text:
If buddha never got angry, why do so many buddhist teachers say anger is inescapable?
Some buddhist teachers say anger is inescapable, or even necessary and healthy, are they not enlightened ?

Because teachers, or even if they are arahats, are not Buddha.  They often err or have some imperfection in their teachings.  They may have destroyed all or some of the fetters but they are not perfect as Buddha in Dhamma (both in seeing and how to articulate it).  In Ani Sutta, Buddha said not to lend ear to new teachings. I have not seen "anger is inescapable, or even necessary and healthy" in any sutta that could be credited to Buddha's original teachings.  As for myself, I disregard it.
PS.  I certainly not to be disrespectful to your teachers.  They may be imperfect in their teachings but it is still a good idea to hangout with people who are virtuous in their precepts.  IMO.
PS2.  wanting to be near, approach those with virtuous actions, keeping precepts is a sign of Saddha.

Thanks. I was looking at Tara Brach and she said that anger is "...absolutely essential for our survival and our flourishing, that it's an intelligent emotion...", and then proceeds to convey how to deal with it. Dealing with it is fine, but seeing it as essential and intelligent seems at variance with buddhism as I understand it. She is a buddhist, right ? (I don't think I've quoted her out of context BTW.)

from what you said,  i believe she is a honest virtuous person for not saying the quote was from Buddha to give it credibility or she didn't twist Buddha's words to match her views.  I dont recall from which sutta but those with 5 precepts (assuming it starts from faith in Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) are called Sāvaka (followers, listeners, or buddhists).  If she has these qualities then safe to assume she is a Buddhist.

I dont know what level of knowledge in Buddhism you are at the moment, but if i may make a suggestion... separate your notes, one from sutta (Buddha's words, one from Abhidhamma (later additions), and from modern teachers or monks).  you will see very quickly the style and cleverness of Buddha.  He made complex subject easy to understand, where abhidhamma is very complex and it wasnt from Buddha.  And from modern teachers often make it too easy almost to the point of straw man.  If you put all 3 together it will be confusing becuase tons of contradictions.

How can these false teachers have destroyed all or some of the fetters?

Tara Brach is part of a certain socio group that teaches psychotherapy as buddhism for money.

it was a subject of my interest for short while but not enough to post it as a question, "is selling dharmma a wrong occupation?"  certainly not breaking 5 precepts.  I'm trying to think if Buddha ever talked about such subject.  Definite not for monks, they cant engage in trading.   i dont know much about her so i gave general answer with three questions, does she claim Buddha's words as her own, or trying to twist Buddha's words to match her view and teaches her twisted version instead of the original context, or says her own teachings are from Buddha ?

Why do so many buddhist teachers say anger is inescapable?

In Theravada Buddhism the attainment of Nibbana is enumerated into 4 stages, also known as the Four stages of Enlightenment.
There are a total of 10 fetters that has to be broken in order to attain Nibbana. Anger/ill-will is the 5th fetter.
The destruction of those fetters comes in stages;

Stream-enterer
Once-returner
Non-returner
Arahant

When a fetter has been broken it does not come back. It is done away with for good. It is permanently destroyed, meaning that one has "escaped" from it.
As seen in the illustration below, the Arahant is free from the 5 lower fetters and the 5 higher fetters.
The Non-returner is also free from anger/ill-will.
Only the Stream-enterer and Once-returner has not yet broken the fetter of ill-will.
That of course goes for Worldlings as well, i.e. beings that have not yet reached any stages of Enlightenment.


text:
Is impermance provable?
Check out my reasoning and tell me where it's flawed.
1) To know that nothing stays the same you have to have a reliable, permanent memory.
2) If memory is impermanent, then it cannot be used to measure change.
3) If you cannot measure change then you can't know if anything is impermanent.
4) Impermanence is impossible to prove.

I know that what I see does not stay the same without a perfect permanent memory. Leaves fall, grandmother died,  river flows, weather changes, personality changes, stuff is in dissolution all around you. What proof do you need?

If you want physics check the second law of thermodynamics.

It is pretty much a physics question, which I think physicsologists would answer by saying all matter is in motion, and that answer relies on memory too. So everyone's fudging it.

@Jimmy Widdle It can't be a physics question even if you intended it to be  because this is a Buddhist forum. Buddhism is about experiencing the experiencial realm of mind and matter. It's not based on the material realm. Your making an assumption based on faith in only  material reality.

IOW I think that @Lowbrow is saying that when Buddhism talks about "impermanence", it's referring to the impermanence of any experience (perhaps impermanence of any contact between sense-object and sense-consciousness).

Is impermance provable?

Of course. Through the practice of Insight meditation the  mark of impermanence becomes visible. It can be seen in all conditioned phenomena, e.g. the breath. Try to observe the in/out-breath and you will see impermanence on a gross level..

Ok, yeah...that looks right but now I am a little confused. I hope my answer is ok. Last thing I want to do is give an answer that is wrong or misleading.

In Buddhism, not all things are impermanent, such as the enlightenment & Nirvana during the lifetime of a fully enlightened mind, which are permanent.

His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nirvana — the undeceptive — is true. MN
  140

Sariputta, there are certain recluses and brahmans whose doctrine and view is this: 'As long as this good man is still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessing of youth, in the prime of life, so long is he perfect in his lucid wisdom. But when this good man is old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to the last stage, being eighty, ninety or a hundred years old, then the lucidity of his wisdom is lost.' But it should not be regarded so. I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to the last stage: my years have turned eighty. Now suppose that I had four disciples with a hundred years' lifespan, perfect in mindfulness, retentiveness, memory and lucidity of wisdom. Just as a skilled archer, trained, practiced and tested, could easily shoot a light arrow across the shadow of a palm tree, suppose that they were even to that extent perfect in mindfulness, retentiveness, memory and lucidity of wisdom. Suppose that they continuously asked me about the four foundations of mindfulness and that I answered them when asked and that they remembered each answer of mine and never asked a subsidiary question or paused except to eat, drink, consume food, taste, urinate, defecate and rest in order to remove sleepiness and tiredness. Still the Tathagata's exposition of the Dhamma, his explanations of factors of the Dhamma, and his replies to questions would not yet come to an end, but meanwhile those four disciples of mine with their hundred years' lifespan would have died at the end of those hundred years. Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom. MN 12

The above being said, the enlightenment of a Buddha does end at the termination of life, therefore it is, ultimately, impermanent.

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish.
  Strive with earnestness!" This was the last word of the Tathagata. DN
  16

Impermanence is experienced when it happens not in memory. Impermanence is contemplated by being aware of when phenomena has ended. If you were to be aware of memory then when that memory ends and one is aware of it then that is the contemplation of impermanence.
One doesn't contemplate impermanence of intellectual or conceptual entities. They don't really have any concrete beginning or end.

When the faculties are balanced, the mind concentrated and one observes closely, one will also come to see the arising and changing of phenomena - not only when they perish. They come in 3 stages; arising, existing (changing), falling away. One can see all stages in Vipassana.

That's a good thing for me to chant every morning so I don't forget.  There is no clear delineation between ultimate realities otherwise they would be conditional realities? An ending can only come when when one conceptualizes but if one purely sees things as they are then one must still be seeing  things conceptually at the same time or the thing is that one doesn't purely see ultimate reality. If the faculties and method is right one can see only what one can see , I suppose it is wrong to see that as a kinda "ultimate reality in progress"? IDK?

A little bit about science, proofs and buddhism bellow.
"Check out my reasoning and tell me where it's flawed."

1) To know that nothing stays the same you have to have a reliable, permanent memory.
  2) If memory is impermanent, then it cannot be used to measure change.
  3) If you cannot measure change then you can't know if anything is impermanent.
  4) Impermanence is impossible to prove.

