The sutta DN 22 offers an extended description of craving, as follows: > "And where does this craving, when arising, arise? And where, when > dwelling, does it dwell? Whatever seems endearing and agreeable in > terms of the world: that is where this craving, when arising, arises. > That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. "And what seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world? > > The eye seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where > this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it > dwells. > > "The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect... > > "Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas... > > "Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... > Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... > Intellect-consciousness... > > "Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... > Body-contact... Intellect-contact... > > "Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling > born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born > of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact... > > "Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of > smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... > Perception of ideas... > > "Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for > smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... > Intention for ideas... > > "Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... > Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for > ideas... > > "Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought > directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed > at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas... > > "Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of > smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... > Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the > world. > > That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when > dwelling, it dwells. > > DN 22 In SN 44.9, there is a discussion with the chronically confused & bewildered wanderer Vaccagotta (more nuancedly translated by Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi below) as follows: > “Yasmiñca pana, bho gotama, samaye imañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṁ kāyaṁ anupapanno hoti, imassa pana bhavaṁ gotamo kiṁ upādānasmiṁ paññāpetī”ti? > > “Yasmiṁ kho, vaccha, samaye imañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṁ kāyaṁ anupapanno hoti, tamahaṁ taṇhūpādānaṁ vadāmi. Taṇhā hissa, vaccha, tasmiṁ samaye upādānaṁ hotī”ti. > > "And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet > reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?" > > "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time." > > [Thanissaro](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html) > > > Bhikkhu Bodhi In SN 44.9, what thing/phenomena exactly is sustained by craving?

I read the following on the internet: > Talking about semantics again. I guess you still didn't learn the > definition of the word. Paranibanna and death are synonymous. You are > just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic... for no reason at > all. Please discuss this.

In traditional Buddhist texts, Solar and lunar eclipses are often seen as being caused by a demon named Rāhu who attempts to seize the sun or moon, as seen for example in the SN 2.9 and 2.10 where the Buddha speaks of Rāhu releasing the sun or moon after the Buddha’s intervention. This is pretty similar to the mythical explanation of eclipses found in Hindu puranas. Today in light of modern science, eclipses are understood as natural events governed by the movement and alignment of the earth, moon, and sun. There is no magical phenomenon behind it and no gods or demons involved. Is there room within Buddhist philosophy for integrating or accepting the astronomical explanation of eclipses, or would that be seen as rejecting scriptural authority?

What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership: “The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes. To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself. To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ : ...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states! We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells. The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons: 1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!) 2)The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by the FDA. A similar principle applies across industries—whether it's medical treatments or consumer products like Miami Blinds , interstate movement and consumer behavior can directly impact regulatory oversight and market dynamics.” [note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

Aside from the Agganna Sutta, are there other Buddhist texts that discuss how the world or the universe came into existence?

