After a prolonged struggle with various eating disorders (atypical, anorexia, bulimia, BED) over nearly two years, as well as ongoing mood disorders and severe anxiety for the past three, I've found conventional self-guided Western CBT therapies, and even standalone meditation, largely ineffective for me. Significant barriers (financial, temporal, locational, cultural conditioning) limit my access to consistent professional therapy, and will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future. Believe me, I've tried. I'm looking for an alternative path, a fundamentally different framework than modern psychology, to address a deep-seated lack of purpose and unresolved trauma, ultimately seeking peace of mind. I've long been drawn to the exploration of Western neuroscience and cognitive science on Buddhism, specifically the tangible benefits of mindfulness meditation. My "hope" is to find a Buddhist school that aligns with, and ideally offers a practical experience similar to, approaches like MBSR, MBCT, and DBT, despite their fundamental differences from traditional Buddhism. This leads to my core questions: 1. **Influence of Buddhist Schools on Western Therapies:** How much influence do different Buddhist schools (e.g., Theravada, Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan) have on the development and practice of: * Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) * Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) * Acceptance-Based Therapies (e.g., ACT) * Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) * Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) I understand that Western mindfulness, particularly MBSR/MBCT, is often linked to Theravada (Vipassanā, as seen in the Insight Meditation Society and "Mindfulness in Plain English"). However, I've also come across arguments for significant Zen Buddhist influence on Jon Kabat-Zinn's work, which resonates with the "non-dualistic" feel of modern mindfulness. 2. **Is it problematic to choose a Buddhist school based on these inspirations?** Given my past experiences and current limitations, is it a "wrong" approach to seek a Buddhist tradition that primarily contributed to, or feels practically similar to, these Western therapeutic modalities? My aim is not necessarily "enlightenment" in the traditional sense, but rather a path to alleviate suffering and cultivate inner peace, perhaps building positive karma for future lives (as a layperson, taking a stoic approach to the ultimate goal). 3. **Navigating Availability and Personal Preference:** I'm personally more attracted to Theravada's "down-to-earth" step-by-step Eightfold Path and emphasis on mindfulness, along with the sense of certainty from practices like one meal a day and abstinence from alcohol. However, in both my current city and home city, Mahayana denominations are more readily available (authentic Chan, Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, and a modernized immigrant Pure Land school). I've visited the immigrant Pure Land and authentic Chan centers, but they simply don't "click" with me; they feel "weird" and I don't like them. I haven't had the opportunity to visit a Theravada temple for comparison. If I choose Theravada, I'd likely need to rely on online sanghas, which may not accommodate my timezone. Given my intention to remain a layperson and focus on personal practice for peace of mind and perhaps future karmic benefit, I'm unsure how crucial an in-person or online sangha is for my goals. Any insights on these points, particularly regarding the historical influences and the appropriateness of my approach to choosing a path, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Clearly Asperger's/Autism is not something that exists independently on its own as an entity, but it is made up of component simple experiential phenomena. What is such a view on Asperger's? What are its building components? What is it at the most fundamental level, as seen from Buddhist persepective?\ Thanks

Before I ask this question let me tell that I know that attachment in Buddhism is very different from the one in psychology. Also, I understand that attachment in psychology is just aversion or craving for certain situations/feelings/experiences etc. That being said, I was wondering if anyone has successfully overcome anxious attachment (or knows how to)? I ask here because if I ask anywhere else I would get the standard response "it's something that you live with for all your life and it's something very deeply rooted, which cannot be overcome. So you should get better in learning to live with it." I understand the broad psychology etc. so please emphasize on any specific exercises and insights that have helped you. Feel free to add any other relevant info. Thanks

In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part > only when one is possessed by non-human beings In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44. >State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count. My question is, **who or what is doing the possessing**? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible? How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

So have few family members, including my mom, who are base in general and particularly nagging. For example my mom (she's uneducated) keeps nagging me on not eating out that I may get sick when she clearly doesn't understand, or at best misunderstands, health and nutrition. Or for example, when I am driving she will nag me on not taking this turn because the car will travel 100 feet more and this will burn more fuel. This is when my family is not at all poor : in fact we are rich from my country's standards. This kind of nagging happens repeatedly even after I explain the correct things, and she does this for almost everything to the point that my dad get super mad at her. I think her mind might be too base to understand simple things. Most of the time I say OK and ignore her, but sometimes I get pretty annoyed. So I was wondering today what would Buddha do with such people ? Would he simply ignore or would you try to teach them? Any advice on such people from the Suttas or personal experience? Thank you.

