So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

Ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Relating to this question, I am curious if it is a usual experience of duhkha that even people in good health, wealth, external circumstances also experience. Does it have a defined name within the factors of duhkha (in theravada terminology) or is it just lumped together as duhkha?

Caucasian skin is peachy and sandy (due to having no pigmentation) while the great man's body in nibbana is, according to the 32 perfections of a great man , "his skin is the color of gold". White skin requires some pigmentation. Currently my journey with white skin represents the Trix rabbit's (1994 commercial) attempt to take his own cereal. All he gets is "silly rabbit Trix are for kids!" And the fact that some saints may have received such a miracle to change their skin color forever makes the pain that much more serious. And what should I do regarding the psychologist? I am visiting one to drain my emotions of this, and that might make my eternity as a yellow man all that much more permanent!

> 'Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.' I'm not sure I like the adjective 'optional' because I think it's insensitive to tell someone who's been injured that their suffering is some switch to easily flip (I don't have an issue with the nouns). I think 'not' is better than 'optional'. Anyhoo, many Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) texts seem to distinguish pain and suffering in other ways such as: - Psychology Today: The Dialectic of Pain: Synthesizing Acceptance and Change > Pain in life is inevitable, but suffering and misery are not. These can result from the way we respond to pain. The more we fight against it, the more likely we are to experience negative emotions, such as anger, hopelessness, and despair, and the harder it becomes to identify changes that can help. Like those Chinese finger-trap toys, the more forcefully we tug to release our index fingers, the more tightly ensnared they become. Calming down and taking stock of the situation opens the means to escape. - Wikipedia: Marsha M. Linehan (this quote has no source as of this writing) > Marsha M. Linehan (born May 5, 1943) is an American psychologist and author. She is the creator of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), a type of psychotherapy that combines behavioral science with Buddhist concepts like acceptance and mindfulness. - And so on.

I hope you are all well. I have been studying Buddhism for a few months and I am very grateful for the teachings. I've visited this website frequently for similar questions and this is the first time I am reaching out to this community. Since bringing Buddhist practices into my life, my relationships have improved, especially with my mother. However, I am finding it difficult to navigate what would be the most helpful or skilful actions for myself and my mother during the suffering she is experiencing at the moment. A bit of background on my mother: she has narcissistic tendencies and since my childhood, has leaned on my siblings and I for her emotional needs especially in times of suffering. I am now 20 years old and the relationship we share I feel is much healthier than even a year ago, as I struggled to understand my own suffering and suffering of others before I began studying Buddhism. My mother is in the midst of a break up with her ex-fiancé and I am the only one she has shared this with in our family unit (I live with her and my younger sibling who is 17 years old). While sharing with me her feelings about this and having my shoulder to lean on, she began sharing things she dislikes about my father and his family (ex-fiancé and my father are different people). I understand the importance of boundaries and I am not sure how to lend a compassionate ear for her during this time while communicating that I cannot be a therapist for her. I recognise that everyone is in care of their own suffering and that it is not your responsibility to alleviate the suffering of someone else, only they can do that. I would like to share compassion with her in a healthy way for both of us as our past had no boundaries, and I had felt that her emotions were my responsibility. In other words, I want to do what I can to support her during her suffering in the most healthy and skilful way for both of us. How would one go about this? I appreciate all comments and advice and I'm happy to go into more detail if you would like. Thanks for reading.

My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family. At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age). But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good." --- So - Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it? - Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth? - Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth? - Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you"). - Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

In several discourses, the Buddha is said to have chosen not to answer certain metaphysical questions, such as whether the soul or a God exists, whether the world is eternal or finite, or what happens after death. He often said that these questions do not lead to liberation or the cessation of suffering, and that his teaching is primarily concerned with understanding and overcoming dukkha, rather than engaging in speculative or philosophical debate. This has been described as the soteriological focus of Buddhism: the Buddha taught only what was necessary for liberation, leaving aside what does not lead to direct insight or release. However, for many people, uncertainty about such questions is itself a source of deep anxiety and suffering. The human mind naturally seeks stability and assurance about its own continuation or fate. - Some people fear the idea that there may be nothing after death, the thought that consciousness may simply cease forever. - Others, especially those raised in theistic traditions, are troubled by the possibility of divine punishment or eternal suffering if they have failed to live or worship their god correctly. - Equally there are also some people from traditions that accept reincarnation who experience distress over the possibility of reinacarnating again and again to unsatisfactory existences or being reborn in lower births such as of animals etc. due to moral mistakes, even those committed unintentionally. Given that existential uncertainty itself can cause real mental distress, how does Buddhism approach this kind of suffering? If the Buddha refused to give metaphysical reassurances, what methods or insights does the Dhamma offer to help a practitioner find peace even amid uncertainty about the soul, God, or the afterlife?

If, according to Buddhist doctrine, it is not the ego-consciousness but merely karmic continuity that transmigrates across rebirths, then on what grounds should one be motivated to seek liberation from saṃsāra? Since there is no enduring self that experiences the cumulative burden or existential drudgery of suffering across lives, and since the sufferings of past or future existences are not personally felt by the present individual, what compelling basis remains for the soteriological urgency central to Buddhist thought?

In my current considerations, there are two options regarding self view and suffering, and I am not sure which one applies. Would appreciate any advice. Option 1: there is a true self that can be deluded into identifying with the aggregates. While there is a lot of talk about how there is no self at all, Zen Buddhism to my understanding teaches that there is a "big I" and "small I", and that the big I should be revealed. The big I in option 1 could have the property "asleep" or "misidentifying". Option 2: it's the aggregates themselves holding self-view which causes suffering *within the aggregates*, and through the Dhamma it is our aggregates that learn to stop holding self view. There is no separate self beyond the aggregates at all, not even realized after awakening nor in a conceptual manner. Which one is correct? Possibly neither of them?