Domain and definitions
"to know", "the same", "reliable", "permanent" and "memory", all of these terms can be, individually, subject of many books. The same goes for  "impermanent", "measure" and "change".
As they are, they can be very ambiguous, hard to understand their meanings and hard to understand how they relate. For example, does "permanent memory" mean inability to forget? Does "reliable memory" mean what is remembered is always precise and "the same"?
Playing this little game, if these questions are answered with "yes", then the requisites you posited seem to refer to some sort of ability not found in humans and animals, since we forget and our memory faculty is not reliable and does not work like reliable "data retrieval" mechanisms (which always "results" in the "same data"). Therefore, one can argue that if we don't have this sort of faculty, then what can we "know"?
And the really tricky part in the first and third propositions is the "to know" part: it imports the massive topic of epistemology into the problem. Pandora box opens with questions such as "what is knowledge?", and goes through "well, how do you know that our memories are unreliable and we forget?" (to which a witty person could reply: "I'm sorry, what are we talking about, again?").
At this point, you are in philosophical grounds and might feel like venturing into the nature of knowledge and what is possible to know, exploring the dungeons of theories of knowledge.
One might also age and die in this dungeon, ironically witnessing and suffering a lot of changes oneself, and still feeling uncertain of whether things are impermanent.
Science, Inferences and Proofs
Or, perhaps you might not want to philosophically penetrate every corner here and die without an answer. Then, some corners must be given up.
"to know" seems too philosophical, and perhaps you want to be scientific in some way. Interestingly, in science, "knowledge" is, roughly speaking, just something accepted, shared and rooted in what is public, accessible, reproducible  -- or simply, "empirical". All that is needed is two observers agreeing on their descriptions of what they observe.
In this path, you are effectively sacrificing all the philosophical problems of knowledge in order to move on, on a hopefully more manageable ground. By making this sacrifice, you will also be forced to change your propositions that refer to "knowledge". Likely, the best you can do is talk about what is observed.
"Memory" is very problematic as well (do you really want to talk about whether there's knowledge or not for a being with imprecise memory such as humans? This puts you right back into philosophy asking what knowledge is...).
But I see other problems with your reasoning too, if you want to explore this in the domain of science.
The first problem are the inferences. Taking your propositions as they are for illustration, to undertake this project it will be clear you need to rigorously justify things like: how properties of memory affect possibility of knowledge (p.1), how they affect ability of measurement (p.2), how this ability relates to knowledge (p.3), and how the impossibility of measuring a property entails impossibility of proving same property (p.4).
For example, in p.1, if "to know" is simply what is agreed by two or more people, then how does a unrelated change in memory affects knowledge? According to the answer, your reasoning and formulations must be revised.
The second problem is "proof". And what is a proof? In mathematics and logic they are roughly structures drawn from rules of inference and axioms. In journalism, it's how journalists and media refer to scientific work. And in science (to the surprised of journalists) it's not advised to use it: "evidence" and "arguments" are commonly used in contexts of findings and theories, since as a matter of principle, "proofs" must be subject to refutation.
So, to insist on irrefutable proofs, you must sacrifice science. And to insist on science, you must sacrifice proofs. The same goes, roughly, for what is "possible" or "impossible" (p.4).
Reality and Buddhism
If you turned around from the philosophy dungeon trying to answer this question and preferred to stick with reality, at this point, I believe you concluded that the nature of knowledge won't help you decide if impermanence is experienced or not.
Also -- and if I was convincing enough so far -- I hope you have concluded that elaborating a proof that impermanence can't be proved is a futile exercise.
What is left, then, is a job much easier. To establish whether something is impermanent or not:

start with an observation.
If any alteration is perceived, then Q.E.D.

Thank you, It's a lovely answer. But why not import epistemology into the problem ? Impermanence is a claim, and in this case the proof is supposed to be furnished by practice and observation. But that's quite naive isn't it ?

I observed something, it altered

How do you know ?

I remember how it was before it altered. My memory is always precise and the same. I compared two states, they were different at different moments. It was X in one moment, then it altered to Y in a later moment. I clearly remember the change.

How do you know your memory is reliable?

Then buddhists are as naive as anyone claiming any experience, scientists and ordinary people  included (such as yourself making claims based on your own memory). If you want to pursue epistemological questions, you are probably off-topic here (but hot here).

I think perhaps that a permanent perfect memory isn't necessary. Even if all you have is a fake memory, all you need is for it to be telling you that there was a past moment that is different from the present.

First, I think you don't "prove" theories: instead you you "test" them.
For example there's a theory of Gravity (sometimes called Newton's Law of Gravity) -- it's not that you can prove that, exactly, it's that you can test that, by dropping things.
Similarly I think you're expected to test the theory of Impermanence -- does the theory match your experience, your observations?

Second, IMO the doctrine isn't that "anything" or that "everything" is impermanent: it's more specific, for example it says that "feelings" are impermanent, or that sankharas are impermanent.

Third, to address the logic you asked about -- IMO even an impermanent memory is sufficient to measure change. For example any thermometer is impermanent (will break eventually) but can measure change of temperature. Any human being is impermanent (will die eventually) but can observe and experience change (change in the seasons, in their surroundings, in their thoughts and feelings, and breath, and anything else you care to mention).
I guess you might want to argue that some things are relatively long-lived and seem permanent -- perhaps your family, a mountain, the sky -- if so I might reply that reason or science (even if not personal memory) suggests that these things too are impermanent for various reasons; and, more importantly, our awareness or "consciousness" of them is impermanent or ever-changing.

I think that Buddhism isn't trying to make statements about "the world" -- it isn't physics or geology, nor is it philosophy or pure logic -- it's applied logic, and it's trying to make statements about our experience of the world.
Consider dukkha, for example, you're not going to measure that with a thermometer, it's not a property of the physical world (the world of physics), it's a property of our experience of the world (perhaps our clinging).
Ditto other important components of Buddhism: view, wisdom, clinging, and so on.

Thanks for the thought on theory. Thanks also for pointing out about the limited domain of impermanent things. I'm not a buddhist scholar I've just seen it said so many times that buddha said all things are impermanent, so maybe that's a misperception of the philosophy on my part.
Re: thermometer, well, the scale on the thermometer needs to be constant. If it changed moment to moment it would be no use. That would be analogous to needing a permanent memory. ta.

You're welcome. The domain isn't very limited, though, it's quite extensive -- I think that sankhara means "composite things", "things that are put together", "conditioned things (things that arise in a specific condition, that are caused)". You might see that includes most "things" (including human bodies for example), and that the impermanence of these things is obvious (or at least likely) almost by definition -- e.g. if something (like ice, or a baby) arises when the right conditions come together, then they are impermanent: will decay or change when those conditions no longer pertain.

My answer is that Awakened One knows it by experience. For example if you experience world is a dream then will you not agree that all things are impermanent? Yes you will.
Some Truths are better explained by the Awakened One only because he has experienced those Truths.We can only believe in the Awakened One. We believe in him because he brings goodness and happiness in our lives just by believing him. Therefore there must be faith in the Awakened One. Remove all your doubts and believe in the Awakened One.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How to lose identification with my body and physical appearance
Ever since I was a child I was very look concious. I took pride from my looks and took shame from them as well. I'm at a point where my sense of worth is mainly derived from such an unstable, diminishing and limited resource and this inconsistency is causing me a lot of suffering.
How to lose identification with my body?

You have to look at yourself and think this body will age and get old and theres nothing to be attached to...

Read the middle length discourse of the buddha chapter 140 the exposition of the elements

On one practical side: be mindful. Meditate daily. Understand that the suffering and joy derived from your appearance is impermanent and doesn’t matter much. It is wise that you seek to reduce this attachment, but don’t do it from a place of aversion and anxiety. Accept your current way of thinking, and be patient and compassionate with your self about making a change.
On a deeper side: reflect on the fact that you are a bag of meat and organs. There’s a great talk from the Buddha about this, see if you can find it. Try to see things more clearly, more objectively. Understand that your body will gradually deteriorate and decay. Be ready for that. Of course you can take care of it, but understand that the body is not YOU, but a mere vessel with an expiration date.
Priding yourself of your body is no different than doing it with your car or house. It’s just a mere accessory.
This answer doesn’t have a clear solution but hopefully will point you to the right direction to find a solution yourself. :)

Recontextualise the situation you are in can really help.
A good exemple is when you are surround by a lot of people.
You can close your eyes, and start to imagine how you physically look like in other people's eyes. With no judgement, just from simple and pure observation. Like if they looked at a flower.
Then you can start to look around, and realize that people are not different than you.
They have the same thinking, same shames and desires.
By doing so, we can realise that we are not alone, and how we look like, matter only if you decide it does.
Meditate can definitly permit you to vusalise this more naturally.

I suspect you are a beautiful woman. If so, you are referring to a consciousness that many beautiful women have. But, before you view this as bad of you, you should view an interview on YouTube of the Dalai Lama by Piers Morgan. In this interview, Morgan asked the Dalai Lama, “Do you ever feel temptation when you see a woman?” The Dalai Lama’s reply, “Oh yes. Sometimes I say, ‘this is very nice.’ But then thinking ‘too much problem.’” My suggestion is that, if the Dalai Lama finds a beautiful woman attractive, then there must be something good about it, even if it is a problem for him. The reality is that, if you are conscious of being beautiful, then it is due to the fact that people see you as beautiful and they experience beauty as a good thing. Hence, your consciousness of being beautiful is not a delusion and your sense of worth is based upon a worth experienced by others. Of course, this is a problem for you because your beauty is not you. This is not a problem with identification, but a problem with a misleading process of social perception. Pride and shame are understandable consequences. In answer to your question, do not try to “lose identification” with your body, instead, understand the social process and how it can be confusing or complicated for someone, you in particular.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What is doctrine on ordinary daily posture?
In this question I'm asking about posture -- holding the body straight, for example -- not especially asking about posture during formal meditation, which was the topic of previous questions.

