I see that Buddhism is absolutely not nihilism, but I wonder what could go wrong if one misconstrue one with another. This is especially true with people with psychological issues, because they have to experience an amount of suffering more than normal when they are young. For example, for persons with [borderline personality disorder](https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions/Borderline-Personality-Disorder) , they constantly has these feelings: - Extremely fear of being abandoned - Unstable self-image In this example case, since Buddhism teaches that acknowledging everything is impermanent you won't be afraid of being abandoned. The unstable self-image also matches with the idea of anatman, therefore the idea of impermanence will have a strong impact to them. But in fact, this is just clinging on the idea of impermanence. Many people with psychological disorders knows that they are the trouble, so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them. To justify this behavior, they may use nihilism. But when it become a habit, it's really hard for professional therapists to help them, because they now have a reason to continue the behavior. I know you may not have much understanding on such cases, but I'm not asking about it either. I just want to know that if someone is misconstruing Buddhism with nihilism, then what suttas/teachings they contradict with. Note that my understanding on philosophy is not very concrete. It's possible that I should replace "nihilism" with "impermanencism".
Related: • [Is Buddhism Nihilistic?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25409/13525) • [How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8748/13525) • [Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2245/13525) • [Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31353/13525) • [When would a Buddhist want to attach?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31324/13525) • [Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31296/13525)

I often see in some suttas that there are some habitual tendencies that, after the arising of pleasent feeling or painful feelings, lead to suffering due to passion for the pleasure and aversion for the pain. But beside those two modes of feelings, there is a neutral kind of feeling, which neither-pleasent-nor-painful. In the suttas, such as MN 44 and MN 148, it is stated that neutral feeling accompanied with ignorance leads to suffering, because one does not see the gratification, the danger and the escape from suffering. I do understand the reasoning behind the two former modes of feelings and their relation with passion and aversion, but I can't grasp the idea behind neutral feelings and ignorance. Can someone explain the influence of ignorance over neutral feelings and its connection with suffering? Maybe some examples from the suttas or from everyday life might be helpful. Thanks for your time and patience!

Some people are obsessed with making a great personality and revolutionary like the Buddha a follower of their own faith by making baseless, historically inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. One such claim is that Buddha was a Hindu Yogi who actually preached Vedanta. How do I refute this claim?

The question says it all. I'm not much familiar with either. I've read the book of Tao a few times and have read a few Buddhist scriptures. To me they seem so different and so alike at the same time, but I barely have any surface knowledge to draw any conclusions.

I have noticed that when I write spontaneously, a lot of insight occurs. By this, I mean ideas flow in a manner generating many positive emotions as awe, joy, and movement. **In Buddhism, is such creative insight considered what is typically called 'insight' (e.g. insight meditation) or is the Buddhist version of insight something entirely different?**

I guess (perhaps I'm wrong) that humans and life in general tend toward [homeostatis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis) -- i.e. wanting to stay the same as before -- and not just physically but socially and mentally too, e.g. to keep what you have and avoid what's new. An "avoiding extremes" doctrine might encourage that. The [theory of 'flow'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)) in psychology suggests that people want to engage in activities which are not too boring but also not too challenging. I think that school-teachers are aware of that phenomenon, and school-children become trained (habituated) to it. But however useful or pleasant that may be, perhaps that (i.e. the pursuit or maintenance of that 'flow' state) is just samsara. Does Buddhist doctrine challenge this? Or endorse it, use it? Wikipedia says, > In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time. > > Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in 1975, the concept has been widely referred to across a variety of fields (and is particularly well recognized in occupational therapy), though **the concept has existed for thousands of years under other names, notably in some Eastern religions, for example Buddhism**. > > The flow state shares many characteristics with hyperfocus. However, hyperfocus is not always described in a positive light. Some examples include spending "too much" time playing video games or getting side-tracked and pleasurably absorbed by one aspect of an assignment or task to the detriment of the overall assignment. In some cases, **hyperfocus can "capture" a person**, perhaps causing them to appear unfocused or to start several projects, but complete few. Can you comment on either of the highlighted statements from a Buddhist perspective? Also perhaps this is related to my previous question, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31442/254 -- I guess that 'flow' might help you to do things, even useful things, even things you might not do otherwise, like your maths homework at school -- I'm not sure it's a useful tool (or habit) for handling aversion however, i.e. any activity which takes you "out of the zone" is something you might avoid.

