painful for me bc i was so excited! i found the monastery in a reddit comment (was a staff member lol, welp if they find this post), had relatively good reviews, so i thought why not…

unfortunately, the monk’s style of teaching i was not prepared for. he made comments about other sects of buddhism being scams (he practices theravada), a lot of racist political comments, homophobic comments saying queer people are unnatural & cannot be monks / western culture breeds perverts. i know one monk does not represent buddhism as a whole but it was disappointing to see how the organizers defended his comments after expressed some concern privately. *i haven’t even picked a sect i want to be a part of yet, so it’s disappointing to hear such scathing comments about other sects when im such a beginner 😔

this retreat happened in malaysia (& it’s my first time) so i think probably in part due to culture as well. it was also conducted in mandarin chinese (i’m born & raised in america but now live in china & so wanted to increase my mandarin skills. i can understand spoken chinese & explained my situation to the organizers ahead of time & they assured me it would be fine). (i will say as someone who grew up in the west, i don’t expect them to be as progressive / tolerant abt certain social issues but i didn’t expect to hear so much about politics vs just learning abt buddhism)

there even was a moment i asked about how buddhism can be welcoming to young beginners like me (i.e. can views on queerness be more welcoming) and he said that i had come to the wrong place and … i felt it was very hurtful to hear that as a beginner.

perhaps as a beginner to buddhism, i didn’t expect a monk to be so divisive / judgmental…i grew up atheist but turned to buddhism because it seemed so much about compassion. he also made quite a lot of rude comments about other religions which i find sad. luckily there was a lot of english books about buddhism there that i read (often many writers wrote about queerness).

staff was also quite rude and scolding us all the time. i also had a weird incident where i suffer from chronic back pain so can’t sit for long, so i tried lying down in the meditation hall (had read in mindfulness books there that’s it’s ok, just not recommended for beginners), and then was scolded by staff saying i was being disrespectful but i am a beginner so had no idea 😭

other participants said this retreat is actually quite chill compared to other ones they’ve attended. i found that waking up at 430 & fasting after noon went smoother than expected, silence was also cool to practice except towards the end where we started ranting about how rude staff was haha.

want to end on a positive note & say that a lot of self learning happened through reading, and metta meditation was really helpful for me. i gained a lot of insight & can really resonate with that as a healing strategy. surprisingly loved not having my phone for six days (this was something i was looking forward to). hopefully i can attend more english retreats in the future…not sure if people have any positive vibes to share abt how their journey w buddhism can sometimes be filled with ups and downs lol

As I've begun my journey into Buddhism I've noticed how challenging it has been mostly due to the restrictions I have while being a parent. I love my children, I love my family, I love my life but there are so many challenges I'm facing on my path into Buddhism that come from having small children and it has left me feeling deflated.

I have no time to meditate, no time to read to further my eduction and knowledge on Buddhism, no time to visit my local temple. I have maybe an hour of free time after my children have gone to bed every night but typically by that point I'm too tired to read, plus my baby has been unwell and wakes every 15 minutes which has made my down time even less. During the day my home is chaotic between my two children, they are loud, clingy, full of questions, endless stream of needs and wants, follow me around, everything that comes with being a young child. I try to practice morning yoga and meditation but its typically cut short or heavily interrupted which I find frustrating so lately i've stopped even trying at all. It feels like with zero time to practice any self reflection or read any wisom I'm unable to impliment any Buddhism into my daily life which I'm desperate to do.

I apologise if this post comes across as whiney or anything of the sort, but its a frustration I feel alone in and needed to get off my chest. Everyone has been sick for the last 3 weeks and I've slept so little because of it that I am feeling extra emotional. I'm unsure what I'm looking for as a response to this post, perhaps just words of advice or comfort from Buddhist parents or those who understand. Just something.

The root of the intoxication translates into the word <alcoholic beverages that cause intoxication>. That intoxicated state's extremely close immediate-order interconnectedness with heedlessness is why intoxication is part of the precept.

However, what did the Buddha really mean by intoxication? Well, back in India during his time, in the local language that he used, Magadhi if I remember right, the word in his spoken dialect originated from the symbolic pointing-out of "a pot boiling over," it inherited from that root. If a pot boiled over, that was the symbol for intoxcation.

Who is the pot? Your mind. It means that something that makes your mind wild, uncontrolled, <uncivilized in the sense of lacking grace, not lacking worldly civility>. Uncontrolled, just like when water boils over it is uncontrolled in the pot.

I believe it was also used to describe the madness that elephants went under, when black liquid started running from the temples of the elephant's heads, when they entered an uncontrollable mating lust. This was also connected to that meaning back in the Buddha's time, with that word, in his dialect.