I was surprised to read this answer, which includes,

... walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it.

Sometimes (though, not often) I see something similar in other answers, for example:

You need to develop a good posture, good grace, and good gait. You should sit, stand, and walk conveniently, with good energy flow.

I was surprised to see that because:

I don't remember that's being a doctrine in the suttas -- at most maybe I remember comments on (or descriptions of) the Buddha's or Rahula's physical appearance, e.g. "like a lion" etc.
Buddhist doctrine emphasises view, and knowledge, and wisdom and so on -- if there is a mind-versus-body dichotomy, I'd expect Buddhism is more on the "mind" side of things.
Some doctrines seem intended to deemphasise the value of the body -- meditations on the foulness of the body, contemplation of corpses, etc.

So -- what is doctrine about posture (from suttas, from what you've been taught, and/or from your personal experience)? And, do you know, why? And what is difficult about that practice? And does that affect your social relationships, somehow? How does it interact with practicing prostration?

In the Theravadan tradition, most of the rules governing posture don't come from the suttas, but rather the vinaya.  Specifically, they are found in the 75 sekhiyas.  The first 26 are almost all about posture.
The reason for these practices is really no different than those related to appropriate posture during seated meditation.  And it has a similar set of challenges.  In the West, we often set up a dichotomy between the mind and body.  No such division exists within Buddhism.  Form is just another skandha.  Just because Buddhism meditates on the foulness of the body does not mean that it should be ignored or viewed as somehow less important.  The body is also a tool that can be used on the way to liberation.  A posture maintained ardently, with mindfulness, and clear comprehension will have a comparable impact on cognition.  It establishes alertness and vigor while a bodily posture that is not meticulously maintained falls into sloth, heedlessness, and dissipation.  An upright body is an upright mind.  They are not different things.

I have a very vague memory of a sutta in which Buddha mentions graceful posture, in passing. Somehow in my memory, he specifically commented on someone's manner of sitting down. He said, one should sit down slowly, not crashing down. This may be a fake memory though, could come from another source, not sutta.
Buddha also gave specific instructions for behavior during an alms round. This included upright posture, looking down instead of staring or rubbernecking, not throwing one's arms randomly like a child, eating carefully etc.
As far as oral tradition, the explanation goes that your posture & grace is tightly connected with one's emotional energy and the state of mind. In Vajrayana the entire emphasis of mid-to-higher tantras is on one's energy expression, so there they practice extensively to have the right type of "deity pride" including corresponding posture and mood.
In my opinion, this is actually a very important part of the Teaching that deserves more attention. The three separate phenomena we call "body", "emotions" and "subconscious mind" are in fact facets of the same continuum. So the way we carry around our body, move our hands, use our facial muscles is a very direct expression of our awakening (or lack thereof).
Although, for a student, the body practice is mostly about internal benefit of overcoming one's bad emotional habits, for a teacher it becomes a tool of external influence and motivation. The right posture, grace, smile, demeanor are all parts of the rainbow body experience, utilized to arouse in students confidence in their teacher and entice them to imitate and develop similar wholesome qualities of mind.

Funny you ask this, I was just at my orthopedic today for a right shoulder issue and was talking with him how my physical therapists guidance on controlling my posture has helped my minor SLAP tear and stuff improve. I still need to carefully workout to retrain the surrounding muscle and tissue but yeah now I am conscious of it and the cause... years of bad extended posture.
Buddhist/Eastern advice:

Buddhism has the various sitting postures. They are all conducive to better lower body health and bioenergetics. The highest posture is considered the lotus posture which one should perfect. The Buddha talks about its benefits for chi transmutation extensively somewhere and there are entire Buddhist schools that center around this like the Lu Mountain Temple here in Rosemead, California where they bear the pain until they cannot any more because it is good for one's karma. Taken from Tao & Longevity by Master Huai-Chin Nan:

Although some people may suggest sitting for hours at a time I advise against this. I suggest to intersperse just a few seconds of yoga if you will be sitting for long periods of time as modern science suggests that one's organs begin to shut off just from 20 minutes of sitting down. Buddhist walking meditation is also a good alternative, too. My sessions tend to be 20 minutes in lotus posture or standing meditation and then a few minutes break involving yoga poses and the five tibetan rites.
Taoism suggests to sit maximum of 8 hours, lay 8 hours, and be on your feet 8 hours. This is recursive of course and a tally of one's daily total.

Worldly advice:

When working on your computer be conscious of your elbows because they affect your entire ergonomics! High-held elbows will tighten your shoulders and put excess strain. Push your chest out and relax your shoulders. Try to sit in a relaxed erect position just like how when one is in lotus posture. There should be a J curve at the lower back.
Try to use a sitting ball as a chair instead, I used to hate it and then got used to it over time and now I love it and it is great for your back muscles!
Get a standing desk
Alexander technique has some great advice that is visualization based and informs one's body posture


text:
Arbitrary conception?
What does the Buddha mean by arbitrary conception in the Diamond Sutra?

Then the lord Buddha made his meaning even more emphatic by saying:
  "Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining
  total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to
  understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths
  are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their
  minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."

All things we see are labeled by us human beings but are not the label,  they are just what they are. So when practicing mindfulness(involving seeing, perceiving, knowing and understanding for the purpose of transcending suffering), one experiences things directly as they are with no assumptions, labels, stories or judgements. In other words no "arbitrary conceptions".
If there is verbal thinking happening in one's mind, it is experienced as just a formation and the meaning of the words are conceptual so one doesn't need  to process the content, meaning or "story" of the thinking  even though we are so used to a kind of instant understanding of the conceptual meaning.
If there is pain or pleasure it is a kind of assumption,  judgment or arbitrary conception when we react to it with aversion or clinging. When we are not seeing like this we are in a way just sleeping through life on autopilot in an impulse and arbitrary way.
Even if one could see like this at all times it doesn't mean they must stop understanding all concepts all the time of course.

Strictly speaking, this quotation is not from the Diamond Sutra and is somewhat misleading when taken literally. Nonetheless, an explanation is appropriate.
The Diamond Sutra is about sunyata, the central teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. This teaching is about the twofold nature of consciousness itself. On the one hand, the Buddha spoke at great length about sankhara, those unconscious mental processes by which means we make sense of things and conceive of actions that make sense to us. It is by means of sankhara that it is possible for us to behave intelligently and compassionately. It is by correcting false or misleading sankhara that we make progress on the path to Enlightenment (Nirvana). It is by means of wholesome and true sankhara that we understand and care for our children. Such wisdom and compassion is in the realm of relative truth in the Mahayana teachings. The profound insights of the Theravadin Abhidhamma, including Nirvana itself, are all within the realm of relative truth. The Mahayana teachings do not negate the great value of the Buddhadharma. Instead, the Mahayana teachings make an additional and important distinction between sensation and perception. Sensation is present and very real without sankhara. Sankhara has the psychological function of making sense of sensation. Yet sankhara is arbitrary in the sense that it can cause true or false belief. We can perceive or misperceive a sensation. In contrast, the sensation is neither true nor false, it simply “is.”
On the other hand, there is the experience of sunyata. The experience of sunyata is a meditative state in which all sankhara are suppressed. Neither true nor false relative belief arise. As a result, the meditator gets to experience the universe as it really is without arbitrary conception (the products of sankhara). Then and only then, according to the Mahayana teachings, does a person get to experience absolute truth or sunyata. Only in this state does the meditator get to experience his true relationship with the universe. While in this state of awareness, all things are sunyata (empty). There is nothing to understand. There is nothing to be done. Yet everything is real.
In order to understand the Mahayana teachings, it is essential to not get confused as to what relative truth and absolute truth mean, especially when a person has not experienced sunyata. Let us return to the quotation provided. First of all, practice is based on relative truth. One does not “practice” sunyata. The term “no-things” is a somewhat misleading translation of the Sanskrit term “sunyata.” Strictly speaking, in order “to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize” anything, one must engage some form of sankhara. Finally, strictly speaking, it is misleading to say, “they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever,” because there is neither “ought” nor “ought not” in sunyata. In order to do something that we “ought” or “ought not” do, we must make a choice. And, in order to make a choice, we must engage some form of sankhara. Most important of all, while it is true that while in the state of sunyata, “all spiritual truths are no-things [sunyata],” all spiritual truths are true while not the meditative state of sunyata. Never, never, never use the great Mahayana teachings to claim that any relative truth is false. My suggestion is to get on with your practice and stop trying to speculate about what sunyata might mean.

