If there's no specific purpose in life, If we have to give meaning to life by ourselves, then why doing good and bad matters ?

In *Cracking The Walnut: Understanding the Dialectics of Nagarjuna*, Thich Nhat Hanh explains how in the four conditions out of which a phenomenon arises (seed condition, continuity condition, object of cognition as condition, supportive condition) we can not find the self-nature of the phenomenon itself. The text which he is explaining, The Verses on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna, conclude this about the matter: > 3. The self-nature of phenomena \ is not found in the conditions. \ Since there is no self-nature, \ how could there be an other-nature? To illustrate this point Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire. > For example, we may look for the self-nature of a flame in a box of matches. In the box are matches made of wood and sulfur. Outside the box is oxygen. When we search inside the wood, sulfur, and oxygen can we find the self-nature of the flame? Whether the match has already been lit or not, we cannot find this self-nature. What we call the self-nature of something cannot be found in its conditions at all. My question is, how can Nagarjuna make the leap that because self-nature is not found in the causes or grounds out of which a phenomenon arises that therefore said phenomenon does not possess self-nature? For instance, if we at first assume that objects possess a separate self-nature and we take the example of ice instead of fire, we see that the conditions out of which ice arises (freezing temperatures, water, air pressure) do seem to possess something resembling the self-nature of their product. This is why I am confused when Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire to illustrate the point -- surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

It is commonly claimed in Nyaya and Vedanta circles that Udayanacharya brought an end to the long-standing philosophical debate between Buddhist thinkers and Vaidika traditions. His works, such as Kusumanjali, Atmatattva Viveka, and Nyaya Vartika Tatparya Parishuddhi, are said to have decisively refuted core Buddhist doctrines like shunyavada, kshanikavada, and vigyanavada. A Traditionalist Vedantin author summarizes this viewpoint as follows: > **"Dharmkirti who is well known for his scholarly works, criticized > nyaya doctrines and Vartikam in his Work called “Praman -Vartika”. > After Dharmkirti Buddhism went into decline, last work which was a > considerable criticism was written by a Nalanda professor as > “TatvaSangraha”. In This tatvaSangraha the writer had also tried to > critize BhagvatPad Sankara’ views (verse 330-331). > > Vachaspati misra who was the knower of 12 darshanas, He wrote Nyaya > Vartika Tatparya tika and answered the claims that were made till now > in a very good manner. His refutations are Calm,deep and subtle.** > > **An unexpected refutation came from Kashmir and that was from Jayanta > Bhatt. He wrote an independant commentary on NyayA suTras called > “Nyaya Manjari” He established the authority of the Veda and refuted > the buddhist doctrines mercilessly.** He has quoted everyone be it > DharmaKirti, Dingnaga or Dharmottara. > > Bhasvarajna an other Kashmiri wrote ‘NyayaBhusana’. He criticized > everyone from Nagarjuna till Prajnakara Gupta(writer of > VartikaAlankara). > > Jayanta Has wrote a verse while refuting क्षणिकवाद which goes as > follows :- > > **नास्त्यात्मा फलभोगमात्रमथ च स्वर्गाय चैत्यार्चनं , संस्काराः क्षणिकाः > युगस्थितिभृतश्चैते विहाराः कृताः । सर्व शून्यमिदं वसूनि गुरवे देहीति > चादिश्यते, बौद्धानां चरितं किमन्यदियती दम्भस्य भूमिः परा ॥** > > **You Bauddhas, hold that there is no soul, yet you construct caityas > (towers) to enjoy pleasure in paradise after death; you say that > everything is momentary, yet you build monasteries with the hope that > they will last for centuries; and you say that the world is void, yet > you teach that wealth should be given to spiritual guides. What a > strange character the Bauddhas possess; they are verily a monument of > conceit.** > > **JnanaSariMitra and his disciple RatnaKirti wrote some works answering > Vachaspati and made last tries to save buddhist philosophy from the > attacks of logicians.** > > **UdayanaCharya ended this debate with very strong logics.** He composed > works as “Kusumanajali” “Atma Tatva Viveka” and “Nyaya Vartika > Tatparya Parishuddhi” and refuted ShunyaVada,KshanikVada,VigyanVada. > > There are other works as Bauddha Dhikkara tika(sankara misra) and > Bauddh dhikkar shiromani **but till then Buddhism became a history.**" Source - The Literary debates between Buddhists and Vaidikas Given this narrative, my question is the following: Did any later Buddhist philosophers, either in India, Tibet, Nepal, or elsewhere, directly or indirectly respond to Udayanacharya's arguments? Are there surviving texts or commentaries that attempt to refute or answer his critiques of the Buddhist doctrines of no-self, momentariness, and emptiness? Or did the Buddhist tradition leave Udayana's works unanswered, either due to historical decline or strategic neglect? Any textual, historical, or scholastic leads would be much appreciated.