Why, exactly, in technical detail, does consciousness "divide" into selves in Buddhism? Has this every been adequately answered by anyone in history, in any school of Buddhism? Don't need a complete analysis here as an answer necessarily, but looking for an intro to the depths of technical detail. By that I mean, how does it go from "base consciousness" (like ālaya-vijñāna in Yogācāra Buddhism), to self-consciousness basically? Step by step, break it down so one can see the inner workings :) If you'd just like to comment on the sources I can find this information in, please list where to find it. English translation ideally, ideally not 100's or 1000's of pages of reading. But maybe that doesn't exist yet :). _Hoping this can be boiled down to just a few short/brief paragraphs, or just a few concise pages of external reading._ I ask this question because was just trying to narrow down my understanding of the foundation of reality, the universe, the everything, writing: > There is only experience. > > Experience is a cause (to experience), and an effect (the experience), at the same time. It is difficult to imagine but if you think about what that would mean, that means there is no separation into two things (cause and effect), there is only one thing, the cause-effect flow. > > Experience is action and reaction, action and object, motion and form. Cause and effect. It is one unified thing, non-separable into parts or even befores and afters. > > Somehow though it subdivides into individual experiences. Experiences only aware of a relative portion of the whole, not the whole itself. _By "experience" I mean basically consciousness in traditional terminology. But I think experience is a better English word for it. It's all just words anyways, words aren't the actual thing obviously._ In Buddhism, this "subdivision" is also in places described as a defilement of pure consciousness, or ignorance, a temporary blotting out of the light like a cloud moving in front of the sun. Etc.. But WHY. WHY does experience subdivide, or become ignorant, or the underlying field of consciousness, the one flow, the One permanent thing? It must DO something to get there it seems. It must TURN AWAY perhaps. But why would it do that? No reason that I can think of yet. Maybe it's a locality thing, it just can't experience the whole thing? But why? Etc.. My rational brain is like: 1. "In the beginning" there was pure consciousness, undifferentiated, One continuous undivided experience. _I don't mean there was a beginning, I just mean conceptually there is a base state, sort of thing._ 2. Then it exploded into a plethora of ignorant selves, thinking they were each independent of the underlying field and everything else. 3. The selves go through cycles of life and death, rising into pleasure realms, falling into pain realms, for long periods of time. 4. Until eventually they realize their oneness, and find the middle path of peace, break the cycle, and I guess become "extinguished" experiences (nirvana/cessation), releasing that part of the base consciousness back to the field. _Obviously there is no beginning though, but this is just a mental exercise to model the system._ But so many questions in that. Main one here is: - Why does pure/base consciousness need to or have to or eventually evolve into semi-ignorant sub-consciousnesses, unaware of the whole? - And assuming consciousness is always in some sense "disturbed", a rippling pond by definition, always and forever, why do they say you can ever achieve "nirvana/cessation", the extinguished state, where you are back to the perfectly calm pond state? - Why couldn't the whole stay aware of the whole, why did it have to subdivide? Basically: - If the pond started in a perfectly calm state, why would it ever become disturbed? - Assuming it was disturbed for some reason (by it's nature somehow?), and spontaneously erupts into a plethora of selves, how can we say/model/imagine/know that those selves can eventually become extinguished back into pure calmness again? - And if they are capable of becoming pure calm in a disturbed pond, why wouldn't everything eventually evolve back into pure calm, and the whole system is extinguished? Basically trying to convey the blurry imagination I have in my head of this network of processes and evolutions.... - Selves spontaneously emerge because the pond can't stay calm (WHY? HOW? Step by step in technical detail?). - Yet disturbance can become calm again? In a physical pond, the calm pond is disturbed by something external like a piece of dirt, a rock, or the wind. Or something within like a jumping or swimming fish. But this metaphor of the pond breaks down, it is not totally accurate. In a physical pond, there are already objects like fish and birds and molecules, etc.. But in base consciousness, there is none of this yet. Just potential somehow. To summarize though, main focus on this question is: **Why does the pure undivided calm pond of consciousness divide into selves (disturbances in the underlying field)?** Please break it down for me, step by step somehow, in some technical detail. Many will say "because it did X" (it turned away, it started desiring, it forgot about the whole, etc..). Okay then, but _why_ did it start doing that even? What was the detailed technical process that led to those initial actions leading to the separation? It's like, I imagine this is the usual answer I read/see: 1. Base consciousness. 2. It decided to do X. 3. Result was ignorance, selves, etc.. I can reason about going from step 2 -> 3, but **how do you rationalize step 1 -> 2?** Put another way (if that helps): > What is the _technical mechanism_ by which primordial consciousness becomes _mistaken consciousness_? You might answer, "well it clings, creating the I". Okay, why does it cling then? _What is the in-between step there exactly, substeps?_ **There is a _missing link_ in the explanation.** In every text/thread I have seen so far, it goes from pure to impure, with no explanation of why or how this works. Once we are clinging, I get that the self forms and the illusion exists. But going from non-self to clinging, why. If this is never elaborated on in any text or anywhere, please just let me know. If you have _your own_ developed ideas on it, I would love to hear that as well too, either way.

In sleep, the 5 sense doors are closed. And in deep sleep the mind door is also closed. So technically it's nibbana. Isn't it?