And Mahayanas "sunyata"? Is it a "no-thing", eg anicca?

Actually, the concept of sunyata is more related to anatta (no self) than to anicca (impermanence). From a Mahayana point of view, anatta can be understood only through an experience of sunyata, whereas from a Theravadin point of view, anatta can be understood as a relative truth.

Good point, Nyom @Ronald Cowen . My person does not see distinction between wise Mahayana and wise Theravada. There is just right and wrong Dhamma. Just if not understanding and work on defiled level disputes may arise. Traditionally introduction into sunnata (anatta, anicca) would be after a good time of training and having solide virtue as a monk. As a bodhusatta rule gives as well, to teach that to somebody not mature is a fault as one gets totally confused.

The reality is that every student is different and the Buddhist teachings are diverse. What is clarifying to one student can be confusing to another. I have practiced and studied Buddhism for 50 years. I have done my homework in a manner of speaking. On the Buddhism Stack Exchange, I try my best to meet the needs of the person asking the question. My answer may not be the best for everyone. I must choose between saying what I have discovered to be true and helping some people and not saying anything at all. This is a choice that every knowledgeable teacher of Dharma must make.


text:
If someone causes me pain but I don’t lament it, feel sorrow about it- what circumstance, if any, warrants acting against the person causing pain?
Step 1: Some person causes me pain
Step 2: let’s say I stay neutral about pain, pain does not cause me sorrow, and I don’t feel even slightest feelings of ill will towards that person — all because I know pain is impermanent and it is not self
Step 3: so at that point, should I take action against this person, as matter of cause and effect - or not - or what would Buddha do in similar circumstances

Remaining equanimous doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t take action.
It means not reacting automatically from your emotions.
Step 1) someone hurts you.
Step 2) you observe this and ensure you are equanimous and non reactive.
Step 3) take mindful, conscious action. Not out of pity or anger, but out of compassion and reason.
For example if someone assaults you, it’s not that you should be a passive rag doll. You can defend yourself, but it’s important to have clarity and peace of mind before and while you do it.

Equanimity is easier to deal with than deluded emotion. But it is psychological insight that leads to Enlightenment in the Theravadin teachings. In the Satipatthana Sutta, the objective is to gain insight both “internally” (insight into one’s own karma) and “externally” (insight into the karma of others). Hence, the more important question is not about taking action, but one about the practice of mindfulness meditation. What steps can be taken to better understand this other person? What kind of psychological history has caused this person to be the way they are? What, if anything, can one do to help this person on the path of their Enlightenment? What kind of actions might one perform (such as “cause and effect”) that would only cause the other person to be more confused, unwholesome, or perhaps more enraged? (The Buddha never taught “cause and effect.”)


text:
Accepting what is
I need some help understanding how the Buddhist view on 'accepting what is' and noticing how craving for it to be different to how it is causes suffering, is different to learned helplessness where you become conditioned to give up trying because you believe it's futile.  They seem to be very similar to me.  In what ways are they different.  Is the difference that with Buddhism you don't give up trying? For example if I have a string of failed relationships it can cause learned helplessness and I might give up trying to begin a new one but how would I see it through a Buddhist lense?   It's finished because everything is impermanent, now I accept that and I don't give up hope because that's just how it is?  But still there is a part of me that feels it's pointless to try again if I know it's going to end in pain again.

Suchness has a different flavor from helplessness you describe. It's more like you always live afresh, as if you were a new person, a new child - every time. It's not that you accept things as inevitable as victim accepts her pain - as much as you see the world and the situation you are in with no baggage from the past. That's the meaning. See the difference?
So if you don't have a gf, you face the world being as naive, open, and vulnerable as if you never had a gf and never had the pain. You don't know what to expect, so everything is possible.
You don't compare what you see against your memories projected forward as expectations. Nor you compare it against the fantasies you see on TV. Your eyes are truly open to see what's really happening in actuality, hence it's called "suchness", freedom from preconceptions.
It's not that you stop learning or end up living in the present moment like an imbecile who can't reason or plan. It's just that you approach the world with an attitude of freshness, not tiredness. You have no fear holding you down, so you can play and improvise. You have no thoughts veiling your eyes, so you can see.
And despite past pains or failures, you still stay like that - new, open. That's the spirit of suchness or "accepting what is" if you want.

I don't see how that is possible without being a fully awakened/enlightened being.   How is it possible?  It's only natural that if one has experienced a lot of pain that one will try to avoid it in future is it not?

(big smile) of course it is possible. It's just scary as hell, like jumping off an airplane, but it certainly is possible.

I'm beginning to lose faith that it's possible to be honest. I'm not sure I believe in enlightenment at all. It seems like such a vague concept. Nobody is sure what it's like or how to get there. I have moments of wakefulness and presence but that's about all.

Luckily some of us here are absolutely 100% sure ;) There is no enlightenment, my friend. Or rather, enlightenment is to know there's no enlightenment. That's why it's like jumping off an airplane. Now try it on for size, see how it feels.

Ordinary homosexual, transgender, childless heterosexual relationships & other forms of liberal or unconventional sexuality don't really fall into a Buddhist lens (despite the extensive efforts of Western Buddhists to market or preach Buddhism to these liberal or unconventional groups) because there is often not enough to naturally or instinctually bind couples in these types of relationships. While some people might get lucky in finding a soul mate, relationships based on sexual need & lust (rather than service to children & family) have shaky foundations due to a lack of sacrifice or altruism. The various teachings on relationship in Buddhism all have 'sacrifice' ('caga') as a requisite condition. In short, in my opinion, the question falls outside of the scope of Buddhism because Buddhism does not teach accepting the vicissitudes of self-centred relationships. In my studies, I have not found one single sutta that mentions the role of sex as a requisite of relationship. Instead, the teachings focus on developing certain virtues as requisites of relationship. In Buddhism, where virtues are lacking in relationship, it is taken as a given those relationships will be problematic or will fail (eg. AN 4.53). Where I live, my two best & most reliable friends are a gay couple. They both have devoted their lives to public service & altruism, which is probably why their personal relationship has lasted their entire adult lives. They are highly virtuous & moral individuals.

You seem to be implying that homosexual relationships are not based on "service to children and family".  Firstly this is a misperception because many LGBT people have kids and form families, just not in the traditional conventional way which is only a social construct anyway.  Second, many heterosexuals do not have children or families. So I completely disagree with what you're saying and if that's  what Buddhism actually says, which I doubt it really does, then I don't subscribe.

There are some broader perspectives on marriage, e.g. here ... it isn't only about children (nor only about sexuality). Also one of the suttas about a relationship, which mentions caga, is this one ... but I'm not sure that caga does means "sacrifice", exactly ... it seems to be more usually translated as "generosity" (or gift), possibly also restraint or renunciation (or giving up).

Am I subscribed to the Theravada subforum? Perhaps Arturia, you may wish to explore the different forms of Buddhism and find one that fits in to your liking.

Is the difference that with Buddhism you don't give up trying?
I suppose one difference might be that you ought to learn from mistakes -- stop doing a "wrong" thing (or stop trying to do something in the "wrong" way), and do it "right" instead.
For example, this answer includes some doctrine on how to find a marriage partner -- it includes advice both on what to avoid ("unsuitable associates" and "unproven traditional criteria"), and on what to do instead ("find wise people who cause no fear or worry").

Secondly, I'm not sure what "learned helplessness" is. I suppose it might be a type of self-view, e.g. the view that "I am helpless" or "I am a failure" etc.
I think there's Buddhist doctrine that any "view of self" is "wrong" and a cause of suffering.
If that's so then Buddhism wouldn't be teaching "learned helplessness". And in fact I see Buddhism as the opposite, as empowering -- it's doctrine you can use to escape or avoid or minimise failure, to succeed -- a map of what's what and of which paths lead where, to help you know and decide.

If self is like a chariot i.e. a collection of parts, Buddhism tends to analyse (disassemble) those parts.
Instead of a view of self, if you're looking at a "failed relationship", you might identify causes for that, and identify the causes as being other than "self"; for example:

The relationship failed because of anger, or words spoken in anger
The relationship failed because of greed for sensual satisfaction

You don't have to identify these factors (anger and greed) as being "self", -- but having identified them as harmful, you could view them as harmful and resolve to better avoid them in future (and maybe be confident that, having learned to avoid causes of a "failed relationship", some future relationship[s] may be less of a failure).

