaxed attention from all objects and come to that state of nothingness. Huh this was not easy to understand for you if you have any questions about what I said please I understand it is complicated I am more than willing to clarify. please do not refer to me to other similar questions I saw other people having the similar question as I have but I couldnt find the satisfying answer. Once again thank you.

I heard the New York Times, wrote recently: "truth is bad, truth is inconvenient!" William Shakespeare once wrote "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so". - when we stop thinking it's bliss! and "all the worlds a stage and all the men and women merely players", that our time on earth is just a play a show, in order to learn. Rumi wrote "beyond ideas of good and ideas of bad there is a field, I will meet you there." Buddha is quoted in the Dhammapada as saying, "rely on nothing, until you want nothing!" Are we all enlightened already, we just haven't realised it yet? As Ramana Maharshi has appeared to indicate. I heard a person recently state "forgiveness is one of the highest forms of love". Could truth and silence be higher?

I have a friend who is a Christian. It is a truism that most people can't tolerate sitting and doing nothing because of catastrophic dukkha. Most people, including people I know, have to DO something all the time. But my old friend would spend hours sitting on his porch, a smile on his face, by himself, just enjoying the present moment. Is this a form of jhana? Is it possible that there are many run of the mill, non-buddhist people who actually understand and practice a kind of jhana unintentionally?

It's obvious what stealing is when engaged-in often. You take the stuff of others while under a certain mental state, that mental state being marked and noticeable by an understanding that something isn't under your possession (but under another's), and physical effort to appropriate it regardless of the other person's wishes. So if someone is happy with you 'stealing' something, is that stealing? In general, no, as this would be a gift. On the other hand, we have situations such as copyright law, or other ideas where the line of 'possession' is inappropriately drawn. So here is the problem. What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not? It can't be the sweeping idea, 'this is my property', as that idea can be faked, as in the case of intellectual property. It can be a case where there is appropriate and inappropriate mental possession of items, and stealing only being the violation of the appropriate lines. Is it fully intent? Kamma = Intent, so if you do not engage in the intent of stealing, you will not experience the results. However, what if you are someone who considers smelling the flowers of another individual stealing? Surely that would not be considered stealing, yet to that person smelling the flowers would trigger the intent. Even though that coarse mental intent would arise, as far as I know that is not actual stealing, so the 'non-intent stealing' would not have an object. At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which you are not? It is really simple with coarse events but hard with complex contexts. Taking an apple from someone without asking is stealing, but what about abusing sales at a market? - what about when those sales are glitches, unintended, in the system? - what about liberally charging a corporate card? For our modern, daily situations a really subtle understanding of the precepts is required. So where is the subtle line of stealing?

Is making a true promise, on the dharma, good karma? Not asking about the precepts per se, but it was about precept centred behaviour (a lack of infidelity etc. from me): and now I feel blissed out, independent of how it was perceived etc.. Just curious.

Considering I don't know anything about Buddhism expect it leads to something precious called Nirvana, what should be my approach to reach there? From my experience in academics I believe reaching the peak of any field requires strong fundamentals, rigorous training/practice and then creation (ie, invention or discovery of stuff previously non existent or unknown). Does same principle applies here? Is it possible to reach the peak of Budhhist way while being a normal human (who has obligations to fulfill and lives in society) ? Do I need to join a monastery to practice Buddhism?

This applies to all superstitious people in general, but especially to someone very close. My mom is extremely ignorant and superstitious. She comes from an uneducated village background from a third world country. Due to ignorance of facts and lack of experience, she falls for any hearsay and produces strong emotions based on them, chiefly fear and worry. Example, she would read in the newspaper that somewhere in the Western world there was a homicide of someone from our country and she would get worried for me. she doesn't understand I am thousands of miles away from the place she has read about. The way she would spin stories out of what is actually written is truly fascinating. For example, 'A homicide of our countryman in the West' becomes 'the people in the West kill our countrymen and throw them out on the streets!' She also, unconsciously, tries to nudge me and manipulate me into seeing the bad aspects of the western world - when in fact the "bad" aspects she tries to tell me are due to her lack of understanding of facts and they are unfounded in reality. An example, she would tell semi-fabricated stories like that to me over call like the homicide one above. I have pointed out this mechanism to her multiple times to make her conscious of the fact-manipulation etc. even with examples. But I am now thinking she doesn't have the awareness to grasp this kind of "theoretical" understanding. Anyways, usually I just point out the falsehoods and switch topics. But last call I was dumbfounded by the extent of this and in order to really make her aware of this I may have said some words which were true but may be hurtful. Something like "you are acting like a 5 yo child who doesn't understand the basic knowledge and gets scared like that". I remember persisting on it a little because I wanted her to see the mistake there, and I feel pity towards her for suffering constantly on these untrue things. Now she is hurt from me because of this incident. I feel guilty and sad to hurt her with words and I have been crying. But at the same time I feel sorry for her for tormenting herself day after day and year after year due to ignorance of basic understanding of science and world. What should be done in this case? Should I ignore her manipulating and let her suffer although that doesn't seem right..? But I can't either try to show her truth for that either is ineffective or it involves hurt. Have you been in similar situation before?

I was born a layman. I tried to have a loving life, but my partner wanted me to convert to her religion (Islam) to marry. I was ready to do so. When she left me, I realised how silly I was. Now I'm completely distracted from life. I don't feel having family and I don't think a girl who knew about my past would accept my love. She would know I was ready to leave Buddhism. She did ask me, "Don't you think this is wrong ?" I want to apologize her and promise "I'll spent my whole life as a Buddhist". How do I get rid of my state of mind?

Recently had an interview in which I didn't gave my 100 percent, it was failure but I am not new to it. But this time something different happened I was shaking from inside, and negative thoughts about myself were coming spontaneously even if I didn't want them. It seems like I am not able to live upto my full potential. Something is dragging me from inside, what is it? Is this explained in Buddhism? Is there any name to this condition?

As someone in his 30s, I wish to find a partner to grow old with. At the same time, it’s quite stressful that nowadays my family and friends are constantly pushing me to find someone quickly as I am getting older. I never had a relationship and never felt this pressure, but I don’t understand what I am missing here to feel this restless. 1. I can’t function in daily life if I’m constantly thinking about “How will I get this girl to date me?” 2. If I rush into a relationship, I might end up with someone not compatible which will cause more suffering. I tried reading about it from a Buddhist perspective. But everything I found mostly describe how to sustain romantic relationships. I would really appreciate if someone could help.

What if i cant chaant on a regular basis ? I want to increase my number of hours and i don't understand how to do it ?

I have a hypothetical question. Let's say I don't believe in karma, reincarnation, or any deities of any sort. I also saw in some texts and videos that, to achieve higher awareness, I should not define good or bad either. That I should be equanimous towards everything. If there is no distinction between good and evil, where does morality come from then, in the absence of karma? How do I justify my inclination toward doing good to humanity? Is my question nonsensical? Please help me resolve this conflict.