I've been recently observing that I am surrounded by a lot of narcissistic people which include all kinds of relationships friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances. Having been surrounded by these people I believe I have developed a relatively weak ego/low self-esteem over time -which of course translates to suffering. I also have been doing some meditation related work which has made me stronger/confident and also I believe it is the reason I've been recently having clashes/fights with these kind of people. Thus I wanted to understand narcissism from a deeper perspective of Dhamma. Modern psychology has it already in the dark triad personality traits, namely, narcissism, machiavellism and psychopathy. I watched and analyzed some videos from Jordan Peterson and some others; but I am shocked to find such a surprising lack of material and insights about this phenomenon from any good spiritual gurus, and even here on forums like stack-exchange, reddit etc. Thus I am making this post! So I would like to plead here - kindly contribute any deep/thorough analysis of this trait both from classical sutras perspective and from your own understanding: giving arguments/analogies/reasonings for any assertions. Possibly include the following topics - deconstructing what narcissism actually is, what kind of mental states and defilements are involved, how to overcome those as a person who has narcissism and how to minimize the bad karma recieved while dealing with such people. It may be a little bit of effort to write up properly, but I believe you sharing such valuable insights will be very helpful - for both people like me who have to deal with narcissistic people and also for others who want to fix their own narcissism and corresponding defilements. If anyone does contribute here, your efforts and insights are greatly appreciated, Thank you!

Regarding reincarnation, I have a few questions: 1. Unfortunately, because of a big mistake and peoples' interference, I lost the love of my life to another woman almost 30 years ago, but still love him deeply. He's moved on. But I am stuck and can't stop thinking about him every single day of my life. Can I be finally united with him in my next life? 2. Will my parents be the same in my next life? 3. I don't like to study too much in this life. Can I be what I dream of being in my next life? I would love to be a doctor, to be part of *Médecins sans frontièrs* and cure people for free, but in this life I didn't succeed in doing so, as my IQ was not perfect in many fields of study. I appreciate your answer. -Farah

As we know, the Eightfold Path begins with Right View, and then from Right View follows Right Intention. Right View - belief in suffering, the relief from suffering and the Triple Gem; from this follows Right Intention - the "desire" or resolve to follow the Buddha Way. (This is of course closer to the Theravada belief; the Mahayana belief is too esoteric to describe in words, or to have any logical progression, but is a sudden overwhelming experience of "feeling" one is totally Buddhist. Correct? I'd like both Theravada and Mahayana perspectives on this question.) Here is the problem: we know that the Buddha suffered hardship in this world, including sickness and requiring a physician at times. We know that he had enemies who wished him harm. How then is it possible to believe that the Buddha was the happiest or most fortunate person ever to exist? Surely, out of all of history, with billions of people, there must have been somebody with fewer sicknesses and fewer enemies! How does one believe, WHY does one believe, that he was totally free from misery or mental anguish? Does one believe this merely because it is taught as doctrine? How is it possible to believe that he was "happy" or "the happiest" as we, being mere humans, would understand the term? How is it possible to believe that he was "most fortunate" or "most blessed" as we would understand it? If he was not "the happiest", "the most fortunate", or other similar expressions, as -we- would understand them, then how does a mere mortal with real-world human struggles form the resolve to follow the dharma unconditionally? Should one believe that Buddhism can bring earthly blessings, or not? And if not, then how can a human being who suffers from a desire for/lack of earthly blessings form the motivation to follow the dharma whole-heartedly? In the simplest terms, why would an ordinary human being with ordinary struggles want to live the life of the Buddha? Is it even possible for an ordinary human being with a difficult life to want to be like the Buddha?

I've had my share of gaslighting and have given it as well. To me there's this sort of limbo situation, where the undefinition is the abuse, where a person has the underlying feeling that something is wrong with her rationale, and that there is no one else except herself to be blamed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting Taking into account this disconcerting feeling that is produced by manipulative habits, what would be a buddhist approach/interpretation of gaslighting from both sides, the "perpetrator" and the "victim", if we can name them like that, so that a solution could be reached?

I'm looking for Buddhist therapists for a friend of mine (who is also a practicing Buddhist). He's been using traditional therapists and it has not worked for him Is there a list of Buddhist therapists available anywhere online?

From [Incubation (psychology) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_(psychology)) : >Incubation is one of the four proposed stages of creativity, which are preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Incubation is defined as, when attending to a different task, humans forget about the previous unsuccessful attempts and can engage with the task anew, often leading to finding the solution. Incubation is related to intuition and insight in that it is the unconscious part of a process whereby an intuition may become validated as an insight. Incubation substantially increases the odds of solving a problem, and benefits from long incubation periods with low cognitive workloads. I see that incubation is what essentially what Buddhism would call as "enlightenment": >The experience of leaving a problem for a period of time and then finding that the difficulty evaporates on returning to the problem, or, even more striking, that the solution "comes out of the blue" when thinking about something else, is widespread. Many guides to effective thinking and problem solving advise the reader to set problems aside for a time. However, incubation seems to be directly contradict with mindfulness (be here now), as [it can be essentially summed up](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation) as: >the process of thinking about a problem subconsciously while being involved in other activities Is my understanding correct?