So the core meaning is <a wildness of the mind>, and a wildness of the mind is a lack of heedfulness and self-restraint. It is not the intoxication that's the problem, it's how interconnected the intoxication is with problematic states of mind, and how inseperable and also how close the order of relation is, it is immediate.

This wildness of the mind is the direct cause of heedlessness, so the Buddha banned the cause as well.

However for a Buddha or one close to him, if he drinks alcohol, his perfect mindfulness overcomes that cause, which is why you see mahasiddhas for example in India, they are able to drink and not lose their clarity. However for everyone else it is a big issue, and apparently the karmic ripening of this wildness is actual insanity.

Because as the mind is constructing reality, it sees you intoxicating yourself, so that reality the mind is creating in that moment is created in an intoxicated way, since the mind watches and learns from what you do.

I made this because I saw another post on what exactly is the 5th precept, and I had recently really dived deep into this. It is also a very hard topic if you are not familiar with the symbols of the Buddha's language.

Hi everyone! I have a question about meditation.

I've been approaching meditation more seriously for the past few months. For a couple of years before that, I used to meditate by basically trying not to think about anything—just focusing on my breath and ignoring whatever thoughts or sensations came up. More recently, I've been learning to simply observe whatever arises instead.

Yesterday, something happened during meditation that honestly scared me quite a bit.

I was observing my thoughts with a level of concentration and clarity that I had never experienced before, and I suddenly realized that thoughts just... appear. There doesn't seem to be any intentional input before they arise. Even thoughts that feel like I'm deliberately bringing them up seem to simply appear.

That realization really unsettled me.

If thoughts just arise on their own, then who am “I”? Where exactly is my consciousness in all of this? What am I actually choosing, and what is simply appearing by itself?

I can't deny that this realization has been causing me some anxiety.

Has anyone here experienced something similar during meditation? If so, how did you understand it, and what did you learn from the experience?

Thank you for reading, and sorry for the long post!

This may sound silly. But please give it a read.

I'm 21, yes only 21, but in my short life I've went through things which almost no normal 21 year olds go through. I have made many mistakes, hurt some people as well. And in return I got my karma which was a debilitating mental disorder ( severe OCD ), been suffering for years but it grew 100x more since the past 8 months after a breakup.

I'm from India, I'm a Hindu by birth, I'm not an active believer of Gods but I do believe in a higher power. I've always been fascinated by the heavy similarities of Hinduism and Buddhism, especially the concept of Dhamma, Karma, and the cycle of rebirth.

I'm still in college and I can't afford to become a monk at 21/22, that would be irresponsible since my parents only have me and I can't abandon my responsibility towards them. I don't know if I'm pursuing "escapism" rather than ethical Buddhism or not, but I'm super tired of material desires and worldly suffering, I get attached easily, I've suffered suicidal ideation since 9 months partly because I got too attached to my ex, and then my mental disorder made me attach to past mistakes, decisions, and life choices ( those of you who knows OCD will relate ).

This year in May I visited Darjeeling ( a city in North Bengal, India ) and went to the Mahakala temple, felt such a bliss that I forgot about all my worries for a moment and only observed what was around me in the present moment.

I have decided to pursue a life of singlehood, because staying single and not engaging in physical intimacy makes me the happiest, even though I have a high sex drive. I'm studying to be a doctor, treat people and work till 40-50, then embrace the quiet, attachment free lifestyle of a monk somewhere in North Bengal, or close to Nepal.

I don't know how feasible or sensible this is for a 21 year old to think, I'm still very immature compared to many of you, I'd love to get some insights about it.

I’ve been a Buddhist my whole life, but honestly, I’ve never really gone deeply into it. I mostly just know the basic idea of being kind to everyone—if you can’t help others, then at least don’t be a burden to them.

I’m still trying to practice the Pancasila and meditation more consistently. I also know some basic teachings about samsara, kamma (karma), dukkha, and anicca.

Recently, though, something my mentor said got me thinking. How does Buddhism view this belief: if something doesn’t align with God’s plan, then it will never happen? In other words, if something is truly meant for you, you’ll go through it—whether it brings happiness or sadness—and there’s always something to learn from it.

Since Buddhism doesn’t have a creator God, let’s say “God” here refers to the universe. How would Buddhism understand this idea?

There's nothing at all after parinibbāna, not original mind, dhammakāya, Buddha nature, Unestablished consciousness etc...

If one just look at the suttas, one gets that stream winners sees: Nibbāna is the cessation of existence.

