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.

Vietnamese sentence: Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật. AI version 1: For example, asserting the existence of souls after death, Buddha-nature, or supernatural realms is false speech because these belong to imaginary realms, which are not real. A.I version 2: For instance, asserting the existence of souls of the dead, Buddha-nature, or metaphysical worlds is lying, as these belong to the realm of imagination, an unreal realm. Thu: For example, saying there is the spirit of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature and a metaphysical world is false speech / lying, because there are realms of imagination, realms that do not truly exist. Loi: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are supernatural worlds is false speech, because these are imaginary realms that do not exist. Nhan: For example, saying that there are spirits of the deceased, that there is Buddha-nature, or that there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, as these are imaginary realms that do not truly exist. Lin Đa: For example, saying there are spirits of the deceased, saying there is Buddha-nature, saying there are metaphysical worlds is false speech, because these are imagined realms, realms that do not exist. As a native-English speaker, you read an English sentence and you can undertand the meaning of English sentence translated by Vietnamese people that helps you undersand the same Vietnamese text "Như nói có linh hồn người chết, nói có Phật tánh, có thế giới siêu hình là nói dối, vì đó là cảnh giới tưởng, cảnh giới không có thật"? I mean the structure, grammar and other things. You can get the Buddhism terminology and C2 and it will help you practice and understand Buddhism easily. Thank you very much for your reading.

I am basically an Undergraduate student in India. Let me tell everyone that I made huge mistakes in my past. When my parents beat me, I also beat them. I never respected my parents and my teachers. Whenever my parents told me to touch the feet of the elders, I always used to get angry at my parents. Whenever my parents suggested me anything good, then I always used to get angry and many times I have even beaten my parents. I have never said "Thank You Sir" to my teachers when they helped me out with my Doubts. I always used to challenge my elders. Many times, I have even shouted at my grandparents. But now at the age of 21, I am able to understand my every mistakes which I already committed in the past. Now I want to rectify myselves. I really want to know that how can I rectify myselves ? How can I control my anger ?

In my quest to develop virtue, sometimes, I get distracted and entangled in thoughts. When I am in thoughts, virtuous conduct is halted. The reason why I get entangled in thoughts, is usually because of attachment. For example, attachment to what someone thinks about me. My head starts ruminating and I am not being mindful or diligent or metta in the present moment. One way to phrase this came to mind, inspired by a sutta describing enlightenment. To paraphrase the relevant part of the sutta: > Picking up the aggregates is a burden, laying them down is blissful Inspired by this, **when I become distracted, I think of it like this:** > **Instead of having practiced the eightfold path, I picked up the aggregates** **Since I still don't grasp enlightenment or anatta, I am unsure if this is a helpful application of that phrase.** What do you think?

**Today I momentarily fell back to identifying with old thinking patterns, and as a result, old habits and sluggishness emerged.** It caused some trouble, mainly that I delayed departure to a casual meeting with my parents. I called and said as an explanation that I don't feel so good today, and the way I said it left open interpretation that I may call things off entirely. **But then, I remembered the virtue of diligence amongst others, and turned things around.** While I told my parents that "I didn't feel so good", to myself, now, **I think of it as me having "forgotten who I am, for a moment".** This was a phrase that came to me when I was being diligent and discarding of wrong thought again. **But since I still don't grasp anatta, I am unsure if this is a helpful phrase.** What do you think?

Should I see right practice as not self? The same question is phrased three times over, in different ways, below. As context, I am a householder that seeks to eliminate suffering. **Question from Buddhist point of view** I want to let go of everything but right practice. This allows me to see many things as not self, unphased. For example, feeling tired or aroused or discontent. These things are not part of right practice, so I am able to see them as not self and let them pass by. It then feels like a wave has passed by me, and fully knowing that the wave was not self, and fully footed in overcoming craving, I feel no need to look back at the wave. However, when thoughts of diligence come up, and of right speech, I am hesitant to see them as not self. I am afraid that if I see them as something that will just pass, something to be impassionate about, that I will then deviate from the right path. The concept of right path too, is something I am hesitant to see as not self. How to proceed? **Question with Christian example** In Christianity, there is the concept of the new man and the old man. Practitioners are said to never be able to hope to shake off the old man in them (until Jesus returns). Practitioners are told to strive continuously to *be* the new man. Is the Buddhist answer to let go of the new man too? **Question with concrete example** I have a thought about turning on the TV. The matters in that thought are not about giving up craving, not about mindfulness, not about being metta, so I give up the thought and don't look back at it. Then I have a thought about doing well at a new job. Usually I have doubtful thoughts about the new job. The thought of working hard at the job I see as related to diligence. I do not give up the thought and entertain it. Whereas the TV watcher is clearly not self - something that has arisen from a place that is not self - the thought of working hard at the job now feels like self. I am about the thought, the thought is about me. There is a self and the self is concerned with the thought. I don't feel it's possible to overcome the sense of self without giving up the thought, and giving up the thought I don't feel is possible without the giving up of diligence. If someone suggested that you could have not-self AND thought entertainment, I think I would brush that off as them not speaking from experience. Should I give up right diligence / right livelihood?

