# Which mantra would be most beneficial for my specific recovery situation? I'm a college student dealing with eating disorder patterns, childhood trauma, and social isolation. Currently in therapy + medication, but want to add a daily mantra practice as complementary support. **Background on my struggles:** - **Eating patterns**: Cycles of restriction → binge → shame that developed during adolescence. Food was used as both comfort and expression of care in my family, but within an otherwise difficult dynamic. - **Past trauma**: Experienced physical discipline/violence during childhood for minor mistakes. Still have nightmares and hypervigilance. Even though family relationships have improved significantly, I struggle to trust the changes are permanent. - **Current state**: Social isolation, constant threat-detection mode, negative self-talk patterns. Eating episodes get triggered by perceived social rejection or academic stress. I find myself scanning environments for potential threats. - **Spiritual background**: Currently practicing with a local Plum Village group (Thich Nhat Hanh tradition), so I'm already in the Zen/Mahayana space. **The three mantras I'm considering:** 1. **Om Mani Padme Hum** - Compassion cultivation 2. **Medicine Buddha mantra** - Healing focused 3. **Green Tara mantra** - Protection from fears **My question**: Given my specific trauma pattern (broken safety/protection system leading to hypervigilance and self-hatred), which mantra would likely have the most therapeutic benefit? I think Green Tara would be beneficial for my core issue of feeling fundamentally unsafe in the world, which then triggers the binge cycles when I perceive social threats. But I also wonder if the self-compassion work of Om Mani Padme Hum might be more foundational. Has anyone with similar trauma/eating disorder patterns found one of these particularly helpful? I know this isn't a substitute for therapy - just looking for what might work best as a complementary daily practice. **Note**: I'm already doing weekly therapy + SSRI medication + daily mindfulness meditation. The part in the 12 Step program where you are specifically required to trust in a "higher power" inspired me that maybe I need something like this to. So I wonder if there's anything within the Buddhist framework that could fill that gap. I'm worried about sectarian conflict, though. Is it even okay to practice these Tibetan chants if I'm practicing in a modernized, engaged, mindfulness-focused version of Vietnamese Zen?

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.

Is it fundamentalism if Buddhists believe Buddha's path is the only path, and that all other spiritual traditions or sects are false? And if so, does it exist much in Buddhism? By fundamentalism, I mean a person believing that their path is the only path, for them and others who believe like them. I.e. can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism? Such as an agnostic or a mystic from that tradition?

I have recently been looking into the systematic methods of mediation subjects taught in the Pa Auk tradition and wanted to know if the Thai Forest tradition has a similar systematic course of methods, or if the meditation practice is adapted depending on the student. I do know the tradition is a traditional teacher (preceptor) student relationship for anyone seriously thinking of taking ordination, from Angarika to full Bhikkhu. I cannot seem to find any information on any of the websites from the tradition on what definite meditation subjects are taught, in what order etc. Other than of course the websites having sources of teachings and I know the tradition is based upon the teachings of the Tipitaka. Compared to Pa Auk tradition which is based upon the Vissudhimagga. I suppose this is a question for anyone who studies with, lives within or has stayed as a guest for a certain amount of time within the monasteries within this tradition.

I am a Hindu and I believe that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha in beginning period of Kaliyug and purpose of his incarnation was to avoid sufferings caused in society by misinterpretation of vedas. So,he rejected vedas. > Mahabharat shanti parva Chapter 348 > > Then at the beginning of Kali Yuga he took refuge in the tree of the > king of brahmins He lived in **the house of the king of righteousness > in fear of Magadha He was dressed in brown clothes, shaved and had > white teeth. I, the Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana, shall bewitch men. > The Sudras are enjoyed among the pure when I have attained Buddhahood. > All men will be enlightened and covered with saffron.** At times of Mahabharat ,Krishna told that Dwarka will drown and he will return as Buddha in Kaliyug. ***What I want to ask :Are there any Buddhist sects or subsects that believe that Hindu scriptures particularly the Vedas were true in original form and got interpolated .So,they need to follow new message and reject Vedas so they require change to Buddhism or Vedas were divinely inspired but got misinterpreted /interpolated or lost original form or any similar belief of divine revelation in Vedas .***