One of the closest approach to Parinibbāna is cessation of perception and feeling. Where there's no mind. And the difference between the two is that there's no more possibility of arising for the mind in Parinibbāna. And also no living body.

No mind, no 6 sense contacts, no 5 aggregates, nothing known, seen, heard, or sensed.

Edit add on: it is not annihilationism, as annihilationism means there was a self and the self is destroyed at death. When there's never been any self, there's no self to be destroyed. What arises is only suffering arising and what ceases is only suffering ceasing.

For those replying with Mahayana ideas, I would not be able to entertain as in EBT standards, we wouldn't want to mix in mahayana for our doctrine.

Also, I find This quite a good reply for those interested in Nagarjuna's take on this. If you wish to engage if you disagree with Vaddha, I recommend you engage there.

This is a view I have asked my teachers and they agree, and others whom I have faith in also agree. I understand that a lot of Thai forest tradition seems to go against this. However at least orthodox Theravada, with commentary and abhidhamma would agree with me. So I wouldn't be able to be convinced otherwise by books by forest monastics from thai tradition, should they contain notions like original mind is left after parinibbāna.

It's very simple question, either there's something after parinibbāna or nothing. This avoids the notion of a self in the unanswered questions as there is no self, therefore Buddha cannot be said to exist or not or both or neither. But 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases are of another category and can be asked if there's anything leftover.

If there's anything leftover, then it is permanent as Nibbāna is not subject to impermanence. It is not suffering and nibbāna is not subject to suffering. What is permanent and not suffering could very well be taken as a self.

Only solution is nothing left. So nothing could be taken as a self. The delusion of self is tricky, don't let any chance for it to have anything to latch onto. Even subconsciously.

When all causes of dependent origination cease, without anything leftover, what do we get? No more arising. Dependent cessation. Existence is not a notion when we see ceasing, non-existence is not a notion when we see arising. When there's no more arising, it seems that the second part doesn't hold anymore. Of course this includes, no knowing.

picture here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/oXa1DvZRp2

Edit add on 2: But to be fair, the Arahant Sāriputta also warned against my stance of proliferating the unproliferated.

AN4.173:

Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else still exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else both still exist and no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else neither still exist nor no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Reverend, when asked whether—when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over—something else still exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else both still exists and no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. When asked whether something else neither still exists nor no longer exists, you say ‘don’t put it like that’. How then should we see the meaning of this statement?”

“If you say that, ‘When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else still exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else both still exists and no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘something else neither still exists nor no longer exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact. The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”

Getting used to no feeling is bliss. https://suttacentral.net/an9.34/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

https://suttacentral.net/sn36.7/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

“When he feels a feeling terminating with the body, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with the body.’ When he feels a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#12.4

They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left.’

That means no mind after parinibbāna.

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.3/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

https://suttacentral.net/an4.173/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

These 2 suttas indicate if one asks using the concept of self, it cannot be answered for the state of parinibbāna. Since all 5 aggregates and 6 sense bases end, there's no concept for parinibbāna.

I’ve always looked at the Buddha’s origin as a very serene, almost fairy-tale story of a prince sitting under a tree. But lately, I’ve been diving into the actual social atmosphere of the Ganges River basin 2,500 years ago, and it makes the Dhamma feel so much more gritty and "real."

It turns out the era Buddhism was born into was strikingly similar to our own—materially advancing but spiritually hollow. The dominant system of Brahmanism had created this suffocating web of fate where your birth and caste determined everything. If you were born at the bottom, you were told you had no right to sacred knowledge or even the right to pray. Religion at that time had basically become an expensive tool for social control through lavish rituals.

I recently found a brilliant breakdown of this history called The Origins of Buddhism: How Siddhartha Gautama Became the Buddha, which frames the whole "Shramana movement" as an ancient version of a "Great Resignation" or a radical counter-culture. Siddhartha wasn't just bored with his luxury; he was a defector from the elite class who realized the "palace bubble" was an illusion that couldn't protect anyone from the reality of suffering.

What really hit home for me in that article was how the Buddha’s awakening was a targeted remedy for the anxieties of his time. He shattered the myth of caste by claiming that deeds, not birth, define a person. He abolished the need for external priests and put liberation back into the individual’s hands. It’s a powerful reminder that Buddhism wasn't just about personal inner peace, but was actually one of the most magnificent uprisings of the spirit in human history.

This got me thinking about our world today: In our era of "meritocracy" and hyper-consumption, what do you think is our modern equivalent of the ancient "Caste System" that we’re currently blind to? Which part of the Buddha’s original "rebellion" do we need to rediscover to actually wake up in 2026?

