Trying sincerely to understand buddhism as a whole (seeking some orientation)
Greetings to everyone, and thank you sincerely to anyone willing to read this post!
I (15M) am a teen, from western europe, (studying classical piano performance in a conservatory) deeply interested in the dhamma.
Over the last months, i began exploring buddhism. Initially this happened indirectly through interest in meditation, psychology, altered states of consciousness, and philosophical questions regarding selfhood and suffering. I have only read two books (i have though read multiple articles and texts) on this matter: "the practice of not thinking", by former monk ryunosuke koike; and later "what the buddha taught", work of walpola sri rahula.
I genuinely desire to follow the path, orient my life sincerely toward it. However, my greatest obstacle is confusion. Not disagreement exactly, but difficulty assembling the teachings into one coherent and comprehensive understanding. Every text clarifies some things while complicating others. I feel as though i possess fragments without yet grasping the structure of the whole.
For this reason, i would be extremely grateful for thoughtful responses to any of the following questions. I do not expect anyone to answer all of them. Even clarification on a single point may help significantly.
I ask especially for answers that are careful, analytical, informed, and intellectually honest. I simply mean that i am trying sincerely to understand, and brief answers such as "just go meditate" or "just practice" unfortunately do not resolve the confusion themselves.
At present, my principal objective is not merely intellectual curiosity, but attaining a coherent and comprehensive understanding of buddhism overall, such that the teachings become intelligible together rather than as isolated concepts.
Because of that, i would especially appreciate answers to the first section below, since it is the most urgent and central issue for me right now. The remaining questions follow from it.
I am currently writing a philosophy essay whose central thesis can be stated as follows:
The traditional problem of free will arises from reifying the self as a substantial and independent source of action. What we call the ‘self’ is better understood as a dependently arisen continuity of causally conditioned and interrelated processes without inherent or permanent identity. Because of this, libertarian free will is rejected not only causally but ontologically: the idea of an absolutely self-originating agent is incoherent. Nevertheless, practical agency and moral responsibility remain possible through stable patterns of causal continuity, functional authorship and relational intelligibility. Morality is therefore reconstructed not around metaphysical freedom or divine command, but around the reduction of suffering and harmful conditions within interdependent systems.
However, although this initially seemed coherent to me, i now realize that my understanding may still be incomplete or confused.
The main problem is this:
If there is no self, what exactly is the relationship between the aggregates, consciousness, mind, continuity through time, rebirth, moral responsibility, and subjective experience itself?
I understand abstractly that the self is not a fixed entity, but i still do not clearly understand what an individual actually is conventionally.
What exactly unifies experience into the appearance of being 'someone'?
Why are there apparently separate streams of experience?
If there is no enduring self, what exactly acts, intends, chooses, suffers, or is reborn?
Likewise, i suspect my essay may still unconsciously preserve some subtle notion of self through terms such as 'functional authorship', 'organizational continuity', or 'agent'. I do not yet know whether these are legitimate conventional designations compatible with buddhism, or whether they still conceal attachment to identity in another form.
In other words:
How should one correctly think about agency without self?
How should one understand responsibility without an ultimate subject?
How should one understand continuity without identity?
Related to this, i would greatly appreciate rigorous explanations of the five aggregates, dependent origination, the buddhist understanding of mind, and the distinction between mind, consciousness, and awareness.
At present, i think my lack of understanding of these doctrines is the principal thing preventing both my essay and my understanding of buddhism overall from becoming coherent.
The second most urgent issue for me concerns musical performance and anxiety.
Music is one of the most important things in my life (as i am an aspiring pianist), but performance is often accompanied by severe anxiety, self-consciousness, obsessive self-monitoring, fear of failure, and attachment to judgment and results.
This destroys clarity and sometimes even the joy of music itself.
How should one work with this kind of anxiety?
How should one approach practice itself?
What attitude should one cultivate toward performance, judgment, mistakes, ambition, and refinement?
One of my biggest difficulties is that buddhism often appears fragmented depending on the source.
Sometimes it is presented almost psychologically, other times metaphysically, philosophically, religiously, ritually, or devotionally.
So:
What exactly is buddhism fundamentally?
What is essential and central?
What is secondary, symbolic, cultural, or sectarian?
How should a beginner construct a clear and ordered understanding of the whole?
Likewise:
How should one choose a tradition or school?
Are there serious and reliable buddhist teachers or communities in portugal that may eventually be worth seeking out in the future (i will, i believe, only be able to get a teacher in 3-4 years)?
I began meditation some months ago, but eventually started experiencing increasing internal stress and suppression, almost as though i was trying forcibly to silence thought.
So:
How should meditation properly begin for someone psychologically obsessive or excessively analytical?
What is meditation actually cultivating?
What should one generally direct the mind toward throughout ordinary life?
More broadly:
What exactly is dukkha?
What constitutes the absence of dukkha?
How should one relate emotionally to life itself without falling either into pessimism or naive optimism?
I also still struggle with several practical ethical questions.
For example:
What exactly is the basis of the precept against killing?
Why are animals generally included but plants excluded?
How should one respond to genuinely dangerous or violent people?
Is lying always wrong even when it prevents suffering?
How should one understand 'right speech' realistically rather than abstractly?
Likewise:
How should one deal with compulsivity?
How should one respond wisely to severely depressed people who threaten suicide if abandoned?
How should one deal compassionately with suffering within one’s own family?
How should one act regarding situations such as insect infestations at home?
Finally, i still remain confused regarding several metaphysical and cosmological issues.
Such are:
What exactly is rebirth if there is no enduring self?
What, if anything, continues?
How should one understand traditional buddhist cosmology today?
How should teachings concerning mount meru, realms, heavens, hells, and non-human beings be interpreted?
Can emptiness meaningfully apply to atoms and particles, or is that a misunderstanding of śūnyatā?
Lastly, i would greatly appreciate comments regarding the following books, in order, and whether they form a coherent path of study for someone in my position:
"What the buddha taught", walpola sri rahula.
"The heart of the buddha’s teaching", thich nhat hanh.
"The miracle of mindfulness", thich nhat hanh.
"Why buddhism is true", robert wright.
"The dhammapada", translated by eknath easwaran.
"Buddhism in practice" donald s. lopez.
"In the buddha’s words", bhikkhu bodhi.
"Buddhist philosophy: essential readings", william edelglass.
"How to see yourself as you really are", the dalai lama.
I apologize sincerely for the immense length of this post. My intention is not merely to ask disconnected questions, but to seek a coherent understanding of buddhism as a whole. Metta