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.

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!

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.***

This question may seem a little new age. I am often discouraged in my life in general by the belief that I want more, nothing specific, but something is missing, perhaps a more meaningful life. Could this be attachment or thirst for an abstract idea? Can we be attached to the objects of the 6th consciousness? It's not obviously causing me to suffer physically or psychologically, perhaps in a subtle way, and it may be the suffering of change as it manifests to the 6th consciousness and its attachments. Any ideas? FTR I ***definitely don't blame*** - Buddhist - religion for that, even having had religious psychosis. It is just the mundane sense that my past is a disappointment and there's nothing I can do to shift my future into something better than that.

In grade school while in class, children would sometimes shoot paper darts with a rubber band at someone sitting in front of them. Often the class would end and all would be forgotten. However, if the harassment went on for a long time, the child in front would get so irritated, and they would snap and do something violent to whoever was harassing them. Of course, the teacher would only see/hear the violent reaction and would get no backstory about what led up to it. And the victim would end up looking like the bad person. From my perspective, in addition to being angry at the person harassing them, the victim is also frustrated at themselves for losing control after being provoked. What does Buddhism have to say about this? A victim might intellectually try to resolve their problem by saying that all is "maya", but their anger would still be real. There is still an "I" that is being harassed. When fists can't resolve the problem, what other approaches can one use?

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 the story of Prince Nanda, He equal the most beautiful female humen on earth to a died monkey as compared with a women from higher realm. Lord Buddha said that The king of all earth is like a beggar in the heaven. Are there more other detailed comparisons between humens and people from higher realms ? I'm asking this because, I don't feel much suffer about this life. Life is going ok. But, If we compare the typical humen life to the life in heven, This is lot of suffering. Because, People of heavens doesn't need to do hard jobs. Some of them don't do any job. Brahmas don't get hungry. So, Having a better understanding of higher realms may helpful to understand suffering of this world.To avoid pursing physical things (Because richest/luckiest/happiest person is nothing compared to the heaven, most valuable thing/achievement is nothing compared to the heaven) Kind regards.

Are the heavens and hells in karamdhatu meant to be physical places? I was looking at the abhidharmakośa-bhāsya, and Vasabandhu lists 20 places: 8 hells; 6 heavens; pretas; animals; physical world; and the circle of wind (I'm fairly sure the last one is also a "place" -- sthana). You might think that these are all physical because e.g. animals live among us, but just as the desert is the place of some hell beings (not being included in the main hells, due to not being created through the "force of the actions of beings"), animals primarily live in the "Great Ocean". So I reckon that the heavens and hells are not physical, even-though rebirth there inlcludes all five skandhas, descriptions of suffering there refers to bodies, etc.. Am I right, and if so does that mean they lack the organs of the eye etc.? I am asking not because I want to underplay the suffering of hell beings etc. (avici *is* worse than the desert) but because I'm interested in whether suffering is different there insofar as bodhisattvas, when unmoved by their own suffering in hell, might be better off than they are with the vicissitudes of physical suffering in this human place.

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?

In the [Lokavipatti Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html) the 8 worldly dharmas are pleasure, pain, fame, disgrace, blame, praise, and gain, and loss. The Buddha also says the noble ones experience all of those but don't rebel against the loss etc. and don't welcome the praise etc. In the [Sallatha Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html) , the Buddha says that noble ones experience physical pain but don't follow it with mental pain. This leads me to wonder: if noble ones don't have mental pain following physical pain, it would seem they don't experience loss, blame, and disgrace as mental pain either. But how do they experience it? Is it a physical pain? In psychology they say that a broken heart over a loss literally hurts the heart, i.e. those freakish cases where a person dies of grief when their wife dies. Does a noble one then feel physical pain when they are blamed, disgraced, hurt, or at a loss? Or perhaps everyone does but often run-of-the-mill people only notice the subsequent mental pain, whereas a noble one only feels the first half with no mental pain at all.