I've been going down a rabbit hole trying to understand the core logic of the early Buddhist path from a materialistic/agnostic standpoint, and I've arrived at a conclusion that feels both insightful and perhaps overly simplistic. I wanted to lay out my line of reasoning and see what you all think. My line of thought goes like this: The Goal is Nibbāna: The ultimate goal is the cessation of dukkha (suffering/dissatisfaction) and the end of the cycle of rebirth. Nibbāna and Annihilation: From an outside, secular perspective, Parinibbāna (the final Nibbāna after an enlightened being's death) looks like annihilation. The impermanent aggregation that an atheist/agnostic perceives as the "self" is gone and does not reappear. This taps into our deepest primal fear. The Doctrinal Solution is Anattā: The Buddha's core teaching to resolve this is Anattā (Not-Self). The argument is that it can't be annihilation because there was no permanent, solid "self" to be annihilated in the first place. What we are is an impermanent "congregation" of processes. The Training is Realizing Anattā: The entire meditative training, at its core, is about deconstructing our own experience to see this truth for ourselves—to move from intellectually accepting Anattā to directly realizing it. The Paradox for Both Believers and Atheists This creates an interesting situation. For a person who believes in rebirth, the ultimate goal of non-rebirth can seem frightening. Their instinct is often to desire a better rebirth, not an end to existence altogether. Conversely, for an atheist who already believes there is nothing after death, it might seem like they've already achieved the Buddhist goal of "no rebirth." However, the crucial distinction is psychological. The atheist may still fear the end of their existence out of instinct, while an enlightened person would meet that same end with equanimity. Therefore, for both the believer afraid of cessation and the non-believer afraid of their own mortality, the Buddhist meditative training serves as a tool to become psychologically at peace with the end of the process we call a "self." This leads me to my core idea: Is the entire project of Early Buddhism (and practices like the Thai Forest tradition) essentially just psychological engineering designed to solve the problem of death anxiety? It feels like the fear of personal annihilation is the "final boss" of human suffering, and the doctrine of Anattā is the specific weapon designed to defeat it. By training the mind to see through the illusion of the very "self" we're afraid of losing, the therapy is complete, and the fear is uprooted. I realize this might be a reductionist take. I'm curious how this framing sits with you all. Is this a fair, if incomplete, way to look at the central mechanism of the path? Or does putting too much emphasis on the "death" aspect miss the point entirely? Looking forward to your thoughts.

When you meditate with ADHD, the difficulty level of life drops a lot. If you then practice the noble eightfold path in order to come closer to nibbana, you're sort of doing that on a wheelchair. If you stop meditating, ADHD will come back full force, and you still have 0 experience of being on the noble eightfold path on that difficulty level. Could meditating be a hindrance toward enlightenment, for that reason? Aren't you making it too easy for yourself?

Nirvana is considered by many religions the pinnacle to strive for. What do I need to do to achieve Nirvana? Are there different perceptions of the requirements held by different sects?

"Was Angulimāla, the bandit-turned-disciple of the Buddha, a historical figure or a purely symbolic character in Buddhist literature? What evidence supports either view?"

It is often said that Nibbana is unconditioned. But isn't Nibbana to be attained through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path (abandoning desire, meditation, realizing paticcasamuppada etc)? Aren't those practices conditions for Nibbana? What am I missing here :) ?

Cartels in Mexico force people to join and if they try to escape they kill them. Why don't people who achieve Nirvana care to make everyone in the world like them?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.

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.

Caucasian skin is peachy and sandy (due to having no pigmentation) while the great man's body in nibbana is, according to the 32 perfections of a great man , "his skin is the color of gold". White skin requires some pigmentation. Currently my journey with white skin represents the Trix rabbit's (1994 commercial) attempt to take his own cereal. All he gets is "silly rabbit Trix are for kids!" And the fact that some saints may have received such a miracle to change their skin color forever makes the pain that much more serious. And what should I do regarding the psychologist? I am visiting one to drain my emotions of this, and that might make my eternity as a yellow man all that much more permanent!

Buddha as part of the noble eightfold path preached that killing any organism is an unskillful action which results in bad karma. He also preached that every buddhist monk's final aim should be nibbana. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, it's mentioned that one cause for earthquake is a monk attaining enlightenment. Earthquakes result in the killing of atleast few organisms. So that should mean a monk should not pursue enlightenment. How does a practicing buddhist monk address this apparent contradiction? Thanks.

I’ve been trying to understand what happens to consciousness or awareness when someone fully attains Nirvana. From what I gather, Nirvana is described as the end of suffering and the cessation of the cycle of rebirth. But I’m unclear on whether this also means that all forms of consciousness or awareness whether in a physical body or any other 'purified' or 'disembodied' form come to a complete end. Is it correct to say that after Nirvana, there is no remaining experience, presence, or awareness in any sense? Or is this question itself based on a misunderstanding of what Nirvana actually is?