Fourthly you might want to reassess whether the relationship was a "failure".
There are different ways to view it -- and one of those ways is to view it as a failure, and to decide "better to have no relationship than a bad relationship" -- but that's not the only view.
You might possibly want to see it as just a relationship, not good and not bad -- a mountain for example isn't good or bad, it's just a mountain. Similarly it was just a relationship.
You might also want to view it as a successful relationship, albeit temporary/impermanent. Was there any good to the relationship? Did it give anyone the opportunity to do good, to have good "intent", did people ever cooperate or benefit, learn any kindness?
I don't know what criteria you use to judge a relationship but maybe it wasn't a complete failure, maybe it was a success sometimes, though impermanent.
Seeing what's "good" may be a part of Buddhism -- there's doctrine which says that "good" (or "skillful virtue") may be cause for a "lack of remorse".

Lastly there is some additional, general doctrine that may be helpful.
According to Buddhism, everything is "impermanent". Knowing and accepting that might provide some alternative to categorising a relationship as "a failure".
There's also extensive doctrine -- about the Brahmaviharas for example; and the precepts; and being harmless -- which are meant to help with any and all social relationships.
Applying these doctrines may help you relate more successfully. It might also provide criteria or ways to judge/assess whether a relationship is successful -- for example if a relationship is "harmless" then it's relatively successful in practice ("relatively", when compared to a harmful relationship), but also relatively successful by definition.

Leaned helplessness is when you become conditioned to abuse or pain etc and so you give up trying to change or escape the situation because you believe it's futile. For example Martin Seligman did a famous experiment with dogs in which he conditioned them to give up trying to escape from an electric shock even though it was possible for them to. People who do not vote because they believe it's pointless are exhibiting learned helplessness.

That may be more likely to happen when you are (feeling trapped) in a relationship, isn't that so? But I mostly meant that "I'm not sure what it is" from a Buddhist perspective. I do think it may be (or may have) some self-view though -- "I am trapped", "I am helpless", "I am incapable", etc. Conversely I think Buddhism may be keen to emphasise that you have to "do it" yourself.

First of all, there are many “Buddhist lenses.” And, beyond any doubt, “learned helplessness” is a profound state of suffering that is extremely difficult to deal with. My heart goes out to you! It is painful for me to understand the nature of your situation. For someone to recommend you somehow “accept” this condition is either ignorant of its true nature or pathologically indifferent. The notion that the wish to overcome suffering is a form of craving is not a Buddhist teaching! Learned helplessness always has a long a deep history. I strongly suggest you find a good psychotherapist who, at the very least, knows what learned helplessness really is and can therefore help you extract yourself from it. I wish you well and hope that you will find someone who actually understands you and provides with the love and good advice you obviously need!


text:
Does craving include basic survival drives like hunger, thirst, reproduction?
And how does one be free from craving food without starving to death ?

See also related question; "Noting craving for food : Ven. Mahasi Saydaw tradition".

Train Your Hunger might give you an answer of benefical use.

There is also an importand explaining in relation of food given in First Things First and to understand food an how to use it to go beyond desire for it, the essay The Four Nutriments of Life gives also direct connection to Buddhas food.

Hunger is not "craving" (tanha, technical Buddhist term). Craving is basically when you are in whatever state you are (let's call that X) and you imagine (visualize) some other state Y. And then you label Y as "desirable" and strongly wish that you were there, and then by inference state X becomes "unacceptable", hence you experience [mental/emotional] suffering. Makes sense?
Hunger is just a signal you get from your body: "need food". Craving is conceptual, hunger is not. Craving involves judging, taking sides. Hunger is just raw sensation.

What about thinking what you will have for dinner, how you will cook it ?

If it becomes obsessive, sure. If you'd rather be there than here, and go over the scene again and again, that's craving and clinging.

Who says beyond conceptual thinking of an unreleased being? Any relayable to add?

Yes and no.

No -- I think that Buddhism distinguishes between (unwholesome) "craving", and (possibly wholesome) "desire".
Yes -- I think that food, for example, can be (though isn't necessarily) an object of craving.

Something similar is true for "thirst":

"Thirst" is literally a synonym for (unwholesome or unfortunate) craving -- see tanha.
It's alternatively a physical need, or "requisite" (and therefore a component of "the holy life").

For a more detailed explanation of craving, see answers to this topic (and the four noble truths).

One of these things is not like the others: although I suppose that reproduction can be, however it does not have to be, considered a "survival drive" in the same category as food and drink. In particular I think that Buddhist dhamma sees food and drink as necessities, but not sex. Monks are expected to need food and drink, but to be celibate -- see for example this sutta for more details.

There's a description is this sutta of how Gotama tried doing without food, or with extremely little food -- and didn't find that resulted in the enlightenment he was looking for, didn't find it conducive to the Enlightenment he was seeking:

But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?'

In the first thing he said in the first discourse he gave after enlightenment:

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
These two extremes, bhikkhus, should not be adopted by one who has gone forth from the home life. Which two? On one hand, the devotion to hedonism towards kāma (sensuality), which is inferior, vulgar, common, an·ariya (ignoble), deprived of benefit, and on the other hand the devotion to self-mortification, which is dukkha (painful), an·ariya, deprived of benefit. Without going to these two extremes, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata has fully awaken to the majjhima paṭipada (Middle Way), which produces vision, which produces ñāṇa (knowledge), and leads to appeasement, to abhiñña (higher/direct knowledge), to sambodhi (true awakening), to Nibbāna.

So, there's some answer to your question in the doctrine of the Middle Way.
Several suttas (including AN 4.37, AN 4.159, and MN 2) advise eating, not with the intention of creating a feeling of fullness, but only with the intention of removing the feeling of hunger:

And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The Buddha distinguishes between different kind of craving, "Buddhism" might do such as well. Aside of good craving (for release), and bad torwad world, there are cravings which might be useful to maintain a certain existence to go beyond. It's propable not conductive to think that hunger is a positive graving since it should merely work as a drive to go beyond. So hunger is like suffering good and required to go beyound it. The statement "only with the intention of removing the feeling of hunger" might be excuse for many things. So maybe some fine adjusting in the answer would be good.

I added a reference (to a sutta) about "feelings" of hunger. Whether hunger is a craving could be complicated: in my opinion a desire to never be hungry might be vibhava-taṇhā; and people can also have sensual cravings causing overeating ... but it's too simplistic to say, "hunger is a craving" if that implies "starving to death" as asked in the OP (I'm not sure but I think that's a Jain doctrine, whereas Buddhism teaches the Middle Way instead).

"desire to never be hungry might be vibhava-taṇhā" really? Being free of craving seems to be aversive for Chris? Why? Freedom? Staring consciously to death in an desire for not-becoming, yes, that would be foulish. But to let nature take it's cause, giving one remainders just as a field of merits, let it be the cause of others where it goes, such is peaceful and free. Neither in live nor death one delights. But it's not the place for extended discussions. Doors are open on other lanes. Common translation of tanha is hunger or thirst: craving, longing after, grasping, hoping after, this or that

And how does one be free from craving food without starving to death ?
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29071&sid=0bb7fa0d6bf8640b3c79212394a23028#p417866

From karuṇā and paññā.

Through his wisdom the bodhisattva perfects within himself the character of a Buddha, through his compassion the ability to perform the work of a Buddha. Through wisdom he brings himself across (the stream of becoming), through compassion he leads others across. Through wisdom he understands the suffering of others, through compassion he strives to alleviate their suffering. Through wisdom he becomes disenchanted with suffering, through compassion he accepts suffering. Through wisdom he aspires for nibbāna, through compassion he remains in the round of existence. Through compassion he enters saṃsāra, through wisdom he does not delight in it. Through wisdom he destroys all attachments, but because his wisdom is accompanied by compassion he never desists from activity that benefits others. Through compassion he shakes with sympathy for all, but because his compassion is accompanied by wisdom his mind is unattached. Through wisdom he is free from "I-making" and "mine-making," through compassion he is free from lethargy and depression.
So too, through wisdom and compassion respectively, he becomes his own protector and the protector of others, a sage and a hero, one who does not torment himself and one who does not torment others, one who promotes his own welfare and the welfare of others, fearless and a giver of fearlessness, dominated by consideration for the Dhamma and by consideration for the world, grateful for favors done and forward in doing favors for others, devoid of delusion and devoid of craving, accomplished in knowledge and accomplished in conduct, possessed of the powers and possessed of the grounds of self-confidence.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.nypo.html

"How, O monks, should the nutriment edible food be considered? Suppose a couple, husband and wife, have set out on a journey through the desert, carrying only limited provisions. They have with them their only son, dearly beloved by them. Now, while these two traveled through the desert, their limited stock of provisions ran out and came to an end, but there was still a stretch of desert not yet crossed. Then the two thought: 'Our small stock of provisions has run out, it has come to an end; and there is still a stretch of desert that is not yet crossed. Should we not kill our only son, so dearly beloved, prepare dried and roasted meat, and eating our son's flesh, we may cross in that way the remaining part of the desert, lest all three of us perish?'>

When it comes to talking about “craving” (tanha), it is important to take note of a major difference between tanha and sankhara, the cause of tanha (and other mental states): The fact that tanha is conscious (while sankhara is not) prevents an easy understanding of tanha. Sankhara consists of the unconscious mental processes that cause us to make sense of things and to do things that makes sense to us. Strictly speaking, it is unwholesome sankhara that cause the confusion called suffering. Tanha actually means unwholesome motivation caused by unwholesome sankhara. Desire or craving is only one form of tanha. As with the English translation of many Pali and Sanskrit terms, replacing one word with one word can be seriously misleading. Once a person understands the concept of sankhara, it is obvious that hunger and thirst are not caused by sankhara and one has no need to ask questions about the nature of hunger and thirst. The Pali Text Society Pali-English dictionary provides two definitions for tanha: (1) a “literal meaning” in which it means “tormented by hunger and thirst” and (2) a “secondary meaning” in which it means “a state of mind that leads to rebirth.” The two definitions are not interchangeable, as some translators seem to think.