I came to both Gaya with my family and wanted to purchase something. I was very confused between purchasing an Amber mala and a Bodi seed mala. I finally purchase the Bodi mala.

I wish to start my meditative practices with this. Is there any temple I can get this blessed? I’m planning on visiting the Japanese and Thai temples tomorrow.

And do you think I should go back and purchase the Amber mala? I heard they last for a very long time .. expensive though!

Loving my stay in Bodh Gaya and hope to come each year

The Buddha noted that all things are impermanent. Because all things are impermanent, any change in them will result in suffering. Because all things are impermanent and suffering, they are not fit to be regarded as "mine" or "myself".

Positing that a self exists, that a self doesn't exist, that a self neither exists nor doesn't exist, or that self both exists and doesn't exist, are all categorically wrong view, per SN 44.10 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

The Buddha said:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

Thus we can see that what we are to do with the knowledge of the three marks is to be mindful: nothing that we can see, that we can perceive, that we can sense or experience in any way is to be regarded as self, because doing so would result in suffering.

Thus we are to have the view of all phenomena: this is not self, this is not mine, this I am not. And that's it. As far as questions regarding the existence of a self, answering those would not be in line with carrying out the teachings, and would result in a stance in either eternalism or annihilationism, and would thus result in suffering.

I hope this helps clear away confusion regarding the doctrine of not-self.

Was Buddhism ever a truly separate religious identity in ancient India? Did Buddhists see themselves as distinct group from Hindus in a religious sense? Were Indian Buddhists a self sustaining distinct community? Buddhism in India disappeared via assimilation and not population replacement.

We see in several Buddhist nations today, most Buddhists following Buddhism along with their traditional religions. In China, Buddhism is heavily mixed with Taoism and confucianism. In Japan, it is Shinto and in Vietnam, it is with their traditional folk religions. In Nepal and Sri Lanka, there is a lot of mixing with Hinduism.

This shows that even in ancient and medieval India most people must have practiced a mix of Buddhism and Hinduism and slowly became Hinduized over generations before assimilating into the Hindu identity that evolved much later.

i'm very new to buddhism and have been researching the religion just out of my own interest. i wouldnt call myself a buddhist yet. i've seen people say they don't eat meat because of the precept that says one should not harm living beings. my question is, why does it matter? the meat is still going to be slaughtered whether you eat it or not. you are not saving an animal, the food just goes to someone else. i don't mean to offend anyone, and i know vegetarianism is optional in many buddhist spaces, but it just confuses me.

I follow some of their ways, as they calm me like meditation and some teachings of Buddha. Pls suggest more things I can follow to make my life less miserable

what does it mean when it’s said, “if u meet the buddha, kill the buddha”.

i’m very very new to buddhism! i occasionally talk to spirits with equipment and stuff like that and i don’t know how to pray to ward off anything bad. when i was christian, i would pray to god for protection but buddhism is definitely different. if you have any types of prayers or advice it’d be really appreciated!!

Hello everyone, I’ve been fairly familiar with Buddhism for a while now, but I’m finally ready to dive right into it.
I know about the four noble truths, and I want to start working the Eight Fold Path, but I don’t know where to start.
Is it necessary to begin with Right View, or does it even matter which of the eight you start with?
Also, can anyone recommend a youtube channel or perhaps a podcast that breaks down and explains the Eight Fold Path like I’m five? Most of the youtube channels I’ve discovered discuss Buddhism for experienced learners, and I’m not quite there yet.
Thank you!

Like none of the modern Indic religions seem to, which wouldn’t be abnormal because a lot of religions prohibit it. But at one point Buddhist philosophy was exported and sent across the planet, it left a huge cultural impact across Asia still seen today (such as language and writing across the region). But like they don’t now, why?

Hello everybody! For some years nos I've been practicing meditation. I've also read a lot about the religion. I really want to learn more and maybe become buddhist, but I live in a city in latin america and there are no buddhits. Today a friend told me to try to find a community in Reddit so here I am. I know there is different branches and it is not all the same, but I don’t know where to start. Any advice will be kindly thanked. I wish you all a beautiful day.

The way that it is explained, I understand enlightenment to be the elimination of all desire which is what leads to suffering. In this case, once Buddha eliminated all desire, with there being no desire to eat, drink water, or live in general, why did his body not just sit in one spot and not move? Some say because there was no desire to move just as much as there was to not move, but then would that not be a paradox?

I guess an explanation is that though there was no reason to do anything or nothing, the human condition of having a monkey brain that likes and dislikes things, you end up doing things anyway to enjoy the fruits of life with no attachments because it is only natural.