Growing up, I had a general understanding—based on lay textbooks and common interpretations that the dharmic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all believe in reincarnation: the idea that an individual is reborn into a new body, either human or animal, after physical death of the body. As I became more interested in Buddhism and tried exploring it more deeply, I noticed that different Buddhists seem to explain this concept in very different ways. Some use the word "reincarnation" and appear to mean it quite literally, while others insist that "rebirth" in Buddhism is not the same as reincarnation, especially since Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent self. This has left me quite confused. Is rebirth just another term for reincarnation, or does Buddhism teach something fundamentally different? What is the correct way to understand the concept of rebirth in Buddhist teachings?

In particular, does Buddhism think that rebirth is a solution to a human need, or is it a mechanic to how the universe works? And is rebirth a type of regeneration? In my interpretation of Buddhism, rebirth is the means by which pain does not last forever, because according to type theory, pain should be eternal.

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?

I’ve been reading quite a bit about both Pyrrhonism (from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly Sextus Empiricus) and Madhyamaka Buddhism (especially Nāgārjuna’s teachings), and I’m curious about how deeply their approaches to knowledge, doubt, and emptiness might align. Here are some specific points I’d like clarification on: - Both traditions seem to question the possibility of arriving at certain knowledge. Do Madhyamaka philosophers use skeptical methods purely as a strategy, or do they endorse a form of suspension of belief like Pyrrhonists? - In Pyrrhonism, the goal is ataraxia (tranquility) that arises from suspending judgment. Is this comparable to the nirvana that results from realizing śūnyatā (emptiness)? - Do Madhyamakas arrive at any “ultimate” view, or is even that view deconstructed like any other? - Are there any Buddhist responses to skepticism that help clarify the boundaries between constructive doubt and nihilism? ----------

[This answer on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/12flgq9/what_are_some_arguments_for_reincarnation_from_a/jfgry4f/) gave a basic outline of [Dharmakīrti's argument for rebirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Metaphysical_arguments) in the form of a syllogism: 1. Matter and consciousness are metaphysically different, their characteristics and nature are different 2. An effect must be of the same nature as its substantial cause 3. Thus consciousness cannot arise from or be produced by matter (1, 2) 4. Conclusion: Therefore, there must have a been a consciousness prior to any person's conception which causes the first moment of consciousness in this life For the sake of the question, let's assume that you accept this line of argumentation. The question then becomes, how did the first mental event arise according to this framework? Of course, there is the idea that many immaterial intellects exist in the transcendent realms some of which stretch beyond iterations of the universe and many eons, but at the same time, for there to be so many creatures on just this planet with consciousness would implicate that billions upon billions, if not more, immaterial entities survived the past iteration(s) and eons and made it to this one, and also never achieved enlightenment during that time, which seems highly implausible. Perhaps the Yogacara idea of the store-house consciousness must be of use here, but it would be difficult to prove, I'm not too sure. If anyone knows more about Dharmakīrti's thinking with regards to this, please share your knowledge.

Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā). This includes not only material objects but also the self, other beings, and even emotions and concepts. Yet, the cultivation of love , compassion, and empathy is central to the Buddhist path. Other philosophical or religious systems offer clear metaphysical grounds for love: - In Advaita Vedānta, love is said to naturally arise from the realization that all beings are ultimately the same Self (ātman). - In Bhakti traditions like Vaishnavism or even other theistic religions like Christianity, love is grounded in the belief that all beings are ' divine eternal souls', either a portion of God, or children of God. But Buddhism does not appear to endorse either of these metaphysical views. If everything is empty from a Buddhist perspective, wouldn’t that imply that emotions like love, compassion, and empathy are also empty and devoid of inherent existence? Then why should one love at all? How can these qualities be understood, justified, or cultivated within the framework of emptiness? Looking for answers grounded in Buddhist philosophy, ideally drawing from classical texts or traditional commentaries, to better understand how this seeming paradox is resolved.

