I currently try to get better at returning focus and attention from thoughts to breathe. I do this in daily life. I would appreciate if there were suttas on focusing on breathe in daily life outside meditation. I would see it as encouragement. I know that the Buddha focuses a lot on craving and ill wishes and cruel thoughts. These things helped me a lot, they help to return to breathe. Then there is a sort of lightness, as opposed to the heaviness of suffering. I identify a shifting of focus from thoughts to breath as a victory of having applied Buddha's teaching. Unfortunately, I don't have clear wording of the Buddha that this is a sign of cessation on suffering. I'm like a son that needs validation. Are there suttas that talk about breath, as opposed to just talking about contemplating on thoughts?

Hello Beautiful People, I have a quick question. After years of meditating with a mixture of Mahasi and Goenka style, I would like to ask the following. Very often when I sit to mediate, it is a matter of seconds to experience a subtle sense of pleasure and/or spaciousness. But more interestingly, is that after meditating a bit more there comes a feeling that my eyes want to move upwards, almost like if they want to see behind my head/brain. The first times this eye movement happened, years ago, there was fear in me because this was unusual and unexpected - it was even a bit painful. But after letting this movement happen I realized that the traditional lights, pleasure, and spaciousness became more present. Sometimes this leads to a very focalized pleasure spot at the top of my head and sometimes to the feeling that from that spot a very strong and interesting sense of pleasure would come from it (like if there is a cascade of pleasure emanating from the top of my head). The eye movement I am describing is not like REM. It is rather slow and it is directed upwards. So, I guess my question is: what is this eye movement thing? Is it anywhere described? Is it a Jhana thing? a symptom of any stage of the path? Thanks!

I know that there are several stories of monks and nuns leaving behind their families and even young children. However, how realistic is it to live among people and detach from them while in that environment? Also, all the stories of monks/nuns leaving behind their children stem from sayings/religious text. How realistic is it in general to overcome attachment to people? As answers, anecdotes would suffice

We can focus on thoughts or lay attention on them. It is advised not to do that. Why should there be a return of focus on breathe, or current action, or the like? Why should we not pay prolonged attention to thoughts?

In my personal practice, I've come to see that the inner voice craving for external things can be acknowledged and contemplated on, and ultimately stilled. The result is that entanglement with the external world is minimized. I'm trying to be more mindful of this internal voice, and I'm trying to improve my contemplation, so I try to understand more things in Buddhism. One thing I do not understand, is the big importance attributed to dependent origination and the 12 Nidanas. I do not understand why the Buddha goes into such depth explaining sense organs and sense objects and contact, and the like. Contact of cocaine with nose causes a sensation that you can come to crave, thus resulting in suffering. I'd also say that I was relatively clear on things being interdependent. You get good grades if and only if you study well. Hoping someone can give me a hint to how I could gain any value from the 12 Nidanas.

Please give a clear simple example of how this looks in a practical way without quoting suttas. I just want a practical example. Thanks "The object of consciousness, or mind-object, that arises has to be of ultimate reality, not conventional reality. We must be able to differentiate between what is absolute reality, or paramattha dhamma and what is conventional reality, or sammuti."

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.

It's a bit weird to explain. In daily life when I notice some though or emotion or when someone praises me or some other similar action and I notice that and don't cling on to it there is a inner voice praising myself for not getting attached. And if I "let that go" then again an inner voice praising that action and not getting attached to that feeling and this kind of creates a loop. It might sounds very weird or trivial but sometimes its very annoying. How should one deal with this? Just ignore it?

For a long time I've been really into the space of longevity, both radical lifespan extension through biotechnology and the optimization of quality of life during old age (healthspan extension) through currently available protocols on diet, exercise, sleep, meditation, etc. I'm really interested in the Buddhist perspective on this movement, especially how different schools (Thai Forest, Soto Zen, Plum Village, IMS/IMC, Chinese Chan, Chinese Pure Land, Tibetan Vajrayana, and Sri Lanka Theravada) might perceive it differently. My #1 core value is to live as long and healthy as possible, both physically and mentally. I got into Buddhism, because it seems like a comprehensive and effective framework in supporting individuals' mental well-being, especially during old age. I think that if you are not going to have any children, then you have to embrace some kind of spirituality system to offset the very real and catastrophic effects of loneliness and stress on your health and lifespan. Your mind won't be kind to yourself as you get older, and you have to love something other than yourself to be sane. Which Buddhist tradition do you think is the most compatible with this very new kind of value (life is good and I wanna live as long and healthy as possible) that has emerged in a community only very recently, thanks to technology and urban life enabling such a person? (r/longevity, r/peterattia, and r/Biohackers) Thai Forest, Soto Zen, Plum Village, IMS/IMC, Chinese Chan, Chinese Pure Land, Tibetan Vajrayana, and Sri Lanka Theravada? I know some aspects of Buddhist philosophy are very much contradictory to this goal (think The Five Remembrances in Buddhism, contemplations on impermanence: that we will grow old, that we will get sick, that we will die, that all that is dear to us will change and we will be separated from it, and that our actions are our only true belongings, and we will inherit their consequences). So one of my concerns is that if I'm practicing with a tradition that emphasizes those aspects, it would eventually lead to cognitive dissonance/internal conflicts, creating additional stressors in my life. I know I tend to get very hysterical/neurotic and compulsive about these things, so it's good to give these extra thoughts to it before deciding.

