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?

The previous years of my life feels like a dream. I was happily living, consumed with studies, learning things, watching youtube and stuff, enjoying a lot, mind was busy in various entertaining stuffs. But, I don't know how it started, but all those passions are waning. Its almost as if I've forgotten how to live. Live as in the previous ways of my living. I am now trying to find a way to live as I've lived in the past but can't seem to go back to the old ways. I mean I want to find something fun for my mind as I had in the past but I just cant bring up enough passion. What is happening to me ?

In general all Buddhist practice seems to help with the concerns mentioned in the Title. Equanimity helps with all unwanted, changing conditions (from minor challenges to "aging, sickness and death". Lessening (or even losing) the sense of "self" also seems powerful each day and especially on the last one. If anyone, especially anyone currently preparing for the eventual laying down of the body has: insights, dharma, experience (thus far)...please reply.

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?

When we study with concentration and our mind gets distracted we bring back to the very subject we study. The same thing we do it in meditation,when mind gets distracted we bring it back to breath . So isn't Studying is also meditation

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?

This question was inspired by [an earlier one](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51807/do-any-sub-sects-of-buddhism-have-the-concept-of-eternal-hell) . In [DN27](https://suttacentral.net/dn27/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) , it was mentioned: > As the cosmos contracts, sentient beings are mostly headed for the realm of streaming radiance. I recalled hearing a Dharma talk ages ago that as a great aeon ends, all the lower realms are emptied (perhaps, destroyed?) and beings are reborn into the higher realms. This appeared to be what the above sutra is alluding to. Correct me if I am wrong. Does this mean that all the hell beings (even those in the lowest hell) will also be promoted to the higher realm? What happens to their bad karma, is it suspended? Or is the contraction of the universe halted until these beings had expired their bad karma?

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?

So I was reading some stories from the Bhikku who created https://americanmonk.org/ Specifically about his ordination(s) and he mentioned how he travelled from A to B to C country after X, Y or Z circumstances happened, but mentioning it in a rather nonchalant way like any general tourist. Like he had an abundant of wealth to spend freely to travel whimsically. So it makes me think and want to inquire how do modern monks manage to travel so freely when all they own (supposed to own) is a bowl and 1 or 3 robes. A monk is supposed to give up all possessions before ordination. So what about their passport. Sure finances they could give to a trusted loved one but isn't that cheating. Like a kind of "hold my material possessions until after I ordain then give me them back" cheating...lying essentially! especially with a passport where legally nobody but the passport holder or governmental body are able to legally "own" the passport. Sure I understand that a monk can have a personal benefactor like a loved one who supports them financially, though in the story I vaguely explained above the Bhikku was dealing with having visa issues after being ordained in a different country, which implies he still owns a passport, then travelling so freely, implying finances etc are there. Even logically how can a Bhikkhu even buy a plane ticket or "own" a plane ticket (without the help of a lay person doing it for them) I am not trying to be pedantic, I am genuinely curious how this stuff works. Especially when looking at the strictness and limitations of requirements of a person just to ordain in the first place, for then the strictness to be relaxed instantly and do a 180 as a Bhikkhu can then use a passport that he owned before ordination, or money, or even a pair of seeing eye glasses (medicine requisite but still a possession one would have and I assume need to give up before ordination) Which adds another question, on a more practical level. If one took ordination say in sri lanka (any country) then the visa expires (visa is a possession too) Bhikkhu has no money, is to be deported, no financial benefactors....how does that even function from a modern world perspective. Any ordianed or past ordianed members experience would be greatly appreciated. I obviously understand that benefactors from the laity, not even the Bhikkus family/friends etc can and do support the Bhikku. I assume this is also how and why teacher monks are able to go back and forth multiple times a year to different monasteries and countries teaching the dhamma, after being requested.

I read the following on the internet: > If there is a Buddhist monk or nun who declared openly that rebirth > does not exist then I believe they would be asked to disrobe. If they > refused then they would be ostracised by the community. I also read the following on the internet by a monk named Yuttadhammo: > 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) Is denial of 'rebirth' a Parajika offense? Please provide answers from Sutta or Vinaya?

People usually start off treating me kindly, but over time their behavior shifts toward dislike and hostility. Despite my genuine efforts to be caring and accommodating, others often perceive me as rude or uncaring. They begin to disregard my boundaries and treat me dismissively. Even those initially supportive often turn against me or side with others. My ideas and contributions frequently go ignored, while less thoughtful suggestions from others are praised. I seem to unintentionally provoke negative reactions, despite my best intentions. When disputes occur, authority figures consistently side with others, regardless of objective facts. Even my professors overlook my objectively high-quality work, favoring coworkers whose contributions are clearly inferior and often later proven incorrect. Recently, during a soccer match, the opposing team became openly hostile, and one player deliberately injured me. Although I forgave him later, incidents like this spark intense anger and a strong urge to confront and retaliate aggressively. I fear that under bad circumstances, this could escalate into group physical violence against me. I've noticed this troubling pattern for some time and genuinely don't understand its cause. I'm committed to resolving this issue once I clearly identify what's causing it. Have you experienced something similar or do you have insights on this? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I have been interested in the Dzogchen practice of Thogal. Would you suggest any sources or web-sites about this?

DN 15 mentions the following eight kinds of emancipations: > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation. > > “Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is > the second emancipation. > > “One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and remains > in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth > emancipation.** > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth > emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one > enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception > nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of > perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.** > > “Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, > in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them > and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as > long as he wants, when through the ending of effluents he enters and > remains in the effluent-free release of awareness and release of > discernment, having directly known it and realized it for himself in > the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And > as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, > there is none.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Brahman-realization in the following terms: > यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ > यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ > यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न > महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥ > > yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha > yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā > tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve > mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 || > > **Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees > nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing > else.** But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, > hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite > is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, > what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own > power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 similarly, > यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टते तामाहुः > परमां गतिम् ॥ १०॥ > > yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha . buddhiśca na viceṣṭate > tāmāhuḥ paramāṃ gatim > > When the five instruments of knowledge(senses of perception) stand still, together with the > mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the parama gati (Supreme > State). Katha Upanishad 2.3.10 Would the realization of Brahman or the attainment of the highest state as described in these Upaniṣadic passages correspond to the eighth emancipation in the sutta, particularly as it pertains to the cessation of perception? If not, is there a more accurate mapping within the eightfold scheme : perhaps one of the immaterial attainments or an earlier emancipation?

In various sources belonging to non Buddhist traditions that have historically been rivals to Buddhism like Vedanta and Nyaya, one often finds claims that their philosophers defeated Buddhist thinkers in formal debates. These accounts are often cited to highlight the intellectual strength and argumentative success of their respective schools over buddhism. I am interested in knowing whether Buddhist sources such as texts or inscriptions contain similar records of Buddhist scholars successfully engaging and defeating prominent non-Buddhist philosophers from vedanta or nyaya backgrounds in philosophical debates. Are there any such documented instances from the Buddhist side, and if so, could you provide references or examples?