In several discourses, the Buddha is noted for his silence or deliberate non-engagement with certain metaphysical questions—such as whether the universe is created or governed by an absolute deity, or whether an eternal soul exists that can attain liberation by entering an everlasting transcendent spiritual realm such as Brahma-loka or Vishnu-loka. What was the rationale behind this silence? Was his silence due to the fact he actually did not know if they existed? Did he deliberately withhold such teachings, regarding his audience as unprepared to accept these doctrines as truths? Or did he see these views as fundamentally mistaken from the ground up and therefore not worth discussing? Which of these explanations aligns best with canonical teachings and the broader Buddhist philosophical tradition?

I'm a bit confused about the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (non-self). Does this teaching mean that Buddhism denies the existence of any kind of soul or self altogether? Or is it more accurate to say that Buddhism accepts some concept of a self, but denies that it is eternal, unchanging, or independent? I'd appreciate any clarification on whether the rejection is total or just about the soul's permanence.

While reading through the Buddhist suttas, I came across the detailed descriptions of the eight emancipations. These passages were deeply intriguing, but they also gave rise to some questions in my mind which I decided to ask before which let me cite the concerned passages - > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “**Possessed of form, one sees forms.** This is the first > emancipation. > > “**Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally.** > This is the second emancipation. > > “**One is intent only on the beautiful.** This is the third > emancipation. > > “**With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space**. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** This is > the fifth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness.** This is the sixth > emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception.** This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation > of perception and feeling.** This is the eighth emancipation. > > “**Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward > order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order**, when he > attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he > wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of > effluents he enters and remains in the effluent-free release of > awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and > realized it for himself in the here and now, **he is said to be a monk > released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher > or more sublime than this, there is none.”** ~ DN 15 Questions- 1. Why is “nothingness” (6th) distinguished from “neither perception nor non-perception” (7th), given that both involve retreating from mental activity? Or from the 8th which involves total cessation of perception and feeling? 2. What kind of experience is “neither perception nor non-perception”? Is it a liminal state — and if so, how does one know they have entered it? Can a mind in this state be said to ‘experience’ anything at all? 3. In discussions with scholars from eternalist backgrounds, such as vedanta a common challenge raised is that the Buddhist teachings on the eight emancipations seem to imply the existence of a continuous or eternal subject since someone appears to be progressing through these subtle states of consciousness. If there is no eternal soul or self in Buddhism, then who is it that experiences and moves through these emancipations? How would a Buddhist respond to this objection? 4. What is the significance of being able to enter and exit these states at will, as emphasized in the sutta? 5. Is the progression through these states ultimately teaching that liberation is not something to be gained, but everything to be let go including perception, feeling, identity, and knowing?

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly within various schools like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Yogācāra, the concept of saṃsāra (cyclic existence) is central characterized by suffering, ignorance, and rebirth. A key metaphysical question arises: How did bondage—the state of being trapped in cyclic existence begin? Was there a specific point in the past time or cause that marked the start of sentient beings' entrapment? Or conversely, is bondage considered beginningless, similar to the doctrine held by certain Vedānta schools which maintain that ignorance (avidyā) has no beginning but can have an end?

What are they? Where are they found in the literature? Are there any significant differences in them among the traditions?

Some Scholars like R.S Bhattacharya claim that while Buddha rejected the Karma-kanda portions of the vedas, he spoke Highly of the Followers of Jnana-marga or nivritti-marga of vedas in the Brahmanadhammika Sutta. Is this really true? And Does This mean Buddha indirectly approved the Upanishadic philosophy of Atman-Brahman?

Recently, there had been a lot of market turmoil in the world as a result of one man’s action in imposing unilateral tariffs. The justification was that free trade is not as good as fair trade. I suppose if you think about it there is some truth in that free competition tends to benefit those who are more competitive or had some kind of *fair or unfair* advantages. I know the Buddha encourage the practice of dana or giving to those who are needy and worthy. But in any competition, there are bound to be losers. Giving to losers appeared unnatural and even in the wild, weaker animals perish. I am not saying this system of free competition is perfect but I can’t think of any better solution either. How does Buddhism strike a balance view in all of these? ---------- ***Appendix A*** In [SN4:20](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN4_20.html) , the Buddha was mentioned to have thought about this issue of just and righteous rule of societies. One that does not cause sorrow to the ruler or the people. Sadly, it appeared that there was no mention of any solution.

Wikipedia's Kalpa(aeon) in Buddhism article says, > In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years<a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years. I just went through the Visuddhimagga, and could not find where or how that time in years is calculated. I was wondering how to calculate it. Please explain how it's calculated, with reference to scripture where Lord Buddha mentioned it, and/or where the calculation or the result of the calculation is described, perhaps in the Thripitaka or Visuddhimagga? --- <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> Wikipedia's reference is to a book: > Epstein, Ronald B.(2002). Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z p. 204. Buddhist Text Translation Society. ISBN 0-88139-353-3, ISBN 978-0-88139-353-8. Perhaps that book may have a reference to where they found it, but I still haven't find that book.

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?

When Buddhist texts mention "realms of rebirth", it sounds like you are only living in those realms and not actually becoming one of the inhabitants. Like for example being reborn into the Deva realm, you reborn and live there but aren't reborn as a Deva. Could somebody help me?

First, I'm new to this forum so I don't know how to title my post or even write content. Sorry if I confuse you. Also, I'm a Vietnamese person living in Vietnam, male 27. I'm currently living in a hired room in Ho Chi Minh City and my parents are living in my hometown that's 3 hours away. I really need help or suggestions. I'll tell you about my journey but it is very long. My journey will include both psychological and spiritual problems. I'll divide it into different parts. ***Disclaimer: I think my journey is pretty hard-core in terms of existential philosophies and I'm pretty ruined at this point. If you're sensitive to such topics, please consider skipping this post.*** -------- **Part 1: DPDR-like symptoms** Around the end of 2021, I started experiencing symptoms similar to DPDR. Everything felt dreamlike or like a video game. My parents and familiar people seemed like strangers, and I often went into autopilot mode, as if watching myself from the outside. Despite feeling weird all the time, I convinced myself I was just sick and tried to live normally - having good times, bad times, and even crushes to keep myself engaged in life. In July 2023, I saw a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety. I also went to see a therapist but that didn’t help. No one seemed to recognize my symptoms, which may not be common in Vietnam. Eventually, at the end of 2023, I decided to tackle my symptoms rationally, which led me to existential questions. **Part 2: Existential crisis** I started questioning everything: Why am I here? What is this world? I struggled with solipsism, the idea that only my mind is certain to exist. I also resented being born without consent and found it absurd that people live without questioning their existence. I explored existentialism and absurdism, but the crisis was more than just thoughts - it was an overwhelming, unsettling feeling. I grew up in a culturally influenced Mahayana Buddhist environment, visiting pagodas and praying for salvation. Seeking answers in Buddhism, I found its doctrines contradictory and eventually gave up. **Part 3: A new approach to Buddhism** I kept living, but new questions emerged: Why do I prefer one thing over another? Why do I think certain thoughts? This led me to the Buddhist concept of non-self—the idea that we don’t have a fixed, controlling self; rather, our thoughts and decisions arise from interdependent conditions. I came to see humans as ever-changing combinations of matter and energy. The autopilot mode I felt before is indeed how I function - thoughts and actions in me arise interdependently on the current environment and internal information like memories. Realizing this brought me a deep sense of relief. My existential questions are no longer valid because existential questions usually evolve around the sense of self. For almost a year, I felt liberated and enthusiastically explored Buddhism. However, I struggled with how to perceive my parents. Understanding non-self dismantled their identities as my parents. Every interaction felt like I was just acting the role of a good son. Conventional and ultimate truths seemed irreconcilable. Love, relationships, and social constructs felt meaningless. I ultimately decided to care for my parents - not out of love for parents, but compassion for special people. **Part 4: Denial of existence** On New Year’s Day, I attended a 10-day Vipassana retreat led by Mr. Goenka, which involved complete silence. The meditation was difficult, but the discourses troubled me more - especially those about reincarnation. From my research and the book No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom for Life by Thich Nhat Hanh, I thought that we would dissolve into different dimensions and reincarnation would not only happen after death, it's happening right now. However, he said that consciousness right before you die will decide how you will be reborn. At the retreat, I was still struggling with reconciling the two truths. One night, I broke down thinking about my mother - born into poverty, the only motivation of her life is me and my brother. I couldn't reduce her to mere energy and matter. She was through a lot not to be treated like that from her son - even though she's fine and having a decent life right now with my dad and us. She - just like a lot of other people - wouldn't feel so bad about herself, only I feel that way. By the third night, I began losing my sense of external reality. The lack of social interaction and strict schedule made me forget what the world outside looked like, especially at night. So that problem triggered thoughts in me: I thought about my mom, I thought about how I couldn't reconcile the two truths, and I had fears of my dying grandfather - mostly how haunting the scene of a funeral will look like and especially the haunting imagery of human decay. When you feel love for somebody, it hurts to see them die. I didn't see him as a self, the love died and the fear arose. I remember crying in the 3rd night really hard thinking I would return home with my parents, living with them as if they a fixed selves, diminishing the value of the ultimate truth, and apologizing to them for being a sick child with all the mentioned fears and vulnerabilities. I was feeling so haunted at night that I asked to leave on the 4th day. The teacher - not Mr. Goenka ofc - insisted on me staying for the Vipassana session (because the first three days were introduction, if you know). I stayed but couldn’t make it and left on the 6th day. **Part 5: Returning home** Back to my room, I was still haunted by all the old thoughts and even existential thoughts somehow: how do I view this life, non-self or self - because I still can't reconcile them, life is weird, everything is weird, mom still doesn't feel like mom but she is mom. Nights were the worst - daytime distractions kept thoughts at bay, but at night, everything resurfaced. During that time, life felt like a dream, nothing was clear, the world is real but it's not real at the same time, so are people and all their material and non-material products. Two weeks later, the Lunar New Year came, and I had to go back to my hometown for more than 1 week with my family and my dying grandfather. I was so confused that most of my mind was filled with haunting thoughts and fears. Two days before New Year's Eve, my grandfather died. Surprisingly, his death didn’t haunt me as much as I expected - his body was hidden in a closed coffin. But also, to my surprise, I was having a sense of self so strongly that I started to have existential questions. A lot of times, I woke up in confusion and a strong sense of overwhelming frustration: why I was born just to die, why everyone was born just to die, and how everyone doesn't ask these questions and just live on. Why was I born and now I'm forced to live a life of suffering - or dukkha? Why was I born and now I'm forced to do this, to take care of my grandparents