There are 3 parts of basic survival drives, in paṭiccasamuppāda.

One in vipāka-vaṭṭa (fruit), it is physical painful feeling, such as touch-feeling in hungry, happened at physical organs, such as touch-sense-organ. Both are fruit arose by kamma, called kāma-uppatti-bhava.

No one can stop this  basic survival drive part of paṭiccasamuppāda except anupādisesa-nibbāna, nibbāna after arahanta's death.

One in kilesa-vaṭṭa (unwholesome), it is kāma-taṇhā', that is called kāma-string in mahādukkhakkhandha-sutta.

The practitioner can perfect stop this basic survival drive part by magga-kamma, Eightfold Path.

Another in kamma-vaṭṭa (karmma), it is called kāma-kamma-bhava/saṅkhāra.

The practitioner can perfect stop this basic survival drive part by magga-kamma, Eightfold Path.

In Buddhism, it says that hunger, thirst, and reproduction as old habits.
When craving (Tanha) for old habits they become new habits hence rebirth.


text:
If there is no self, why do anything?
My limited understanding of Buddhism has already helped me in many ways and I am very glad to have found it.
With that said, I have always wondered about this title question. If there is no 'I', then why do 'I' do anything? If we can consider ourselves to be just part of everything else, where does the motivation to do anything come from? Surely we admit that there is a self whenever we perform an action (and thus reveal a motivation that must have originated from a self). If there truly is no self, surely we would all just freeze motionless, die and return to nothingness.
Apologies if this is an ignorant question. I am still feeling my way around this whole concept.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

It essentially doesn't change anything. If you look hard, that "I" was always an illusion. No matter where you try to draw a boundary - it is artificial:

Does the body belong to the self or not? How about that constant flow of matter and energy in and out - at what point does it even belong to the body?
Do thoughts belong to the self or not? You are hopefully aware how much of your thoughts are triggered by others, or even just repeat outside influences. Often they are even rationalizations of what you just did for other reasons.
Do feelings belong to the self or not? Much of these are determined by past experiences, your situation, even medications, weather, food.

So, to keep up this delusion of an "I" separate from the rest of the world requires carefully ignoring all things saying otherwise, which is stressful, even harmful to keep up. If you let that drop away, you'll function as you always did, but with loads of more peace. Don't worry - if this body is hungry it will eat, no matter whether you create such mental complications around that process - or not.

No matter if we do or do not have a self
The view that we "surely have a self or soul",
drives our desire to propel through life.
We want to be & to do & to exist.
So the goal of the practice is to:

let go of the desire to be anything.
let go of the desire to do anything.
let go of the desire not to be anything.
let go of the desire not to do anything.

beautifully put!

It is not that you existed and then you ceased to be after learning Buddhism. You never existed. You did no action. Your identity of self was an illusion. If you did not do any anything in the past then will you do anything in the future ? No.
If you did not do anything in the past then will you do anything in the present ? No.
Give up the identity of Self. Give up the desire to be Mr. Somebody. None of the identities are worth identifying as Self.

It is not that there is no self. There is no self in the way you think of a self. That is, there in nothing inherent in what you refer to as "I".
When you understand this, you free yourself and your actions are able to transcend limits. With this understanding, your actions become perfections.
Which is why everything you do should be with an understanding of selflessness.

+1 This seems to be a helpful and correct answer to me, but being pedantic perhaps the 'phrase 'everything you do' is better as 'everything you seem to do'. .  . .

When not-self is fully realised there isn't anything to do; apart from to help others realise not-self. That is why the suttas say about the fully enlightened state of mind: "There is nothing further in this world". Because the full realisation of not-self is the supreme liberation or happiness, the fully enlightened person only performs compassionate actions to help others realise not-self.

I guess a simplistic (or "simplest possible") answer might be that we do things out of ignorance, greed, and (maybe) aversion too.
And maybe other motives are identified, in the Opposite wholesome qualities:

The three wholesome mental factors that are identified as the opposites of the three poisons are:

amoha (non-delusion) or prajna (wisdom)
alobha (non-attachment) or dāna (generosity)
adveṣa (non-hatred) or mettā (loving-kindness)

Also I'm not sure about your premise, that "there is no I" or even than there might be no I.
So far as I understand it, questions about whether the self exists or doesn't exist, will exist, won't exist, used to exist, and so on, lead to a "thicket of views" and not to liberation:

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Also, any view-of-self leads to suffering (see this answer for details and references) ... and I think that "view of self" includes "I exist" and "I don't exist": these would both be considered self-views.

Experiances come into being by causes and so does a notion of "I" or "self" (one of the governing princibles). It's wrong to think that the way to liberation is primaly done by placing the strategy of not-self to it. A good and healthy self-esteem is a fundamental reqirement, and since nothing is more dear to being than one self, it's actually the drive to liberation.
Some very good explainings how to apply certain self and not-self strategies for going beyond all kind of self-views is certainly given in the teachings of: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Experiment with it and find out by yourself, using the basics, generosity and virtue as guides while walking toward concentation and seeing as it is.
And yes...

Doing the Math
The Dhamma is like doing math. There's multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction. If we can think in this way, we'll be intelligent. We know the right time and place for things. We subtract when we should subtract, multiply when we should multiply, divide when we should divide, add together when we should add together. If we multiply every time, our hearts will die from the burden. In other words, we have no sense of enough. No sense of enough means no sense that we're growing old.
Anyone with a sense of growing old is a person with a sense of enough. When there's enough, the words, "Okay, that's plenty," can make their way up. If there's not enough, that "okay" can't make its way up because we keep on wanting to take. We've never thrown anything away, let anything go, put anything down. We're always taking. If we can "okay," we're at ease. That's enough.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

SIMPLE ANSWER: we do not have a self but neither do we have a not-self. Hence self-realization is still vital as we are statistically in the rarity in this existence! This life's opportunity is still yours to lose/win!
If there truly is no self, surely we would all just freeze motionless, die and return to nothingness.
This point of view that it is all nothingness is verified by science and Buddhism. There isn't really anything that signifies some grand centric-ness. Some electrons here and there randomly shaping itself into temporary concreteness.. Yet... Everything objectively is nothingness from a zoomed out point of view...
Heart sutra explains this and says "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!"
Originally everything was still. And then there was a tiny bit of Ignorance and from this first bit arose some sort of contrivance, creating stuff, and then consciousness, name-form, sense, contact, feeling, craving, and all the rest in turn that each being is now trapped in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas
Nonetheless, it doesn't mean that "nothing matters." It certainly matters because one is now stuck in some sort of loop, ruled by loops of desires, karma and birth-and-death--no longer limitless potential. This illusion is very much real. Just like how the illusion of a computer screen, bits and digits being converted to pixels appearing as letters before you and thus this writing actually MEAN something... now that we are in this, it DOES mean something. Now you are stuck in an endless route of contrivance even if you try to do nothing! Thus, the question in Buddhism is how to return to Oneness. That is a scary thing for most people though since we are so used to self (eons of this illusion of self with countless rebirths). Thus the journey of Buddhism and the myriad meditation practices all of which are like medicine and the journey which Buddha somehow after countless lifetimes managed to figure out (loads of trial and error).
Lastly, "why do anything", because you temporary form will have to die and the temporary, changing consciousness that you are will move from body to body, and no matter where you go in the ginormous universe, the karma will be spent up and you will end up going to lower realms (imagine being chopped up as a pig or burning in hell) unless you at least attain initial enlightenment.
Then at least you will be safe from endless suffering, never to fall back into complete ignorance again... and most importantly spiritually you can help other beings due to superpower and eventually fold back into the fabric of the universe into Complete Enlightenment and really become nothing. But only when you want to/can.