I came across this excellent discussion of nirodha recently: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3116/2493 wherein nirodha was defined to be "the cessation of suffering" i.e. "the third noble truth". I tend to use the word "nibbana" to represent this phenomenon, so I am a little bit confused about the need for 2 different terms here. If one were to set aside the concept of physical rebirth after death, would any difference between the concepts of "nirodha" and "nibbana" remain? If so, what is the nature of this difference?

So, I'm not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that in Buddhist thought, existence is the root of suffering, and Buddhists seek to end suffering by attaining a state of spiritual enlightenment that, after death, will cause them to cease to exist instead of reincarnating ("Nirvana"). Since this spiritual oblivion is viewed as a good thing by Buddhists as a result, and that existence is viewed as a bad thing that causes suffering, why aren't there any murderous Buddhists that seek to bring about this oblivion more directly by killing everyone? You can't reincarnate into a new life if there's no new lives to reincarnate into, after all. Even if reincarnating into animals might be possible, you could prevent that by systematically wiping out all life on Earth down to the smallest microbe. However, I've never heard of any Buddhist sects that actively seek to murder everybody. Why is this the case, when it seems like "murder everybody" could very easily be a logical conclusion of the Buddhist belief system? Have there actually been these sorts of Buddhist death-cults in the past, that simply haven't survived to the modern day (presumably due to having been violently suppressed by the governments of the nations they lived in once they started trying to murder everyone)?

I asked this question in Philosophy and was advised to ask the question here on Buddhism as I may get better answers HERE. So I am pursuing Spirituality for quite some time now, I've had REALISATIONS but not the Proverbial Self-Realisation because questions remain. So was kinda wondering what is it EXACTLY that they realise. I've been told, you realise, "YOU ARE THE ONE" but it does nothing to me, no effect. So DEFINITELY IT'S NOT THE WORDS. What is it then?

> Nirvana is not extinction because mind (which, from the first, was the > only authentic component of the vanished beings) persists; it is not > heaven because no sentient being remains to enter it Can you explain it so that I'm sure it is right? In other words, expand on it, or append it, etc. You may use concepts like "one mind", "mindful", etc,, whatever you like.

I read something on reddit that made me think that the author confuses between Nibbana (extinguishment, liberation) and saññāvedayitanirodha (cessation of perception and feeling), thinking that they refer to the same thing. I quoted some of the suttas below that led them to this view. Questions: 1. What is the difference between the two? 2. Are they the same? If they are the same, then when the Buddha returns to the normal waking and talking state, he would lose his Nibbana wouldn't he? 3. What is the difference between the bliss or pleasure of Nibbana in the waking and talking state, compared to the bliss or pleasure of saññāvedayitanirodha? Are they the same or completely different? 4. Is saññāvedayitanirodha needed for attaining arahantship? Can one attain arahantship without ever reaching it? 5. Is it possible that one could attain saññāvedayitanirodha, without attaining Nibbana? They used these sutta quotes to support their assumption that Nibbana and saññāvedayitanirodha are the same: > They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, > there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the > scope of perception.’ > MN 7 > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it (Nibbana), > since nothing is felt?” > > “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely > what’s blissful about it. > AN 9.34 > “One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The > cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is > nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises > and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another > perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the > cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was > percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” > AN 10.7 > There are those who would say that this is the highest pleasure and > happiness that sentient beings experience. But I don’t grant them > that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure that is finer > than that. And what is that pleasure? It’s when a mendicant, going > totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is > a pleasure that is finer than that. > MN 59

Practing meditation I would like to know if i have attained jhana samadhi state. For now i have a feelable state of chi flowing throught air and things and and making movements. But there is a downsite that my anja shows mindless impressions and chi aswell. Maybe someone has same expriencenwith that. What is that all about?

As far as I know, many practitioners in the mahayana tradition have claimed to reach buddhahood and nirvana, since Sakyamuni. Is this non-abiding in nirvana? It would explain how prominent Buddhists have in the past been identified with celestial bodhisattvas. If so, would they nevertheless have reached final nirvana, on death?

Is there any sutta in the Pali Canon which describes the supramundane view that Nibbana cannot be attained? I'm looking for a verse or quote from the Pali Canon which describes Nibbana as unattainable or unrelinquished based on the fact that is unconditioned. Ie, not from the ordinary conventional sense of attaining a possession or attainment of a goal, but rather from the supramundane where Nibbana is unconditioned. Does such a sutta, passage, or verse exist?

Is cessation of perception and feeling the Nibbana? > Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the > dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains > in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with > wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does > not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does > not identify through anything.” > [MN 113](https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato)