What to do ?

Feel like i get affected often by it.

What should >I< do. In this >situation<

He has a negative life sight,

He thinks everything is bad world is hard etc but i think everything is good beautiful and amazing, world is a peaceful place

I've read part of it, and I vibe with it. Thoughts?

I have been exploring my Spirituality. I am financially stuck like even though I see fortune in front of me somehow I miss it not because I am unable but something inside like fear holds me back.

Multiple posts I see attributing that to past lives where I probably misused my fortune so it's unattainable to me in this life.

How is that so? Why don't I accept the fact that actually my circumstances now got me in this fearful circle of being financially comfortable. Accept that it's my own mistakes rather than an unknowable past life is the reason.

This doesn't make sense to me.

And this leads to my next question, if I would choose to transcend then I have to detach myself from all this materialism. However, in this era right now, is only suicide. It's not like back then where they drop out roam in the vast lands.

There's no way that you can just say well it's not for me, I detach myself from my family and their needs, and from my debt and from my home and rent and bills etc. I am free no more materialism.

And this leads to my next question, still pursue higher consciousness while also live, but this can't be. You can't be divided. The moment you choose to live and work is the moment where you have to partake in all kinds of humans emotions which conflict with higher consciousness.

Hi! I'm new to Buddhism and am learning the 4 noble truths. The second noble truth states that the desire for non-becoming is a cause of suffering. That is, the desire to see a particular becoming come to an end.

How is this different from the the desire to end suffering (by achieving enlightenment), which is the goal of Buddhism practice? Wouldn't the desire to end suffering bring about more suffering, which becomes an endless loop (i.e. samsara)?

Thank you in advance 🙏

As a Mahāyāna practitioner, I am on the Bodhisattva Path, but am only really familiar with the Arahant Path. I know, I should be more familiar with the process of becoming a Bodhisattva, but I’ve not been buddhist very long.

What exactly are the differences and similarities? Are those on the Bodhisattva Path still aiming to attain Sotāpanna, or is the process different altogether? I know generating Bodhicitta is necessary for the Mahāyāna Path, or the Path of the Bodhisattva, but what does one have to do and how does one go about attaining a state of spiritual development so as to no longer return to the lower realms of existence, or to be “locked in” to the Bodhisattva path, as it were?

If there are any passages, books, sources, or illustrations that are illuminating on this subject, please, share them in the comments. Thank you.

any ideas on how to improve are welcomed

I'm a guy in his late twenties and I've been very interested in spirituality since I was about 18. I got specifically into Buddhism later, in my early twenties.

One problem that I haven't been able to work through since my teenage years has been relationships with women and my sexual frustration. I have very limited sexual experience, and it's getting to the point where each day is painful because of it.

I tend to go through cycles of masturbating then quitting cold turkey, trying to transcend the desire, or to at least cut it off for a while to minimize the pain.

I feel like I'm caught in a downward spiral, that my sexual frustration has made me bitter, resentful, and sulky... and that in turn makes me less attractive to women... and so my chances of actually having a positive, loving relationship get slimmer as I get older.

Sometimes meditation and being mindful helps, but other times I just feel crushed by these feelings. Maybe I'm not doing enough. I don't know what to do about it.

Please post some links for uncomplicated online-dzogchen teachings since i dont have schools near me

What is the difference between Vajrayana abd tibetan buddhism?

Hi guys, how can I practice Vajrayana even though I have no temples, schools or sangha near me? And what scriptures should I read (preferably free and online)?

Sometimes I’m worried that my history of drug use will prevent me from ever achieving states of bliss and peace through meditation. I’m young and was only doing it for a few years but im sure it affected my brain. I still can feel happiness and joy, but there’s also a lot of sadness, though that could be for many other reasons. I could also be healthier than I am in general, like diet and exercise. Anyway just wondering what others think of this.

Hi all, I wonder if anyone else has experience with self-sabotage, whether work or relationships, because deep down they feel they should become a monk or nun? It just occurred to me today, that whenever things get tough in life, I start to think about throwing everything away so that I can become a monk. It’s like a persistent thought in the back of my mind, because I feel there’s no happiness for me in normal life. I’ve actually unconsciously hurt past partners with some of the more things I’ve said, that has been avoidant attachment disguised as praising the detached lifestyle a monk. I should say that the suffering of my childhood has informed my outlook quite a bit. I don’t have even one happy memory from childhood. So, everything is viewed through the lens of “well it’s all leads to suffering anyway”. Notice the unconscious skew towards a subtle kind of “life = suffering” outlook, which is essentially wrong view. Nevertheless, this intuitive feeling of monkhood being my end goal is so unbelievably persistent.

It’s not the right time for me to ordain, and I especially don’t want to ordain out of aversion to the world and avoidance. And also, there’s a feeling of responsibility towards some deeply-bonded friends; becoming a monk at this time would be like not being available for emotional support. That’s a separate issue, which I don’t think many would understand however.

I'm a single male in my late 30s writing this.

I feel like I have no purpose in my life. I remember when I was younger, I was very ambitious to build a career, gain wealth, and achieve all those typical Western mindset goals. Now that I’ve grown older, I realize how short this life actually is, and that everything you build, you will lose eventually. This leads to a situation where I have no motivation for my job or anything else. I have a good job, enough money, and friends. I’ve traveled a lot, partied, dated, and lived a wild life.

My thinking has turned to something like, “If nothing matters, why even bother?” I know I’m capable of doing things that are probably above average. I have a master's degree from a respected university, but I have zero motivation to do anything. This is my main problem, which makes my life feel very empty and void. What should I do when I don't feel passionate about anything? Life feels like just something I must do, and at the same time, I feel sad that I cannot enjoy this gift called life in any meaningful way.

I'm single with no kids. I care about my friends and especially about my parents, but I also realize they are getting older every day, and someday I will be on my own.

This almost feels like I'm becoming a pure nihilist, if I understand the term correctly. I think Buddhism offers a good way of seeing life because it acknowledges impermanence and suffering. That’s part of why I chose to write this post. However, I don’t understand how to avoid falling into nihilism when I agree with many aspects of Buddhism.

I don’t know if I’m even specifically asking any questions; I just wanted to write this. I would appreciate any comments or if someone has a similar experience to share.

What does happiness mean for you? How does one exercising non attachment and have any significant goals in life? How can we take pleasure in life if we are to not judge the feelings/events of life?

Please help me with this philosophy :)

Unforeseen and unknown

is the extent of this mortal life—
hard and short
and bound to pain.

There is no way that

those born will not die.
On reaching old age death follows:
such is the nature of living creatures.

As ripe fruit

are always in danger of falling,
so mortals once born
are always in danger of death.

As clay pots

made by a potter
all end up being broken,
so is the life of mortals.

Young and old,

foolish and wise—
all go under the sway of death;
all are destined to die.

When those overcome by death

leave this world for the next,
a father cannot protect his son,
nor relatives their kin.

See how, while relatives look on,

wailing profusely,
mortals are led away one by one,
like a cow to the slaughter.

And so the world is stricken

by old age and by death.
That is why the attentive do not grieve,
for they understand the way of the world.

For one whose path you do not know—

not whence they came nor where they went—
you lament in vain,
seeing neither end.

If a bewildered person,

lamenting and self-harming,
could extract any good from that,
then those who see clearly would do the same.

For not by weeping and wailing

will you find peace of heart.
It just gives rise to more suffering,
and distresses your body.

Growing thin and pale,

you hurt yourself.
It does nothing to help the dead:
your lamentation is in vain.

Unless a person gives up grief,

they fall into suffering all the more.
Bewailing those whose time has come,
you fall under the sway of grief.

See, too, other folk departing

to fare after their deeds;
fallen under the sway of death,
beings flounder while still here.

For whatever you imagine it is,

it turns out to be something else.
Such is separation:
see the way of the world!

Even if a human lives

a hundred years or more,
they are parted from their family circle,
they leave this life behind.

Therefore, having learned from the Perfected One,

dispel lamentation.
Seeing the dead and departed, think:
“I cannot escape this.”

As one would extinguish

a blazing refuge with water,
so too an attentive one—a wise,
astute, and skilled person—
would swiftly blow away grief that comes up,
like the wind a tuft of cotton.

One who seeks their own happiness

would pluck out the dart from themselves—
the wailing and moaning,
and sadness inside.

With dart plucked out, unattached,

having found peace of mind,
overcoming all sorrow,
one is sorrowless and quenched.

- Salla Sutta: The Dart

“The Buddha taught like this: “Ananda, practice a lot! Develop your practice constantly! Then all your doubts, all your uncertainties, will vanish.” These doubts will never vanish through thinking, nor through theorizing, nor through speculation, nor through discussion. Nor will doubts disappear by not doing anything. All defilements will vanish through developing the heart, through right practice only.”

-Ajahn Chah

Wanted to share this, as it was a helpful reminder to me that as much as I want to think on and discuss these things, the Buddha would just recommend I practice instead.

I read at some Sangas, there is this expectation and I wanted to get clarification. Thank you for your replies.

Yassou!! Can anyone point me to a good direction for a chant or sutta for my dearly departed? Thanks in advance and may you be well and happy! 🪷

I’m someone relatively new to this whole sphere of thinking and life in any kind of serious way. I’m wondering, what’s the difference between these two.

I understand the concept that “everything changes; impermanence is everywhere”, but stay with me.

A person whose outside life is somewhat the same- same job/lack of job, same stale, perhaps superficial and unsatisfying relationship to their parents, same lack of/unsatisfying romantic relationship or friendships, and same absence of feelings of agency.

It’s easy to acknowledge the macro of macro-constant changes- time, aging, etc.

It’s anywhere from easy to almost shattering to accept/reframe “negative” or undesired change as “simply is” or maybe even positive.

However, what about the things that feel they don’t change? This person meditates, they go about trying to notice and recognize and even have insights. Yet, if for whatever reason they’ve chosen to be in these circumstances because of fear, or the benefit of a loved one, etc., how do convince themselves even those things change when the day-to-day is the same and there’s no feeling it changes? Or not convince themselves, but come to recognize that? Just more sitting?

If someone is a bodhisattva in a past life and decide that they want to reach enlightenment and end the cycle of samsara for themself, can they break their previous vows or are they forced to be in samsara until everyone is liberated?

As in islam other than quran there are hadiths and fiqhs, In Hinduism other than Gita there are Mahabharat, Ramayan, Veds, Upanishads ; what are some important books to know about Buddhism other than Tripitak? It can be anything teachings of Buddhism or Life of Gautam Buddha or Buddhist Mythology.

I guess they keep their own individual mindstreams, but experience a state of union among themselves and with the enlightened qualities of the Sambhogakaya, like compassion and peacefulness. Is it right?

Amituofo lotus friends,

I was wondering if I could get some insight on this as I find it has challenged my understanding of the nature of Buddhahood.

While doing some research on Guanyin (Avalokitesvara), I came across a very interesting tidbit today on this blog:

It is important to highlight that Guanyin had actually become a Buddha known as 正法明如來 (“The Buddha who clearly understands the true law”) in the past. However, in order to make direct contact with sentient beings and lead them from suffering, this Buddha decided to step down and return as a Boddhisattva. This decision is known as 倒駕慈航 (Turning back the Ferry of Compassion).

I'm not sure what to make of this. From my understanding, once Buddhahood is achieved, it is irrevocable and permanent as it is unconditioned. So what gives? What is the difference between Buddhas and Bodhisattvas if fully enlightened Buddhas can choose to "step down" as Buddhas? Please forgive my ignorance and thank you in advance for your input 🙏

"We should go back before going forward. 'Going back' here means going back to the person within ourselves. We have to go back and rely on the island within ourselves first. We have to take refuge in the Three Gems before we can truly be our true person. If we’re not yet our true person, the more forward we try to go, the more we fail.

And for that reason, we have to go back to ourselves so that we can restore the true person in ourselves. Only when we are our true person, can we succeed at going forward.[...]

We’ve already studied the Discourse on Knowing the Better Way to Live Alone. The person who knows how to live alone is someone who knows how to go back to the island within. When we can go back to ourselves, we start to be our true person again. We start nourishing the contents of our ‘true nature’ in ourselves. At this point, we live very deeply. We get to be in touch with ourselves deeply, with our true nature deeply. When we can touch our true nature deeply, suddenly, we can deeply touch the world that we believe to be outside ourselves.

And the Discourse on Knowing the Better Way to Live Alone teaches us to always come back and live in this island within. But living in the island within doesn’t mean totally cutting off from the outside world or from the other person. Once we’ve already come back to the island within ourselves, we become rich, we become solid, we become deep. And thanks to being rich, solid, and deep, we can see the outside world more clearly. We can be able to savor, see, or judge correctly what’s going on in the outside world, the preciousness of the other person and of our community, and the situations in the world out there.

So although it’s called 'going back,' it’s actually 'going forward'. Because without this act of 'going back', there’ll be no 'going forward.' This 'going forward' will always be subject to failure. Only when you’ve already gone back, can you go forward successfully."

Source: https://tnhtalks.org/2022/03/30/go-back-before-going-forward/

For your information I didn't knew what early buddhism tag do so i continued with this.

I'm an young male who is looking to set rule to his life so that i won't go overdrive or slack off.

Is there any text based teachings of buddha(i only know sedharta sorry if i wrote his name wrong) or what he did or didn't(like in bible which featured what jesus did and so on).

Does it restrict having a goal? Does it restrict video games? What does it restrict?

I have only viewed teachings like "there is no becoming clean and no becoming dirty" from an old textbook and got interested in it.

#Third-rate Arguments

Some people who misunderstand or purposely misrepresent Buddhism make extremely substandard arguments to justify their extreme views. They say that since the Buddha propounded the Middle Path, we should remain equidistant from all dichotomous views no matter how nonsensical one maybe compared to the other.

The Buddha in his very first sermon simply told his disciples to be unaligned to both Brahminic pleasure-seeking and Shramanic self-mortification. Some people love to make a deal out of this and expand that logic to literally every single thing. Such arguments are pointless and hazardous in that they creat confusion in the minds of the practitioners. Understanding of the Four Truths, Anicca, Anatta etc. are foundational to the Dhamma.

These people argue however that since we are all followers of the Middle Path we should neither take the view that nothing is permanent nor that something is permanent. This is however, contrary to the Buddha's perfect enunciation of Anicca. They do the same with Anatta and say that there is neither no-self nor self. All this is clearly and simply Wrong View. These people love projecting their own ideas through the Buddha's Voice.

#Self and self

Others with Wrong Views make a big deal out of Anatta and Self and not-Self, non-Self, no-Self and what not. Doctrine of Anatta is simple the rejection of the Brahminic Theory of Atma. You want to know what is being rejected? Read an article about what Atma in Brahminism is. It is simply "Soul". The Buddha is saying in clear-as-sky terms that there is nothing called a Soul. This is even set out perfectly when it is said that there is no possibility of independent existence of the mind apart from the body.

Dependent Co-arising is the philosophical basis on which all this is founded and people seem to not care enough to read about it. You are not any single one of the 5 Skandhas. This requires to be said because the Charvakas argued that you are the Body. The Yoga School said that you are Consciousness and so on. The Buddha is rejecting the views of those schools. And in the end he categorically says that there is nothing that is 'you' anywhere outside these 5 Skandhas either. This means in unmistakable terms that he is rejecting Soul.

So, if you are not any single one of the Five Skandhas and if there is not at all an entity called Soul, then what are you? What or who am I, who is u/raaqkel, the person writing this? I am that which has arisen from the coming together of my Five Skandhas. I don't exist independently of my Skandhas and not one of the Skandhas exists independently of the others. This simple, straightforward idea is made a big deal out of and misrepresented by Perennialists who try to reconcile Buddha, Krishna and Christ.

#Controversial Comments

An important cause for confusion is the translation of the word Atta as Self. No one and definitely not the Buddha is saying that you don't at all exist when he says Anatta. You are definitely here, you are already thinking of what angry comment to reply to me with as you read this. You are your'self' you don't HAVE a self or a Self irrespective of how you want to define those meaningless words.

One of the biggest issues here is that people have been told that Nagarjuna is the greatest philosopher to have ever lived but are also fed a completely wrong interpretation of him. His Doctrine of Shunyata has nothing to do with being Empty. Anybody with an education in basic numeracy in any one of the thousands of Indian Languages, let alone Sanskrit will know that Shunya doesn't mean Empty, it means Zero.

Reading even a little of the Mulamadhyakakarika, a person will easily understand that Nagarjuna (GOAT of Philosophy), whenever he is saying Shunya is arguing that the list of things in this entire universe that is independent, permanent or eternal is Shunya, is Zero. I rephrase, Nagarjuna is saying that not a single thing that exists - is independent, permanent or eternal. He goes on to say that even the Buddha or Buddha-nature is not independent, permanent or eternal.

In the exact same way how the Buddha's Doctrine of Anatta refutes the Brahminic Theory of Atma, Nagarjuna's Doctrine of Shunya refutes the Upanishadic Theory of Brahman. People remove these words for their culture and linguistic context and speak whatever ideas they like into it.

#Namo Buddhaya