I wonder if Buddhism has a concept or teaching surrounding what is happening in my personal practice right now. In my practice right now I want to reduce my focus on things that are certain. It's certain that I am typing on my phone right now, and breathing in. Then a idea pops up of something relating to the future, and I recognize the uncertainty around any theories surrounding the future. Earlier I came up with theories about craving and other things, and recognized the uncertainty of any such theories. I had many theories about how the mind works in the past but now I see the uncertainty in these theories. I try to synthesize insights based on what I learned from Buddhism but I'm uncertain of the theories in the end. Those mind theories I have are impermanent too, always changing and coming up with a new theory. But now the only certainty is my thumbs hitting my phone. Then a craving pops up and I'm led away from the certainty of breathing. Is there anything surrounding certainty or uncertainty in Buddhism being taught?

I am basically an undergraduate Student in a 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 questions then please ask. I want to stay alone and silent. But the environment is not permitting to do that. Every time someone is always available to disturb me. Please guide me how to get rid of these things. I want to know: How can I control myself?

I find it reassuring to be able to turn to the pali suttas for answers. I happened across comments by users that disparage against turning to the suttas for answers, one describing how it makes one come off as "Buddha's teacher's pet". Some amount of ego-hurt, but also genuine curiousity, makes me question if turning to the suttas for advice and certainty could be counter to reaching attainments. Would appreciate any perspective.

A sports article says this > Do you want to take first place in an upcoming triathlon? Want to > break your personal record in swimming laps? Want to be faster than > your best friend in the pool? Whatever it is you want, visualize > yourself accomplishing it. Would buddhism condone such visualization of success?

Dependent origination is interpreted by users of this platform to mean that craving and grasping can give rise to a sense of self. It's also advised on this platform to reflect on not-self of various things like mind and body. Not-self is described elsewhere as "not in control of", although people caution against conceptualizing not-self. I take this to mean that whenever I feel I "am", that "I" is an illusion built on a layer of craving and grasping. So, whenever I feel I "am", I reflect on an inability of me as an illusion to change anything - to move a body part, to breathe in a different way, to change thoughts, to prevent something, etc. Is this a wrong view?

So far I learned the following methods, derived from the pali suttas , to bring an end to defilements via cognitive behavior: - contemplating on thoughts of pleasure, cruelty and ill will, in respect to them leading to suffering for self, others and both (example MN 19 ) > “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of > sensual desire arose in me. 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;... - observation of the Nidanas, like how contact of senses with things gives rise of consciousness and attention, which gives rise to pleasant or unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings, which can lead us to crave, which can lead to grasping and so on (example SN 12.2 and DN 15 ) > So: name and form are requirements for consciousness. Consciousness is > a requirement for name and form. Name and form are requirements for > contact. Contact is a requirement for feeling. Feeling is a > requirement for craving. Craving is a requirement for grasping. > Grasping is a requirement for continued existence. Continued existence > is a requirement for rebirth. Rebirth is a requirement for old age and > death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. > That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. - mindfulness of breath (MN 118 ) > Bhikkhus, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated, > it is of great fruit and great benefit. When mindfulness of breathing > is developed and cultivated, it fulfils the four foundations of > mindfulness. When the four foundations of mindfulness are developed > and cultivated, they fulfil the seven enlightenment factors. When the > seven enlightenment factors are developed and cultivated, they fulfil > true knowledge and deliverance. What other cognitive behavioral shifts can be learned from the pali suttas? Feel free to correct me or suggest improvements to the descriptions above in the comments

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?

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.

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?