This is an important question that has been provided with many confusing answers. In the Theravadin tradition, the Buddha considered the concept of self, in its many variations, to be a source of confusion among his students. In particular, he was concerned when a student viewed the self as an important object of meditation, as when a person viewed discovering the “true” or “real” self as a source of wisdom or liberation. (This concern is not that of the Mahayana tradition.) In essence, the Buddha argued that the notion of self is generated by the process of sankhara and therefore a matter of how we make sense of a collection of perceptions, feelings, desires, and beliefs we experience in relation to ourselves. By explaining how the process of sankhara generated the concept of self, he demonstrated that there was no “true” or “real” self to be found. Sankhara is an unconscious mental process that makes sense of we perceive and experience and provides action-plans that make sense to us. Sankhara is a complex and sophisticated unconscious mental process that makes survival and intelligence possible. (It is important to observe that, in the Theravadin tradition, the Buddha was not concerned about the use of “I,” “me,” or “you” in language, which another topic that is of concern in the Mahayana tradition.) Although we experience our minds and bodies in a multitude of ways, he argued, none of these experiences provide evidence of the existence of an uncaused entity that could be called “The Self.” It may be noticed that this argument is entirely within the realm of relative truth and makes no reference to the concepts of sunyata or absolute truth and must therefore be distinguished from the very different arguments provided by Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayana arguments are also true but for very different reasons.

To accept the no-self (anatha) reality as a Buddhist doctrine is only the soil around the redwood seed on its elaborate path to become the reality of an unshakable established truth. It provides an opening towards the vast and often difficult work to fully understand the impermanence of all phenomena. There is a lot to do Tamatama.

Given that the mind is filled with conceptual illusions that are often out of touch with the reality, your perception of self is the same. You visualise it as a box of candy, for example; it has higher logical skills, good driving skills, it is socially anxious, doesn't like spiders, thinks of itself as a calm person.
See, the problem with that image is that with any discrepancy that will occur to any of these, we will have a negative feeling towards ourselves because it doesn't match the blueprint. And then, out of self hatred that we fail to adhere to this imaginary vision of ourselves, we will attempt to self improve. It is a never ending chase that only brings grief. We become obsessive thoughts, we become emotions, and then we stop being them as they dissolve. I was a different person yesterday as weather affected my mood.
It is best to avoid such vision and believe in interconnectivity of all things that constitute the wholeness of reality. Creating these isolated islands of "Selves" make us think in a very inward, depressive fashion. We become self centric and don't open to the world. But space is an illusion! Our mind just fails to see that everything is filled with particles and therefore connected into one reality. Whatever I do, I don't do in the sandbox, I interfere with the whole universe at once. Hence cause and effect brings pain and suffering, but it might also bring joy if utilised in a selfless fashion.
We should flow like water - form, shape and a label shouldn't matter at all, they are just concepts of the mind. It is a liberating experience.

The delusion of if there is no self, then there is no point to do anything is mainly due to that you are currently having the intellectual view of there is no self. Whereas deep down, you still believe in a self. When there is that self view, kamma still works very well. Thus your actions have consequences.
In terms of 5 aggregates way to see things, the 4 aggregates of form, consciousness, feelings, perception are the receiver of the results of kamma, but the mental factors lead by volition is the creator of kamma. Together the 5 aggregates which we commonly think of as a self is actually not worth calling a self due to them being impermanent, thus subject to suffering. Regardless, as long as the realization that there is no self had not been attained, kamma still works to its full extend. Once stream winner is attained, the kamma to go to lower realms become defunct. Once arahanthood had been attained, one can no longer produce kamma. Results of past kamma can still happen until the final death, but kamma with regards to all future lives becomes defunct.
So actions still plays a very important role as it can even affect the results which happens to you even if you attain to arahanthood. Of course, after you attained to arahanthood, you don't think in any sense "I attained to arahanthood" as the concept of self becomes totally known as a delusion, a story.
So to return to the details of your question, people who are not enlightened, do stuffs having the delusion of self, thus the motivation can be driven by greed, hatred, delusion, or non greed, non hatred, non delusion. Take note that a delusion of self is needed to drive greed, hatred, delusion. If there is a self, I want it to be happy, so I go after things which makes it happy (greed) and avoid things which makes it unhappy (hatred).
Arahants are not immobile people do does nothing even after realizing nonself fully. They can be motivated to do stuffs by generosity, loving-kindness, compassion, wisdom, etc. It's also pure altruism as there is no concept that the results of these good deeds will come back to the arahant, as indeed an arahant cannot produce kamma, so any good deeds he does, does not brings results (back to him). And he is incapable of unwholesome deeds as the roots for them are totally eradicated.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Dhamma by pictures, teaching with sgins, gestures and emos, a usual?
In relation to a question lately ask in regard of usuals in practicing body gestures (ones appearing) as a part of training as well as a certain voidnes of such gestures on internet as support and help, aside of the use of emos, in how far might it be of use or of distruction to receive and perceive not only words but also signs as teaching?
What is the disadvantage of being taught the Dhamma without relay on body or form, remebering here that certain existences do not allow understanding the Dhamma?
Is a dismay of certain form and signs and preference to relay on certain perceptions, if possessing them, (e.g. avoding ugly and beauty in regard of eye contact), not working on it, a way to get Dhamma rightly?

To add a sample: times ago my person used to give a * schmunzel *, something between * smile * and * smirk * within text, given that there are usually no emos exressing that well. Now, althought text, some people go attached, some very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations on forums.
Now, following the way to give even lesser changes to find achors for unskilful socialising, by appearing merely unmoved, not giving certain signs, people got likewise attached, very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations and kind of attention.
Yet, as for a monk (even formal for Bhikkhus), showing signs of emotions is regarded as improper conduct, such as showing teeth by smiling, moving arms, using body to express. Such kind of behaviour, giving certain favor and socialize improper way, has leaded right practicing monks in troubles once. Now people are often very lost if not finding pleasant things within the senses, no way to identify and tend to it.

Where to draw the border between "giving" beauty and ugly, neutrality and being touched with signs and bodily gesture useful for every one? What if perfect or void of such contacts to learn how to distinguish and approach?
Is it a case to case issue or should it be regarded as natural "chaos" not worthy to but, make merits on it?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I have used Morse Code to communicate by radio. People understood what I was saying and feeling. So, no: signs are not required. But that doesn't make them inherently wrong.

Even Morse has some emoticon-like words (i.e. abbreviations to convey emotion), doesn't it? Like "hi" for a joke, "dr" for dear ... I suspect they're important for chat (on the internet too), important for signalling jokes ... and I thought that ¯_(ツ)_/¯  added useful/helpful/informative context to the comment under my answer. I'm not convinced it's important for this site, though; it isn't commonplace here so it's unconventional.

Although I hope I understand a lot of what you write, I don't understand everything; but I understand it more easily when you write in English (text) than when you write phrases or equations using emoticons.
I don't really understand (the definitions of) individual emoticons, nor understand groups of them.
And you are able to write some (in my opinion) excellent answers; in my opinion you needn't feel it's necessary to use emoticons instead of (or as well as) text.

Incidentally I tend to edit answers on this site, sometimes, to give them a regular format (if they have an irregular format). For example sometimes people don't use block quote-formatting when they quote, or they format the whole answer using bold text ... which I think makes an answer harder to read. I'd rather read the content (of an answer) than be distracted by its format.

Sometimes pictures are or have been an important part of teaching dharma (for example some people have used a picture of the Wheel of Life as the basis for a dhamma talk). And in the last paragraph of this answer Andrei mentioned teachers' using gestures for communication.
Anyway there's a lot more to teaching than just text. But maybe not on this site, though, which is principally a text-based, English-language, question-and-answer site.

Sadhu for the effort. Maybe to much on certain case answered. How could it be answered so that someone not personal involved, not preoccupied by certain remembering, could get the message as well and not grasp a gone case? May Nyom Chris likes to give a modification or addition, distingtion in this regard within the answer. Something he is usually talented. The topic is somehow like "attached" to precepts, thinking everything is fine if beyond.

On meta-level: my person did not had the irion that SE is just a textual meant place, given that it holds even relation to image content providers.

If you need to clarify an emotion, perhaps to soften or brighten some text-based message, it is conventional (elsewhere at least) to use a very few text-based emoticons e.g. :-) ("happy smile") or ;-) ("wink, I'm telling a joke"), which an experienced internet user will understand. I can't easily read graphical emojis (partly because they're so small I can't see them well). I don't usually use any other emoticons than these two. Sometimes I think "wai" _/\_ but I don't type that in case it's "affected" (pretentious, ostentatious).

¯_(ツ)_/¯ well that would be another language to learn...