I read that the Buddha said this: Whatever your personal experience tells you is helpful, is more important than the Buddha's teachings. Did he really say that, and if so where?

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?

Thoughts about mine and things should be in this way,about children ,husband and relatives,it's the personality view. That is developed in our own mind.so we inflicted our own wounds. So we were in our own prison. So when this thinking stops personality view has destroyed. Isn't it?

Until now I thought that Buddhism teaches that a sense of self is bad in all cases. Now I read that developing a sense of self around good actions can increase motivation for our spiritual development, and that we can choose to see 'not self' in bad past actions, and see 'self' in beneficial past actions. From this I gather that it could be beneficial to develop a sense of self. In my practice I don't really have a sense of self around good deeds yet. In general I don't really have much of a sense of self, perhaps low self esteem. Should this change? Does Buddhism encourage a sense of self around skillful actions to be developed?

There is no permanent unchanging self. Are past actions therefore "not self"? In my practice I find that seeing past actions as not self allows me to contemplate on them better.

Everyone. I am basically an Undergraduate Student in an University in Asia. My Classes started in the Month of August 2025. Now before coming to college I made my mind in such a way that I decided that I will not speak with others but instead if anyone asks me anything, then I will reply. But after coming to the college, my friends are repeatedly trying to speak with me and want to make me their friends. But I really don't want that. Not only the friends but also the Teachers of the University are also disturbing me repeatedly. I basically don't want to take the help of others, but the Teachers are repeatedly asking me that if you have any doubts then please ask. I want to stay alone and silent. But the environment is not permitting to do that. Everytime someone is always available to disturb me. Please guide me how to get rid of these things. I want to know that how can I control myselves ?

A lay person that reaches arahatship/Nibbana is said to either take up robe within 7 days or die, since that state of detachment makes household duties unbearable. Dhammapada 155-156 warns the lay youth of regret in old age from failure to accrue wealth. It feels a bit like Buddhism is gatekeeping the holy life, shoving the lay person out the door and telling them to just "do your lay stuff, like uh, have sex or something", which feels a bit disheartening. To what extent does Buddhism discourage the lay person from seeking liberation from suffering, and just encouraging them to participate in the rat race?

If we centered our efforts in life around having and keeping 4 requirements (sufficient food for survival, clothing to cover shame etc), and otherwise practiced the Dhamma, would that be beneficial for reaching Nibbana? So, when going to work, instead of thinking about getting promoted or earning a raise, we just saw it as due effort for minimal secluded shelter and minimal food necessary to survive.

In the west it's more or less common knowledge that when you try to suppress something, it arises stronger. For example, in this Psychology Today article , it is written: > This effect was shown with the classic “white bear” study. In the > study, people were told not to think of a white bear. Simply being > told not to think about a white bear—to suppress these thoughts—led > these people to think of white bears far more frequently (Wegner, > Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987). This research helped us see that > suppression is an ineffective way to decrease negative emotions. Even in buddhist circles, it's often said that walls shouldn't be built internally, referring to the cognitive behavior of shunning certain aspects of ourselves. Yet, in Suttas like mn19 , the Buddha says: > Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, > removed it, did away with it. How to reconcile?

In MN 19 , the Buddha advises us to contemplate on whether thoughts cause harm. > I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire has arisen in me. > This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the > affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and > leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own > affliction,’ it subsided in me; Does this also apply to emotions like fear or anger (non-thought mental formations)? Example: This emotion has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction [...] Would appreciate relevant Suttas.

If my neighbor is real loud, I focus on the noises. It's a sort of involuntary focus. I would like to be able to detach myself from this focus. Until now, I thought focus is part of the 'perception' aggregate, but that doesn't seem correct. Is this sort of focus even part of any aggregate?