Does the Buddha acknowledge that some people, without the Dharma, suffer more than other people, without the Dharma? I remember a monk talking about how it's a fact that some people are more skilled, better looking, more innately peaceful than others, and that especially those lacking in material attributes should seek to transcend their suffering. I wonder if there's a basis for this opinion in the suttas.

Does the Buddha explain anywhere why the mind is capable to be unskillful and cause suffering for itself in the first place? Specifically, why do we become attached, and why do we crave things? Does the Buddha ever acknowledge that these mechanisms can be helpful? Does he ever describe our ability to become attached or to crave things as mere design errors? Or are these things just left unjudged and taken as axiomatic starting points, without ever trying to describe their origin or their larger place in the world?

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.

As we would all know, the Buddha found/explained that self mortification like extreme fasting is not the correct way to liberation. So is dealing with extreme suffering also not an extreme? If one was in extreme poverty and/or extreme illness would it not be wiser to take the knife? Is there any precedent the Buddha explained in regards to dealing with extreme suffering and/or illness? a level of how much suffering we can or are able to endure? I know there is the story of the monk who took the knife because of extreme illness and the Buddha said he was blameless but he was already a high level attainer (not sure what stage of liberation he was) **EDIT:** wanted to bounty this as the question has not been answered and people seem to misunderstand the question and think it is related to suicide, and tag it as such just because I mentioned about taking the Knife. **The question is about what limits, if any, of suffering we should endure. Is there any precedent about when we should no longer endure suffering because it is too great.** Hypothetically imagining one is homeless, destitute in extreme poverty, starving, no limbs or illnesses akin that cause ones life to be extreme suffering or even extreme mental illness, all family and friends have died of illness or murder. Essentially one has serious negative karma where ones life is full of painful memories and painful present experiences. Is one still supposed to continue to endure such suffering forever. Well until natural death.

Did the Buddha ever said something like this: > What the world sees as pleasure, it is suffering for me. What the world sees as suffering, it is pleasure for me. Or something similar in the meaning, in any canonical texts?

I lost my brother 8 years ago in a tragic accident. He never was interested in dhamma, how to ensure he is alright wherever he is, how to ensure he is doing fine, Will i ever meet him again? How to find out where he is now? Unable to talk to anyone about this.

I often see the first noble truth (*duḥkha*) stated as "life is suffering". I have yet to come across a passage in a Buddhist text which phrases it like this - mostly they don't talk about "life" in this sense. So where does the idea that "*life is suffering*" come from? There's been some discussion about the definition and translation of the word "*dukkha*" also. Is there a definitive definition?

Made a thread that was sorta related on here: Does Teleonomic Matter imply Subjectivity without Identity? Triggered again by this answer: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/78860/88743 and I was sorta triggered further when I read this comic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 By the way I wouldn't recommend reading the comic, might not sleep tonight. But anyway, I've read Buddhism, attended some of the teachings from monks, and talked to Buddhists and the concept that always eluded me was no-self (attachment also but that's something else). I never really understood how it was supposed to be a good thing. That there is no enduring, unchanging essence that we can call me or "I", it's just a collection of causes and effects that is constantly in flux. It's "death" and "rebirth" in a metaphorical sense. To me it sounds like loosing so much that makes us human. No friends because there is no one you are friends with (even if you have friends), you aren't falling in love with someone because there is no "one" you are falling in love with. I can't really say "I like this" or "I wanna do this for a living" because that's not a permanent part of me, can't feel good or proud about myself when I achieve something because there is no one to feel that or celebrate, etc etc. Is it wrong to feel sad if my dog or dad dies because no "one" died? Am I even alive? It's something I try to avoid thinking about because when I listen to it and just view people as a collection of causes and aggregates I just stop caring about them, I can't really explain it. When I see myself like that my emotions just shut off for some reason. So with all that said I'm wondering how this is supposed to be beneficial for someone, let alone society (which I assume is the goal for Buddhism), because so far it's just hurt me and held me back from doing things in life rather than liberating me like they said. IMO Buddhism just feels like a religion that says everything I think and do is wrong, but I digress. I really need help with getting this because it's haunted me for years.

My mother and I have slight issues because she is nagging and controlling (and I impatient). Despite that I love her very much, and I can't stand the idea that she will pass away in a few years; and she will suffer during death and later in a lower rebirth. I start crying every time this comes to my mind. In the moment I feel like leaving my job to go live with her and serve her (*I live in a far foreign country so I see her once a year or so*). Further I think of accepting it as part of life, but nothing comes to mind. I wonder, how is it even possible to be okay with this? Is there no other way but to endure great suffering when it inevitably happens? I wonder how other people deal with this? Do they all go through intense pain or somehow skillfully avoid it (especially buddhist master's who are not affected by this at all)? No matter how many books I read on Buddhism, I find no solutions to this question. Please educate me, as I think it is one of the most important questions of many people's lives.

During the withdrawal period of a non substance addiction (around 1 to 3 weeks), if someone genuinely wants to leave, there is an inner voice which fears missing out and an insecure empty feeling, which craves for that addictive habit. This is due to the person's previous dependence on that addictive habit. This voice gets stronger when the person is not engaged in tasks, for example, sleep, travelling etc. Does Buddhism offer any solution to these withdrawal pangs, from looking for a fix from that addictive habit? Note, this wanting for a fix is temporary, but if not avoided then the person will feel miserable, empty, insecure and this will serve as an excuse to move to the wrong habit. ***So, does Buddhism provide an easy instant and mindful way to change perspective, on such temporary feeling in the withdrawal period? A way to not be deluded by such thoughts and maintain abstinence.***