I came across this interpretation of Buddha's teaching that suggests that the Buddha ultimately sought a dissociative state, rather than one of freedom. > the buddhistic mindfulness meditation does not ... (a) stress genuine freedom, peace and happiness ... and (b) does not eliminate the genetically-encoded instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire (the root cause of human bondage, malice and sorrow) ... and (c) does promise a mythical ‘freedom’ in an imaginary life-after-death (‘Parinirvana’) ... and (d) is not a new, non-spiritual method ... and (e) does not produce an actual freedom from the instinctual animal passions, here and now, on earth, in this lifetime ... and (f) does not offer a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow ... to be both happy and harmless. > > More to your point, however, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s **mindfulness meditation is primarily about detachment/ dissociation from life** – all existence is Dukkha due to Anicca (impermanence) and Dukkha comes from Tanha (craving) for Samsara (phenomenal existence) – and any meditation technique which stresses involvement with such is anything but what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan taught. So my question is: is anyone that practices mindfulness, as advised by Buddhist teachers, heading towards developing a sort of **dissociation** from their feelings? If not, how can anyone explain the fact of enlightened Buddhists still getting angry without referencing psychological dissociation? **Clarification 1** Some people expressed confusion over that question at the end. My clarification follows. We can agree that Buddhist enlightenment does not guarantee extirpation of emotions (like anger). Thus, feeling angry (for example) does not invalidate someone's enlightenment. Enlightened beings can feel angry. Now, Richard says -- and this has been confirmed by the actually free people -- "I" am "my" feelings, and "my" feelings are "me" (i.e., emotions and self are the same thing). So if enlightened Buddhists claim to be free from illusion of self, and if emotions still remain and occur, how can that be explained as anything but dissociation (i.e., dissociation of a covert part of self from the overt rest of the self)? Hope that is clear enough.

Every now and then we (close friends) start some discussion on some topic, then we put our sides, but unfortunately, this conversation takes a path towards argument, where both the sides want to prove that they are correct. This is forcing me to not to start any type of conversation among us in future because I don't want to hamper my peace of mind. What should be the right suggestion over here? Shall we dig deeper into the conversations more and more, and until the conclusion does not comes up, just don't stop. Or, just tell your friend that you are right, and try to wrap the conversation over there itself. Or is there any other good way to reaching out to a pleasant end?

Some call Buddhism psychology, so maybe it can help -- me. This sense that doing something -- let's take a difficult but generic example, learning sanskrit -- is a wonderful, exciting idea; but one never gets started with it, because there is no tangible psychological or material benefit from it -- for whatever reason [you won't find anyone new to talk with, most texts are in translation, no-one will care, etc.]. What remedy is there for this?

Whenever I go for meditation retreat(self-exploration or in group), my brain remains calm, body remains healthy, digestive system becomes good. When I try to go for household life or even think about it, my tension increases, digestive system corrupts(whereas it remains better during retreat), can't maintain percept of not eating after midday because of stomach. Morning workout (physical) makes me more lazy(sleepy), laziness decreases meditation. Metta-meditation makes me to worry about others whereas, if I don't do metta it, makes me feel like selfish? Should I consult psychologist or should I go for monk-life? How to stop worrying about others or why do I feel like worrying about others during metta?

I was reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and related conditions like Borderline Personality Disorder . Some qualities seemed in direct opposition to what I've read in books by Thich Nhat Hanh. I was wondering if there were descriptions of Modern Psychological Narcissism in Buddhist works (as opposed to vanity in the Greek myth)? Is it closely tied to notions of Ego? For example, we are encouraged to cultivate Equanimity in Buddhism. BPD has erratic and extreme emotional shifts. Its sufferers have extremely dichotomous, dualistic thinking. Some notion of objectivity is encouraged in Buddhism, a realization that one is observing a phenomenon, and one may have thoughts, judgments, etc about the phenomenon, but this isn't really the thing being observed. People with NPD and the like may be considered extremely subjective, unmindful that they are having opinions and so failing to distinguish between the observation and the judgments. Envy is extremely common among narcissists. On the path to liberation, envy is one of the first emotions to disappear. Are there teachings of Buddhism that could be especially helpful for such people?

Further to [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33618/254) Do Buddhists adhere to the Western concept of “Boundaries” to protect oneself? Or is the creation of boundaries an obstacle to enlightenment because of its avoidance of future suffering? Are we called to give of ourselves without bounds, even to those without gratitude for our service? How does this apply to emotional, financial, and service to others with our time?

There are several scientific methods to treat the psychiatric condition depression. Is there a method to overcome depression by Lord Buddha's teachings?

As far as I've studied the suttas (not very much, to be honest), it seems that whenever dukkha is analysed and reflected upon, it is mostly done in terms of the phenomena as they arise in the present. In contrast, modern psychology and therapy seems to put a lot of effort and value in trying to understand/recognize the specific historical causes that led to the establishment of any unwholesome trait/behaviour/thought pattern in the first place. For instance, while buddhist practice seems to focus on the arising of craving or aversion, and the understanding of how ignorance makes us to crave/control the external world, modern therapy methods emphazise the importance of knowing the reasons in our past that may indicate when such craving/aversion started to be a part of our habitual way of thinking. Do the specific past historical causes play any role in the buddhist analysis of dukkha? Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

Similarly to [pop psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_psychology) , do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism. Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.