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?

Please give a clear simple example of how this looks in a practical way without quoting suttas. I just want a practical example. Thanks > The object of consciousness, or mind-object, that arises has to be of > ultimate reality, not conventional reality. We must be able to > differentiate between what is absolute reality, or paramattha dhamma > and what is conventional reality, or sammuti.

My question is subtle. When we meditate we move our body because of some physical pain . My question is why its so painful to keep my mind on breath . Its not physical pain then what type of pain we face when we try to keep our mind on beath away from distraction.

I read the following on the internet: > Perhaps, we can infer from the above that the Dha**m**ma is easy to follow > for those who had little dust in their eyes, keen faculties (i.e. > intelligent), with good attributes (i.e. good habits), easy to teach > (i.e. respectful, eager to learn and diligent) and **seeing disgrace > (i.e. a strong sense of shame) & danger in the other world (i.e. fear > of ending up in a bad destination after death)**. This is one angle. In comparison to the above Thanissaro translation and in comparison to the idiosyncratic embellishments bracketed by the poster, the translation of Sujato is slightly different, saying: > And some of them lived **seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world** (paralokavajjabhayadassāvine), while others did not. > > [Sujato's SN 6.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn6.1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) The relevant Pali above is 'paralokavajjabhayadassāvine', which is in locative case. The locative case can mean 'in" but also can more broadly mean 'in relation/respect to'. Therefore, Thanissaro used the translation of "in" whereas Sujato used the translation of "to do with". > The locative denotes the circumstance or site in space (where) or time (when), a person is, or an action takes place; and can generally be rendered by ‘in, at, on, near, among, **in respect to**’. > > [Learn Pali Blog Spot](https://palistudies.blogspot.com/2018/06/palis-system-of-noun-cases.html) > The seventh case (sattamī = Skr. saptamī) or the loc. serves to denote the where, i.e., the scene of an action. But it is capable of expressing such nuances as are denoted by the English prepositions in, on, at, among, with, by, near, over or **about**. Moreover its employment is not restricted to actual space as normally understood by ‘where’, but extends into other spheres of thought (cp. SS §38.6) Consequently there are various uses of the loc. which can be classified as those denoting, for instance, the varying conceptions of time, of circumstance, of motive, (the nimitta-sattamī of local grammarians), of **relation**, the loc. absolute with its various subdivisions and so on. > > Here as well as in the above type (c.) the loc. is expressive of **relation**, i.e. the thing regarding which... > > [The Locative Case](https://ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Textual-Studies/Syntax-of-the-Cases/07-Locative.htm) Are there any Pali Suttas which explain the meaning of the term "the other world" ("paraloka") to help us clarify the text in SN 6.1 (which the poster on the internet took omniscient privilege to impute their own personal interpretation of)?

I wonder if Buddhism has a concept or teaching surrounding what is happening in my personal practice right now. In my practice right now I want to reduce my focus on things that are certain. It's certain that I am typing on my phone right now, and breathing in. Then a idea pops up of something relating to the future, and I recognize the uncertainty around any theories surrounding the future. Earlier I came up with theories about craving and other things, and recognized the uncertainty of any such theories. I had many theories about how the mind works in the past but now I see the uncertainty in these theories. I try to synthesize insights based on what I learned from Buddhism but I'm uncertain of the theories in the end. Those mind theories I have are impermanent too, always changing and coming up with a new theory. But now the only certainty is my thumbs hitting my phone. Then a craving pops up and I'm led away from the certainty of breathing. Is there anything surrounding certainty or uncertainty in Buddhism being taught?

Several rules in the Buddhist Monastic Code depend on exact definitions of dawnrise (and noon). As an example, Pācittiya 37, which is the basis of the sixth precept, states: > Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed. Where the "wrong time" is between noon and dawnrise of the next day. Both noon and dawnrise seem to be defined by the position of the sun in the sky. However, in the far north, [polar night](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night) means that some places go months without dawn in the winter. What do monks do in this situation? Surely they don't go that long without eating.

I just get started three days ago. When meditating, I felt hard to breathe and even the lack of oxygen to the brain. I felt my bell and chess were stiff and this intervene me in getting enough oxygen. My posture is right (I so sure about that). How do I overcome it? Should I keep going or find some changes?

Are there visual representations of the Tripitaka? Its threefold division suggests a correspondence of vinaya to "body", sutta to "soul", abhidhamma to "mind", a rather broad correspondence that could be linked to many "threefold divisions" of symbolic language.
So I am asking for artistic works that focus explicitly on the Tripitaka, especially in Tibetan art.

I'm reading Rob Burbea's book Seeing That Frees. The book is about ways of working with emptiness. In the book he says that things lack inherent existence. I'm fairly sure this isnt the same as not been real. Is that right? Can things be real and lack inherent existence? I appreciate the real answer will be to meditate on this but I find exploring the issues more intellectually helpful too.

My mother grows organic vegetables so she doesn't spray pesticides. I warned her that killing snails would add to her karma of taking life; she said, "If I don't kill them, what will I eat?" So she no longer smashes the snails on the ground to kill them — she puts the snails into a plastic bag and throws them in the trash. Is that the right way to handle it?

Let me help you with both: Your English question - corrected: "Is this a natural English sentence, and would native English speakers feel there are any minor mistakes? "To speak incorrectly about something is to lie." Please correct my question if it would make me look foolish on an English Buddhist website!" Claude helped below but I dont know which one is the best? Please help me!

This is an extreme example to really get to the bottom of how permanent attainments are, and how dependent awakened people are to the monastic life. Could an enlightened monk start an office job, where people are both highly competitive and also perhaps abusive, and still retain peace while being productive?

