I saw many monks sit in the nets, what is the point of meditating in the forest if one cant handle the forest? Might as well just stay indoors imo. Did the ancient monks use nets? what do you think? I think it is kind of silly and is an attempt to have a pleasant experience.

I read the following on the internet: > The suttas describe many conditions in Indian society and the world in > general, but you won't find any teachings recommending monks or anyone > else practice bigotry, oppression and vanity. Did the Buddha describe caste as "bigotry, oppression and vanity"? Please provide examples from the "suttas"?

How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up. So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

[SN 12.15](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html) says, > 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle We know that by the Buddha's time, the early Upanishads propounded some sort of "everything is existence" or "everything is the Self" doctrine. But who propounded the latter doctrine ("Everything doesn't exist") in the Buddha's time? Certainly not Carvakas or Lokayatas, who were simply materialists. So who exactly was propounding this during the Buddha's time?

I see that Buddhism is absolutely not nihilism, but I wonder what could go wrong if one misconstrue one with another. This is especially true with people with psychological issues, because they have to experience an amount of suffering more than normal when they are young. For example, for persons with [borderline personality disorder](https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Borderline-Personality-Disorder) , they constantly has these feelings: - Extremely fear of being abandoned - Unstable self-image In this example case, since Buddhism teaches that acknowledging everything is impermanent you won't be afraid of being abandoned. The unstable self-image also matches with the idea of anatman, therefore the idea of impermanence will have a strong impact to them. But in fact, this is just clinging on the idea of impermanence. Many people with psychological disorders knows that they are the trouble, so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them. To justify this behavior, they may use nihilism. But when it become a habit, it's really hard for professional therapists to help them, because they now have a reason to continue the behavior. I know you may not have much understanding on such cases, but I'm not asking about it either. I just want to know that if someone is misconstruing Buddhism with nihilism, then what suttas/teachings they contradict with. Note that my understanding on philosophy is not very concrete. It's possible that I should replace "nihilism" with "impermanencism".
Related: • [Is Buddhism Nihilistic?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25409/13525) • [How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8748/13525) • [Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2245/13525) • [Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31353/13525) • [When would a Buddhist want to attach?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31324/13525) • [Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31296/13525)

I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway. So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is. Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki > life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

What would motivate an enlightened person to continue living? It seems like once somebody attains enlightenment, other than teaching, there would be no reason to continue living.

I just finished reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Buddhist Meditation called *Mindfulness, bliss and beyond*. According to him, as per the Buddhist sutras, advancing in meditation you enter into jhanas, which has a component of bliss in it; this was fine. Then you enter immaterial realms, where he says even consciousness is impermanent. Even consciousness is a conditioned phenomena. And you enter realm of neither perception nor non-perception. After this you attain nibbana, blowing out, end of all. I have long held belief that you are consciousness, the witnessing. Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss. So if even consciousness is not to be there -- and it's just literally nothing -- doesn't it just seem pointless? Your very attainment is pointless. Is it not better to roam this samsara doing good karma and enjoying the benefits? That way you at least live forever through rebirths. From this perspective, doesn't Buddha's teaching look Nilistic?

I feel concern for others, but like my efforts in anything are wasted. Is there any practice I could engage in, to remedy the latter? I've been taught meditation in a handful of contexts. What about sort of focusing on or keeping that feeling of nothing mattering, during zazen? Caveat: I won't believe in other lives, only karma.

Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and what's the best reason for the claim? My "whole" I mean something more than the sum of its parts, an object that does not reduce to its parts.

From my perspective, the two biggest obstacles to to perfect understanding of Dharma is the apparent contradictions between "Tanha" and "Right Aspiration" and Anatta vs Buddha's condemnation of nihilism (SN 1.96: “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”) and his teachings on rebirth. Tanha, "thirst" (desire) is given as the primary cause of Dukkha and yet "right Aspiration" (basically desire) is part of the 8 fold path. Clearly Buddha did not condemn "desire" if you define it as wanting something you don't have. So what distinguishes between the two? Anatta doctrine held by some Buddhist, that there ultimately is no-soul or self and nothing really "exists" but is empty of inherent existence and therefore insubstantial and suffering is basically nihilist. This contradicts Buddha's teaching on rebirth and Nirvana (the unborn, unmade, unconditioned etc. makes liberation from the born, made, conditioned possible). No matter how you want to spin it, if your position is that the soul does not exists and there is no self outside of conditioned existence, then you are doomed to the grave and there is zero possibility for enlightenment or liberation from Samsara because how can an "illusion" that doesn't exists be "enlightened" or "saved"? The only option for a mind made illusion is to simply cease to exist once the causes that create the illusion (the body 5 kandas etc.) dies. You just fade to black, no karma, no rebirth, no Nirvana, no enlightenment no nothing. How do you resolve this seeming contradiction?

Following on from a few question I've asked about nihilism, I wondered - quite casually if not in an idle way - whether seeking to enlighten other sentient beings (into Buddhahood) is ever redemptive of either stimulus or response (I just mean self and other)? Because in zen you can't seek to be a buddha, and in pure land you seek deliverance from another buddha, and theravada teaches the path of the arhant.

I am sensing this disenchantment from letting go. Meditating on impermanence feels like nihilism to me. There is a fleeting moment of joy from the liberation and just watching emotions go by. And I also notice the joy of it but I let it be and not cling. Then suddenly comes this pointlessness feeling. Something like nihilism. I also don't cling to that but it worries me I may lose control and just do things carelessly. Any guidance on this?

I often struggle with feelings of despair about not so much that I will die but my mortality, my insignificance in a time as time never ends. But it also occurred to me that actually everyone is in the same boat (so to speak) and so as long as we don't let **things** define our value, then maybe life has meaning and value. Is that anything to do with emptiness, or is emptiness more an ontological doctrine than anything about value and meaningfulness ?

Hello I wondered if the existence of karma (I believe in it anyway) can take the place of the concept of "God's plan" - which is how some people live with the horrors of Nihilism. I am not a Christian but it seems to me that God's plan is what we humans are missing (existentially) since He died.