I’m interested in understanding the religious and devotional practices that may have been part of Siddhartha Gautama's life before he undertook his renunciate life and became the Buddha. Specifically: Are there any historical or textual references indicating that Siddhartha Gautama himself, or members of his immediate family (such as his father Suddhodana, mother Māyā etc), participated in worship of deities or followed any theistic religious practices prior to his renunciation? If so, which deities were venerated, and are there any specific suttas, commentaries, or canonical sources that mention this? Additionally, was deity worship a common practice within the socio-religious environment of Kapilavastu at that time? I’m looking for references from early Buddhist texts (Pāli Canon, Āgamas, or later commentarial traditions if relevant) or scholarly interpretations that shed light on this aspect.

Posthumanist ideas often explore how moral concern might extend beyond just human beings, including the possibility of artificial intelligences or other non-human entities. While we haven’t created a conscious AI yet, the idea raises some interesting questions from a Buddhist perspective. Let's assume if we are able to create conscious AI, in some distant future Would a conscious AI be included in the scope of compassion and ethical responsibility that Buddhism teaches? Could an artificial being like this fit into existing Buddhist categories such as beings subject to karma? I’d be really interested to hear how different traditions or contemporary Buddhist thinkers might approach this, even if it's speculative.

Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā). This includes not only material objects but also the self, other beings, and even emotions and concepts. Yet, the cultivation of love , compassion, and empathy is central to the Buddhist path. Other philosophical or religious systems offer clear metaphysical grounds for love: - In Advaita Vedānta, love is said to naturally arise from the realization that all beings are ultimately the same Self (ātman). - In Bhakti traditions like Vaishnavism or even other theistic religions like Christianity, love is grounded in the belief that all beings are ' divine eternal souls', either a portion of God, or children of God. But Buddhism does not appear to endorse either of these metaphysical views. If everything is empty from a Buddhist perspective, wouldn’t that imply that emotions like love, compassion, and empathy are also empty and devoid of inherent existence? Then why should one love at all? How can these qualities be understood, justified, or cultivated within the framework of emptiness? Looking for answers grounded in Buddhist philosophy, ideally drawing from classical texts or traditional commentaries, to better understand how this seeming paradox is resolved.

I’ve been trying to understand what happens to consciousness or awareness when someone fully attains Nirvana. From what I gather, Nirvana is described as the end of suffering and the cessation of the cycle of rebirth. But I’m unclear on whether this also means that all forms of consciousness or awareness whether in a physical body or any other 'purified' or 'disembodied' form come to a complete end. Is it correct to say that after Nirvana, there is no remaining experience, presence, or awareness in any sense? Or is this question itself based on a misunderstanding of what Nirvana actually is?

Just [was walking through](https://cluesurf.substack.com/p/base-consciousness) how to go from a base flow of pure, undivided, ego-less, consciousness, to a sense of self, after falling onto the [Eight Consciousnesses page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses) (most insight from [Vasubandhu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu) ~500 CE 🤯). It makes total sense in this brief moment how to go from one to many basically 😍💥. But though I haven't read the original works, and have many decades worth of thinking/research/learning/engaging/experiencing to go through to perhaps get a deeper glimpse, I am not satisfied with my interpretation of how the "5 senses" emerged from the base consciousness. I'm not talking about literal eyes and ears, and human-level sense organs. I am talking about the **potential** for the experience of sight/sound/taste/touch/smell. If that potential is baked into the base consciousness, then I have some base questions: 1. What is the experience of base consciousness like (is it _more than_ all 5 senses, since it is not the absence of them)? 2. How _exactly_ do the 5 normal senses get created out of the base consciousness? I don't quite follow. If nothing else, where can I read to learn more (ideally in English, but even mentioning original sources might help)? But if you can offer a basic summary, that would be good too.

so basically I just graduated college with a teaching degree but am not enthusiastic about being a traditional public school teacher. My degree is in both general elementary ed and prek-12 special ed (i much prefer working in special ed). My boyfriend is thinking of becoming a buddhist monk and I have been considering it for myself (buddhist nun) as well. Thing is, I really love working with kids and I would like that to be part of my life. Are there any opportunities for buddhist nuns to work with elementary aged children? Also, are there generally any buddhist related roles that work with kids? Like a buddhist school? I live in the US but am open to moving around. Specific locations are appreciated if you know any. Thanks.