I read the following in the internet: > Sheng-yen renders the following teaching of Mañjuśrī, for entering > samādhi naturally through transcendent wisdom: > > > Contemplate the five skandhas as originally empty and quiescent, > non-arising, non-perishing, equal, without differentiation. Constantly > thus practicing, day or night, whether sitting, walking, standing or > lying down, finally one reaches an inconceivable state without any > obstruction or form. This is the Samadhi of One Act. > >[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjushri) What is meant, here, by the five skandhas (five components of life) as: 1. empty? 2. non-arising? 3. non-perishing? 4. equal, without differentiation?

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra describes a cosmos of infinite universes upon universes, mutually containing one another. I know this scripture is taught in Huayan, Chan, and Pure Land sects, but are there any other Buddhist sects that teach this? The Avatamsaka Sutra and these sects teach that infinite universes are connected to a jeweled flower garland or net, and universes reflect each other.

[Orthodoxy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy) in Christianity is the holding to the oldest beliefs. It is of course impossible for the religion not to evolve at all as new questions and there answer have to addressed. The "Orthodox" version is often considered to be the least evolved sect of a religion. Does the concept of Orthodox apply in Buddhism?

Is Huayan Buddhism the one that teaches about infinite universes being held on a jeweled flower garland, or is it another branch/sect of Buddhism?

How many types of sects like Mahayans, Hinayans,Vajrayana are there in Buddhism? How did they come into Buddhism? To my knowledge Buddha never talked about any sort of 'yans'. Who created these 'Yans'? What was the necessity of creating these 'Yans'?

To my limited knowledge, in Zen, it is believed that anyone can be enlightened(if dedicated enough). Does everyone have this potential in other branches of Buddhism? Can everyone achieve this through meditation? Is this what is meant by Buddha nature? Is it exclusive to humans(is language necessary?)

Metta, According to Buddhism, the soul is absent but karma is there. How it's possible without Soul, Karma would present. After the death, due to the karma of a person, he will rebirth. If the soul is absent how he will take rebirth. 2nd doubt, In Buddhism there are 2 Sects. In Hinayana - Acceptance the teaching of Buddhism. In Mahayana - Acceptance of Idol of Buddha. My question is Buddha is a God or Preacher. Eh Ma Ho, SURESH BABU

What's the history behind this? I am assuming non-Theravada monks eat after noon, and use money. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, why do the sects differ in this manner?

Apologies in advance if this is something you see often. I've been interested in Buddhism for a year now. I've read what I could find and do intend to read more. It seems Buddhism is like a tree, with each branch representing a different sect, and each leaf representing a different school. I'm not making sense I bet. Anyway, since I'm 100% new to Buddhism and realise I don't know up from down regarding it, maybe someone here can set me straight. I'm asking which sect/branch would be right for me. I can't find much information on the differences, as the articles I've read emphasize the sense of community across all sects and schools. Which is fine! I'm not here to create a schism. Just here to start on the path that is best suited for me. I'm big on self-improvement, so I guess a sect with that emphasis would be best for me. More information if requested. Thanks again.

Are some of the Suttas we have today different from the original Suttas as taught by the Buddha? Are there any surviving pre sectarian Buddhist sources and commentaries? What research has been done on pre sectarian Suttas?

what's the distinction between Dharmaguptaka and Mahayana? I know that the former is an ordination lineage with specific vinaya as distinct from Theravada ordination, but I don't understand where Mahayana may encompass Dharmaguptaka, or where Dharmaguptaka may encompass Mahayana, or neither. I would be interested in a Venn-diagram type of answer, and similarly for the same question asked of Mulasarvastivada and Vajrayana. In the same way, is Theravada both an ordination lineage and a sect? Is the question valid?

Every major religion has several different belief systems (sects) that have the same general core belief, but have a significant enough different to have be separated from each other. What are the major (3-10) sects of Buddhism? How are they different from each other?