Yes I suppose it would. And if this were a social forum (e.g. Facebook) then I could understand why people might want to express (share) a range of emotions. But (according to my imperfect memory) the only kind of time I remember seeing any emoticon on this site is when an OP expresses a problem: and the answer includes some agreement that, yes, that aspect of life is problematic. :-)

Good, having given much into meta, maybe another try to get to general aspect of the question. ...(ツ)... and avoid possible dangerous long discussion.


text:
How to deal with being ignored?
At work, my mother experiences that she is being ignored by most of her co-workers. She feels isolated and sad.  What can she do?

In Buddhism, the heart is judged by its own virtues (goodness) rather than by what others think.
Therefore, your mother should develop faith & trust in the virtues of the Buddha (rather than be concerned about what others may think or not think about her). If your mother has the virtues of Dhamma (such as non-killing, non-stealing, non-sexual-abuse, non-lying, non-greed, non-hatred & gratitude) then her heart will have well-being & inner-respect.

What do you mean by “the virtues of the Buddha”? How does that differ from Virtue itself?

Same thing because the Buddha highlighted true or natural virtue.

shunning someone at work is a form of office bullying.
complex issue.  How about bringing donuts or something a little exotic to work for everyonce in the morning everyone in awhile?  worked for me.  one of results of karma of giving that can be seen on the here and now is generally loved by others.  And interestingly, in one of the responsibilities employer should do to treat employees is offering exotic tasting food (special food on occasion).  This part makes me smile when i read it because it is so true.  One of many ways to captivate others.

When thinking goes wrong, one suffers. If one thinks about what he/she does not have, desires for it, developes ideas of "I would have a right", "I deserve that", then misery increases and often unskillful actions in words and deeds follow. Such is a poor person, no matter how much he/she possesses and destinated to poor realms.
If one on the other side thinks in terms of what he/she has, even in terms of what he/she can give and shares the wealth he/she has like one who can, then that person, however less he/she might own, is always a most rich Deva/Devata. No possession of wealth, regard, honor and wellubeing can excel his/her's.
Not knowing much of your particular case, but it's obvious that your mother owns or has got something better, which not many people gain from their child, namely, the care of her daughter.
So try to learn be generous and think in good ways:

There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

and give your mother that what really repays what you owe her. And by explaining to her what is right thinking, she will be a wealthy well-regarded person for long long time.

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father." (AN2.31)

That means if even you, as her daughter, got others not to ignore her & brought others to estimate your mother, you would not be able to pay back what you owe her. But if you are able to teach her right thinking, giving, letting go, not to demand: e.g. become a real person by her own, that you gave her what is really hard to gain and a auspicious future for long time.
Having gained the real treasures one becomes secure. Wealth, regard, praise, well-being... the eight wordily Dhammas, are not for sure.
By Attending to and serving just her good qualities and being careful and respectful to correct that of what is not right and possible seen as ugly on her behalf; you are not only a real good daughter, but a real admirable friend. A person who does her duties and gains release, step by step. One who serves the Buddha & the gods.
(A nice tiny story comes to mind, maybe able to translate when back from alms)

A son went with his old father to a restaurant for dinner.
His father was already old and weak, soiled his shirt and trousers while eating. Other guest looked annoyed at him while his son remained totally calm.
After he had finished his meal, his son - not having been embarrassed at all by that - brought him to the toilet, removed the garbage of food, cleaned the stains, comb his hair, and adjusted his glasses.
Als they returned the whole restaurant observed them while not saying anything loudly, not able to understand how someone is able to disgrace oneself like this in public.
The son payed the bill and went on torward the exit with his father.
At this moment an older man under the guests called after the son and asked: "You haven't had left something here, have you?"
The son answered: "No, I didn't."
The old man countered: "Of course you have! You leave a lessonfor every son and hope for every father behind."
The guest grow still.

My person thinks that one being a daughter, or any other person in a certain relation that deserves gratitude, will understand the lessons shared here as well, in each certain case.
Here are also the ten ways of subdoing ones anger, ones sadness, ones tears:

Aghata Sutta
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
"There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?
[1] "Thinking, 'He has done me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[2] "Thinking, 'He is doing me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[3] "Thinking, 'He is going to do me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[4] "Thinking, 'He has done harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[5] "Thinking, 'He is doing harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[6] "Thinking, 'He is going to do harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[7] "Thinking, 'He has aided people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[8] "Thinking, 'He is aiding people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[9] "Thinking, 'He is going to aid people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred.
[10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities.
"These are ten ways of subduing hatred."

Now having cleaned your heart with the Juwels and the tools of the Noble ones, go on, and give a share of that brightness there where it might be dark at this time. For one having falled into darkness, how could he/she be a light. Having taken a real refuge one is no more able to fall into dark.
Mudita with you both rich people, and those having served that the lessons got possible good provided.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

How can I communicate the right view in a way that she understands it. Currently, she is clinging o her views about happiness from acceptance by people.

Be patient, @TanvikaSingh . Like you may cling on thinking you need to fix that and hardly let go, she might cling to hard. That is why "Help your self first" is proclamed by the wise, and that is the meaning of it. Let off clinging your self first. Occation may come or not. When you your self are always clean, you are able to get into when the proper time comes. Don't step into her position and stay her child. Maybe you like to reflect loud in your precence, of what insight you had about right view. Without appearing teacherous. Beings are owner of their kamma.

They need to let go and take by them selves. Remember how patient your mother was in certain situations.

Yes. Thanks very much. I need to practice more. I am just in initial stages of knowing about the dhamma. Thanks for your patience and attention.

Please avoid link-only answers. After some time links usually go stale, the information in them is not indexed as part of the main site and so cannot be searched, some users don't actually follow links as they skim the answers, so please consider making an extract of the content you're linking to and post it here as answer. Thanks.

It is important to understand that life of a Monk will never be subjected to such a situation, and he will not have to worry about them. Being isolated and thinking deeply about existential questions and understanding how things work is the way of a Buddha. Therefore, one who is pure at heart and one whose mind is as calm as still water will never let the toxic negativity around him/her affect their composure. Given that you and your mother live in an ordinary human society built by these modern ideologies, it is impossible to live the life of a Monk and it is quite likely to meet hardships.
In a society filled with people who have feeble control over their thoughts and mind in general, it is not uncommon to find people who do not treat others well. Therefore expecting perfection in people around us, in this modern society is futile, and the only way to remain happy will be to focus on ourselves and more specifically our mind.
So what must be done:
Accept the reality and understand that associating a negative emotion with something is the real problem here. Please tell your mother that I requested her to sit silently for a minute, close her eyes and be gently aware of her breath. This will help clear her mind. Now once she had done that, please ask her to forgive her colleagues by saying the following to herself: "I forgive my dear colleagues for ignoring me. I do understand that my colleague's lives are filled with worries like with everyone living in this modern society, and their negative emotions and ignorance of my presence are simply nothing but a reflection of their struggles and sufferings. Therefore,  I consciously realize their suffering and feel sorry for them. And above all, I would help them if they need me. This cycle of suffering which spreads from one person to the other needs to stop. Let me help by playing a small role in doing so"
Doing this is most likely to relieve your mother of her sadness.
Explaination:
It is important to understand that the world we live in is filled with negativity. Emotions spread like a virus. So it is very important to end the negative cycle wherever and whenever possible. This can only be done if a negative reaction is forgiven wholeheartedly.
Sometimes, the thought that the world is negative, and the people around us are all negative and conspiring to hurt us, is a delusional thought caused by expecting something negative to happen to us all the time. This is another consequence of the world we live in. We are confronted with negativity more often than we are confronted with positivity. This forces us to keep doing the same.
Everything we observe will have both a negative side and a positive side to it. For example, you can either say that a cup is half full or half empty. Focusing on either of them while neglecting the other will be a big mistake. Understanding that every perspective has something important to tell us and looking at things in all the possible perspectives (including its negative side and the positive side) will help us understand the situation with a greater clarity.

My heart goes out to your mother. I have meditated and studied Buddhism for 50 years and the deepest insights I have gained, even though I have had many, have to do with the nature of love itself. By far the deepest Buddhist teachings have to do with love. Your mother was born with love in her heart, as everyone is. She is ultimately sad because her love is being rejected. To want one’s love to be valued is not a form of “clinging” or “greed.” It has to do with our survival as a loving being. My suggestion is that she contemplate on the fact that she has at least one person (you) that loves her enough to post this question. But I can tell you about people in general (including beginners in the practice of compassion and love) simply have no idea of what love is really about. Your mother is being ignored by such people. One of the deepest meditations in Theravadin Buddhism consists in recalling the love that was born in your heart centre (chakra) by imagining an ember deep in the heart (which never forgets) and breathing life into that ember. Having contacted this innate love, I suggest you share it only with those who value your love.