Was trying to help an undergrad with his assignment with another friend. This friend started advising the undergrad to use [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com) to do his assignments while the undergrad was complaining that it wasn’t very helpful for his programming module. I felt uneasy but the way the conversation went, this seems like a common thing. So, I am not sure. I wondered what is the correct Buddhist view on this. Is it breaking any precepts like lying (this is cheating, right?). Will it lead to long lasting harm and suffering from a karmic point of view? What would be the Buddha’s advice?

In several discourses, the Buddha is noted for his silence or deliberate non-engagement with certain metaphysical questions—such as whether the universe is created or governed by an absolute deity, or whether an eternal soul exists that can attain liberation by entering an everlasting transcendent spiritual realm such as Brahma-loka or Vishnu-loka. What was the rationale behind this silence? Was his silence due to the fact he actually did not know if they existed? Did he deliberately withhold such teachings, regarding his audience as unprepared to accept these doctrines as truths? Or did he see these views as fundamentally mistaken from the ground up and therefore not worth discussing? Which of these explanations aligns best with canonical teachings and the broader Buddhist philosophical tradition?

Recently, I came across an intriguing opinion - Buddha did not believe in rebirth and that his views on the topic stem from some fake suttas. It sparked a thought in my mind that I believe strongly contradict this viewpoint. I wanted to share it with you, and also open it for counter arguments. The argument is structured as follows: if rebirth does not exist, we only live one life, and once we die, we cease to exist. Therefore, what motivation would a person have to renounce worldly attachments and endure the hardships of seeking enlightenment? One might argue that individuals pursue enlightenment to alleviate their suffering. However, it's worth noting that many people lead relatively comfortable lives, experiencing only brief periods of discomfort and ultimately facing death. In fact, those in higher social strata often enjoy luxurious lives and many find fulfillment in them. Given this context, there is no objective reason for them to even considering renouncing their comfortable existence in pursuit of enlightenment? Therefore, if there is no rebirth, enlightenment becomes optional - much like learning mathematics, whcih although is beautiful, is nonetheless optional. We could potentially choose to live our lives and simply "power through" until the end, and be done forever. Or even worse, kill self and be “at peace” forever. If that were a solution, Buddha (assuming he was smart and well intentioned) would have proposed pursuit of enlightenment only to people in bad mental/physical conditions - but he did it universally - which says that its not true. This reasoning is quite convincing to me. I would appreciate hearing any arguments towards non-existence of rebirth and significance of enlightenment assuming it. Your insights are very much appreciated.

I would like to ask about interpretations of Mādhyamaka (non-Gelugpa) that affirm the possibility of predicating svabhāva of śūnyatā—understood as something self-sufficient, free, and complete. I assume that readings in line with Madhyamaka Shentong may be more open to this perspective, as opposed to Rangtong interpretations. But I would like to learn more about this. Thank you!

Making emotional connection to others is an instrinsic part of reality, since people are nothing but nature in a complex form, and buddhism teaches how to prepare oneself for dealing with all aspects of nature. This is somewhat ignored in traditional buddhism, swept under the rug using the advice to develop loving kindness. While that advice might be true, it is in general quite broad and not specific enough for many people, including myself as a man with Asperger's. I am looking for more concrete and practical advice which is still quite fundamental and applicable in general. Can you please give your insights on developing emotional connection with others - what traits within oneself need to be developed/strengthened to get good at it? Thanks!

Not vinaya information like the 13 questions, but things like a householder who has children should not ordain, or one should only ordain after being able to maintain sila for X amount of time, or when one has weakened desire enough that longing for X sensory pleasure no longer causes a burden. I did see a user "sankha" mention in a question here some information on when is right to ordain, but no sources. > When you become dispassionate in continuing the lay life or when you get enough confidence that you can successfully fend off the temptations of lay life, it is worth considering ordination. I am interested on what the Buddha said on who should, who should not, when, when not, who cannot etc ordain.

I read the following on the internet: > The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The > Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as > "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against > orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, > it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not > rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. > > [Internet](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/8157) Did the Buddha teach at the breakup of the body there is birth? Which suttas say this?