I've been meditating for 1 hour, and I'm planning to extend it to 90 minutes. Will there be any significant change in my experience? Has anyone had a real experience with this? Follow up Why everyone asks to do twice , not once a day? In vipassana 10 days retreat they asked not to go beyond 60 mins as it will lead to different state. That's why I asked. Why it's getting more and more difficult if I am increasing duration?

I am basically an undergraduate Student in a university in Asia. My classes started in the month of August 2025. Now before coming to college, I made my mind in such a way that I decided that I will not speak with others, but instead if anyone asks me anything, then I will reply. But after coming to the college, my friends are repeatedly trying to speak with me and want to make me their friends. But I really don't want that. Not only the friends, but also the teachers of the university are also disturbing me repeatedly. I basically don't want to take the help of others, but the teachers are repeatedly asking me that if you have any questions then please ask. I want to stay alone and silent. But the environment is not permitting to do that. Every time someone is always available to disturb me. Please guide me how to get rid of these things. I want to know: How can I control myself?

So, I have a strong hunch that there must be a root emotional cause of anxiety and not in a worldly manner (*like not related to one's life story*). More like an error in judgment of relation to oneself and others. First candidate that comes to my mind is not being kind towards oneself which produces lack of confidence, which in turn produces anxiety given unfavourable external conditions (*like meeting new people etc.*). I have witnessed meditation to ease anxiety, but only seems like a partial temporary solution. What would be your understanding of the root cause of anxiety, and any possible practices to resolve it on more permanently?

If I do meditation just before and after sleep, will the whole sleep will be counted as a meditation session ? I don't have time, how to make sleep as meditation ? Is afternoon nap permissible according to buddha ?

I find it reassuring to be able to turn to the pali suttas for answers. I happened across comments by users that disparage against turning to the suttas for answers, one describing how it makes one come off as "Buddha's teacher's pet". Some amount of ego-hurt, but also genuine curiousity, makes me question if turning to the suttas for advice and certainty could be counter to reaching attainments. Would appreciate any perspective.

A Pali dictionary says the root of kāma is [√kam](https://dpdict.net/?tab=dpd&q=kam) ' meaning 'desire', 'wishing', 'delighting'. The Pali suttas contain the stock phase about kāma: > Pañcime kāmaguṇā. > > There are these five kāma strings. > > Katame pañca? > > What five? > > Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā > rajanīyā, > > Cognizable by the eye forms, wished for, desirable, agreeable, of endearing form, connected with kāma, leading to lust. > > Yaṁ kho ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ — ayaṁ kāmānaṁ assādo. > > Whatever truly towards these five kāma strings (accusative case), being dependent upon, arise (verb) pleasure & happiness - this is kāma's gratification/enjoyment/taste. > > [MN 13](https://suttacentral.net/mn13/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=true&script=latin) - DD attempted hyper literal translation In English, the term 'sensual' is supposed to mean: > "Sensual" refers to words that express sensations and pleasures that > appeal to the five senses. This term focuses on sensibility and > emotions, mentioning aesthetic charm and how things are felt. Sensual > things emphasize feeling and making others feel. > > For example: > > - Her sensual dance captivated the audience. > > - This sensual fragrance has a relaxing effect. In contrast, in English, the term 'seductive' is supposed to mean: > On the other hand, "seductive" expresses the possession of attraction > or alluring elements. This term focuses on the power to attract others > and attractive elements. Seductive things emphasize evoking people's > desires and interests. > > For example: > > - His seductive smile attracts everyone. > > - That seductive sweet voice is the secret to her popularity. In conclusion: > Thus, "sensual" focuses on sensibility and emotions, expressing > aesthetic charm and how things feel. In contrast, "seductive" > expresses the power to attract others and alluring elements. > > [HiNative](https://hinative.com/questions/24203881) To add: > Sensual - expressing or suggesting physical, especially sexual, > pleasure or satisfaction > > Seductive - making you want to do, have, or believe something, because > of seeming attractive > > [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/seductive) Yesterday, I was pondering MN 115, the sutta about the many types of elements (if fact, i did a 65 minute audio/video on it) and, today, I was attempting to put MN 115 into practice in a certain highly sensory environment, for the sake of developing more clarity about MN 115, My mind sensed the term 'sensual element' was not strongly realistic, pertinent or meaningful in relation to the sense experience or sense impacts because the term 'sensual' implies 'beauty' and thus overlooks the underlying 'defiled', 'oozy' or 'sticky' aspect of kāma. In pondering the sense objects around me, it was not only the operation of my mind's mentality i was attempting to discern; but i was also attempting to discern the kāma dhatu within those very sense objects, particularly the sense of 'expression' or 'assertiveness' or 'need' manifesting from within those sense objects which themselves also have a desire to look attractive and to be noticed. Thus, my mind concluded, the most realistic & pertinent translation of 'kāma' is '[seductivity](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seductivity) '. I guess this post may already be a strong argument however I wish for the opinions of others. What are the pros & cons of 'kāma' translated as 'sensuality' vs 'seductivity'? Note: I am reviewing the translation of each of the elements in MN 115

I can devote 7 hours to ( meditation + sleep ) per day . Should I do 5 hour sleep and 2 hour mediation(1 hour twice) **or** 6 hours of sleep and 1 hour of meditation ?please give reason . will 2 hours increase my productivity (please tell from your own experience, not any bookish knowledge ) Will meditating twice will give me **twice** more benefit than meditating once ?

How can the deliberate discipline of sitting in stillness, which feels like a form of self-bondage, be the very path to ultimate mental and emotional freedom?