or my parents when they're old, to make a funeral for them? It's even worse when I think of non-self: I'm not me but I can't resist this strong feeling of frustration and suppression, and how everyone doesn't see that they're non-self and just live like they have a self. Life started to feel so strange, so absurd, everything felt weird. **Part 6: Trying to move on** Returning to Ho Chi Minh City, I struggled to function. I tried going out for spaces and to see how life goes on. Some days I woke up feeling absurd about life, and some days I just rushed to work because I couldn't sleep the previous night. The scariest moment wasn’t falling asleep - it was waking up, not knowing what feelings I’d wake up to. Life still feels vague and nightmare-like. Especially, sometimes when I caught myself wanting to do something, even when it was just dinner, I was like: that's not me, I don't actively want to eat, so why would I eat? Even when I caught myself in autopilot mode, instead of understanding it like when I just discovered non-self, now I hated it, like I wanted full control over what I do. Even when I said something, I felt like what I spoke just slipped out of my mouth without my permission. From observing my mind, I started to have moments of denying everything that arose in my mind. Maybe because I feared that just observing phenomena in me, I wouldn't take life seriously and would hurt people: like when I say something to follow Right Speech, who speaks now that we know about non-self, or do we just observe any words slip out of mouth as well? It all felt really frustrating because nothing seemed to solve the absurdity of my existence and this whole universe. I was even looking for answers if non-self implied determinism. Like I was looking for an answer that when I knew it, everything would just be logical and no-one really suffers. **Part 7: Slowing reconnecting with life** Just yesterday, I had a very strong moment of frustration when I just woke up from a short nap, like "Why do I wake up again, in this life, in this body, especially with all these questions and crisis"? Right at that moment, I started to get myself together, thinking I'd fight all the fears of meditation I'd had since the Vipassana course and sit down to face my thoughts. After a short while, I realized that even if life is deterministic and the feeling of control I'm having is an illusion, life still goes on. I’d have to start to live despite them all. I started to slowly pick myself up, cleaning my room that had been left messy since these thoughts got intense, taking a good bath, and listening to a famous Vietnamese monk’s discourse as I found his voice was really calming and his speeches were advocating living life to the fullest. I didn’t always agree with everything he said, but he was a big help. Life was still feeling really vague, but now dream-like, not nightmare-like. I told myself I'm here anyway so the best thing to do now is to live, I should not care so much about the vagueness of the world and live with love and compassion, and I should take advantage of my feet, my hands, my eyes and my consciousness to enjoy life and love people. I also found that the deliberation of non-self to emptiness and the two truths is just interpretations of Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha actually wanted us to focus how to live and even discouraged useless discussion on the concepts. I also learn a Mahayana interpretation of emptiness that helped reconcile the two truths: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Both truths are one and because I tried to eliminate the conventional truth, I was stuck. Slowing myself down really helped slow the racing thoughts I've had for a long time. **Part 7: Today’s feelings** This morning I woke up to the feeling of absurdity again, but I soon got myself together, started listening to the monk again, and went back to my hometown. I told myself that I shouldn't hope to view my parents properly, that I may still feel confused but I should fight that and live with love. Just like I thought, the moment I saw them, I had a feeling like "Who is this? Who is this combo of energies and matter? Why do I have to take care of them? I don't feel the connection between us". They still feel very vague and strange to me. I really don't know how to describe it to you, but it still feels like a dream. Maybe I know about non-self so I keep breaking them down till nothing is meaningful anymore. And the worst part is, I feel like the denial of existence is still strong in me: both mine and others'. I occasionally see my thoughts and think: this is not me, it's weird that I have them and I shouldn't be enslaved to them, I see me speaking and think: this is not me speaking. I keep doing that until nothing is left, but the sense of self is still so strong that I have a feeling of conflict in me. Or sometimes, I don’t deny, I freak out. I understand that my reactions are caused by a lot of past actions and my own nature: the human memories, the human senses, the human brain, and all the human conditional and genetic reactions. And I freak out because I am a human. And with other people or the world, I keep being confused about how my understanding of non-self breaks them down into emptiness of self while they’re still interacting with me. It's like sometimes I when I want to have a drink, I realize my body just automatically moves to the exact place of the water. When I just had DPDR, I just thought that I was sick and in autopilot mode. After knowing non-self, I know it's because of a lot of things in me that create the movement. However, it freaks me out. Or when I'm talking with my mom, my mouth just automatically replies with relevant things. I used to think it's just DPDR, but now I think it's because I'm non-self. However, the fact that I'm not in control of my words freaks me out because if I just let the words slip out of my mouth without control, life both feels really weird and vague and I don't know what this body will do anymore. -------- I understand that everything arises dependently, even the way I act, even the language I speak. But it still feels a lot like I don't know what life is. Life still feels very vague and I still find myself questioning a lot of things in life - or actually everything in life, like why I am here as a human, who are these people that I subliminally call parents, why a practice of culture is created and if it's just created out of ignorance. I can tell myself to just accept that they are there, but it still feels like I'm method-acting in life, especially to my parents, who it feels wrong to method-act to. Every time I live life vaguely, it feels like I might hurt myself and people by not being present. But every time I try to connect with life, the lack of control freaks me out. If you reach here, I’m really grateful that you spent time. I’m in deep confusion and hope to find help. Thank you so much.