I think Andrei might have commented once that the suttas are mostly about (liberation from) *lobha* (including craving and attachment) as a problem, and Mahayana is about *dosa*. That's probably an approximation but, even so, what is to be learned about that from Mahayana? I can think of two possible examples ... - Teacher tells you to do things you don't want to do - Breaking "taboos" in some real though perhaps harmless way, e.g. dipping the top of your finger in alcohol and licking it ... but anything else, in general or in particular? Some related question might include: - I'm especially interested in the type of aversion that would cause you to avoid what might be good for you-and-others, rather than a type of aversion that manifests as anger or hatred. - If *nibbida* is meant as an antidote to *lobha* then is there a corresponding antidote to *dosa*? Or should *nibbida* be an antidote to both? --- I'm aware of this topic -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/4057/254 However that seems to be quite "descriptive" (of what's happening) -- rather than "practical", "actionable", or "prescriptive". Can an answer to this question address more of the latter? Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote ... > If you want an *abhidhamma* answer, you have to speak in *abhidhamma* terms. "Wishing for pain to go away" is a *sutta* statement. It involves a wisher, and describes a *sutta* action. ... so perhaps in asking this question I was hoping for more of a *sutta* answer.

Thích Quảng Đức was a monk who immolated himself to protest against the repression by the Vietnamese government in 1963. It was filmed how he adopted the full-lotus posture an fire was set on him. The picture which was awarded the Pulitzer was known worldwide. In that video he does not show any signs of pain at all and he doesn't seem to be under the effect of any drug. It is said this is some sort of deep meditation or self-hypnosis technique nevertheless Hypnosurgery lacks of scientific evidence. Plenty of other monks even younger have committed self-immolation in Tibet to protest against the Chinese occupation. A lack of fiscal pain is a common trait. Is there more information on how this technique is done, it's difficulties and knowing that some Buddhist organizations are collaborating with modern neuro-science is there a scientific explanation for this and its possibilities or medical potential to treat chronic pain diseases? Video here watcher discretion advised

I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway. So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is. Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki > life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Is satipatthana a synonym for vipassana? If not, what is the difference between both?

In the 12 *nidānas* or 12 links of dependent origination , it's clear that the arahat has overcome craving, clinging and ignorance. Craving (*tanha*), clinging (*upādāna*) and ignorance (*avijjā*) have completely ceased for the living arahat. Question: However, for a living arahat, what happens to the *nidānas* of mental formations (*saṅkhāra*), consciousness (*viññāṇa*), name-and-form (*nāmarūpa*), sixfold sense base (*saḷāyatana*), contact (*phassa*), feeling (*vedanā*), becoming (*bhava*) and birth (*jāti*)? I understand that there are different interpretations to the standard model of dependent origination, including the across-three-lives interpretation (traditional Theravada), mind-moment interpretation (Theravada Abhidhamma), birth-as-arising-of-self-view interpretation (Buddhadasa?) and the impressions (sanskaras) plus naming-and-forming interpretation (Mahayana). Answers to this question are welcomed from all the different interpretations.

I recently became more consistent with focused breathing meditation. I feel that since I practice, I tend to fall into such breath-focused meditation while walking, on public transport, etc. Yet, this type of practice is both much less focused than formal sitting, *and* it seems to inhibit otherwise free thought which I used for creative purposes. **Is there a drawback to constant focused-meditation?** Clearly, some times are needed to contemplate situations. **How does one know how to balance focused-meditation and other types of attention?**

I have a very simple question. Sometimes, I visualize in compassion meditation without feeling anything for the whole session. Sometimes, I feel a lot of affect and start even crying. **Should one focus on/have the emotional sensations in compassion meditation for it to be efficient, or is visualizing -- even without emotion -- enough?**

A man said to the Buddha, "I want Happiness." Buddha said, first remove "I", that's ego, then remove "want", that's desire. See now you are left with only Happiness. If the story given above true? If not why not?

I know how many of you feel about guided meditations, but I am introducing meditation to some fellow university friends, and one of them is telling me he is having an incredibly hard time while sitting in silence. He asked me for some audio guided meditations so that he can ease his way into silent meditation, and still be able to sit with us. I have never used one before, so I have no idea. Would you have any to recommend?

I am in an odd situation. Someone I know, who was my friend, now seems to have developped feelings towards me. I wish to give her space, but we are in contact electronically and text. She is extremely distraught by this situation. I cannot help but feel angry when she messages me, for various reasons. I feel that sometimes, the best answer for me is to remain silent. But in doing so, she feels ignored, and suffers. **What is the best course of action in a situation like this? Is ignoring someone wrong speech in this case?**

We know there are already hundreds of studies with promising results. State of enlightenment is already documented and can be measured. So I am asking whether exists some resources or even a curriculum of best practices that lead enlightenment and are supported by scientific research.

I recall reading, though I do not remember where, that jains and buddhists refrain from masturbation *because it could cancel/hinder their spiritual progress.* I somewhat wonder: **Does engaging in coarse pleasures as gluttonous eating or sexuality actively *undo* spiritual progress and virtue, or does it merely consist as a distraction and waste of time?** Thank you

I’m wondering if most monks would go 99 pct of time with no mind wandering, just focus on breath.

Just like the title my question is as simple as it gets. Please give your thought as short as possible. I just wanna confirm my idea.