I have had the impression that "self" has at least sometimes been thought of as "something" other than the 5 aggregates. What does "self" mean? What is "sense of self"?

As far as I've studied the suttas (not very much, to be honest), it seems that whenever dukkha is analysed and reflected upon, it is mostly done in terms of the phenomena as they arise in the present. In contrast, modern psychology and therapy seems to put a lot of effort and value in trying to understand/recognize the specific historical causes that led to the establishment of any unwholesome trait/behaviour/thought pattern in the first place. For instance, while buddhist practice seems to focus on the arising of craving or aversion, and the understanding of how ignorance makes us to crave/control the external world, modern therapy methods emphazise the importance of knowing the reasons in our past that may indicate when such craving/aversion started to be a part of our habitual way of thinking. Do the specific past historical causes play any role in the buddhist analysis of dukkha? Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

Being a 'genuine' monk means a certain kind of dispassion towards the world. How is sexuality & 'relationship craving' effectively dealt within a monk? I am pretty sure a lot of monks struggle with it although they never speak of it. That's probably why many monks disrobe because they can't get the fruits of the noble path. Is it with metta towards the opposite sex or just seeing the unattractiveness of it that craving reduces?

I remember reading a sutta some time ago in which a lay disciple of the Buddha held a conversation with a non-Buddhist ascetic. I don't remember the topic of their conversation, but at one point the lay buddhist talked about having experienced jhana. Does anyone know which sutta this is? Thanks in advance for your answers!

every meditator at a point in his her life goes through a dilemma of whether to ordain or to live a lay life. Although it's a wholesome disposition, I wonder if its a lack of strength to face problems as a veil that shadows the decision. (It's proven so for me) But sometimes the emotion to give up lay life is so strong(and then again it's just a emotion-state of mind which is also annicca) that the more I look back, the more I get the feeling I should have done it a long time ago because the fruits even as a lay person are so evident and clear (wonder what pool of calm monastic life will bring around) The question remains, how can one determine ones decision to ordain, whether it's a strong volition or not (because if it's not I would hate to go back to lay life as a failure and discouraged on the path of Dhamma)

Some people believe that in Buddhism when the mother of a monk dies she would hold on to the monk's robe and go to heaven. I never read the Buddha say anything like that, but of course I haven't read everything the blessed one said. It makes me wonder because in Buddhism there are no shortcuts and it may look like one. I've heard this belief exists in Thailand, does anyone have more information on that, like did the Buddha ever suggested it?

I have seen different answers to that question, so I assume it varies from school to school, is it right? I am not talking about donations to the Sangha as a whole, like a fund, but giving cash to a monk.

As far as I understand, there are sets of rules to be observed as a monastic monk and I'm not sure if TV, radio and other source of media is allowed? Just curious to know, no offense.

I am new to this topic so I may be asking a silly question. I have watched a lot of monk movies and after watching those movies to me it appears that forgiveness means if anybody does some harm to you you don't react and just try to pretend like it never happened to you. I tried to find out the meaning of this word got a similar answer. **Question:** How is forgiveness defined in Buddhism?

In this answer to 'Are all Buddhists vegetarian? ' the poster says > [the Dalai Lama] has a medical condition that disallows > him to be a strict vegetarian. I've heard this before and never questioned it. But thinking about it - what kind of medical condition would preclude the Dalai Lama from being a vegetarian. Suddenly I feel very skeptical that there is any such condition. Is that unfair?

I have been practising compassion meditation somewhat consistently. I usually try to do so in the morning and in the evening. Somehow, I've come to view these two moments as 'ideal' in terms of meditation. But, when I skip a meditation session, I am afraid or unwilling to meditate outside of those morning and evening times. **Would it bring more benefit to just meditate whenever possible, independently of a routine schedule?** I feel like meditating during the day (other than morning or evening) will maybe affect my schedule, making my evening meditation 'too much'. **In sum, is it profitable to meditate outside of schedule (or even disregard schedule) to compensate for skipped sessions?**

I read about how instead of believing if slander is done then that person will goto Avicii Hell. I don’t see this discussed much when researching Buddhism, it seems mainly mentioned by Nichiren? Does anyone have more information about what this means? What is everyone’s thoughts on this? Why isn’t there more information on something so big?

In psychology, a ***habit*** is defined as a behaviour done automatically, requiring little conscious effort. I have meditated recently pretty much every second day, but I fail to see any automaticity; its incredibly effortful to sit and meditate for me still. **Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)?** Here, I mean the frequency which would enable consistent and automatic sitting and meditation. Also, does consistency relative to **the hour of the day of meditation matter at all?** Any information is welcome, thank you.

Lets say for example I was trapped in pain before for a long time with no way out for long time and the pain kept torturing me. Now I feel better and not anymore in a no way out situation because I found out about Buddhism that says "You are not your feelings", "There is no self that feels" This new knowledge helped me to stop identifying as much as a helpless victim trapped in pain with no way out and also now I knew I am not in a situation without a chance anymore as I was before when I had no teaching like Buddhism. (Trust me just the teachings I mentioned above was enormously important for me and it took me from the situation where "i was trapped in pain with no way out" to "I am trapped in pain but I know there is a way out" with Buddhism because I am not my feeling ultimately. The scarry part and what kept my really trapped was that I saw no solution and it was just torturing me. But even if that has helped and can help me to stop identification for some moments when I am enquiring like I am not my feelings, nor is there any self i imagine as the feeler of my feelings I still cant really be free totally because if the enquiry goes well I find my self in a more peaceful state but when the vision or clear seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" stops or is not as clear anymore it brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the situation that I am trapped in pain (it has become my automatic state). Now what is happening right there is it the job of ignorance to keep me in this situation or is the Sankharas doing it and what are they doing to keep me in this state. If I knew what happen then I would stop it immediately i know it my mind just wants to see clearly what is happening and then it stops it but until I dont know what is happening and what is doing what I cant stop it and being trapped in pain is automatic. I am sorry if a similar question has been asked and answered but I read it and it was not really the answer to my question, many thanks to all of you for your time to help.

From SN 55.24 , I found the terms "laughing wisdom" and "swift wisdom". What do they mean? > They have laughing wisdom and swift wisdom, and are endowed with > freedom. > *hāsapañño javanapañño vimuttiyā ca samannāgato.*

Ven. and good Buddha-Parisata, touched, and who ever interested and willing to give into the matter to get it minded, Who doesn't know the case where another is perceived as arrogant, either because of having the view "all are equal" or by the feeling to be put on a place which one does not deserve. What ever the situation actually requires, might be different form ones perception and possible very wrong to give into disapprove or even dislike. Remember the effects of being a person not honor of what is worthy to. So how to handle such "I can not..." situations for oneself? What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level? (Of course in measures of the good Dhamma asked. Related topic: [Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33598/vanna-maccharia-stinginess-in-regard-of-ones-reputations-what-to-practice-to-g)) *(Note that this possibility of grow in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

Maybe it's better to use an example. I believe one of the very first Mahayana sutras one is expected to learn is the Heart Sutra. But when you read it, you immediately see things like 'skandhas' and 'dharmas'. If you start with Pali Canon, you can basically find all about them in the Sutta Pitaka. But if you know nothing about Theravada, where in the Mahayana teachings do you find those basic notions? What will tell you about karma, dependent arising, dharmas, worlds structure and so on?

There are many parables and stories from the Buddha's life suggesting he valued above all what is practical and conducive to virtue. He discouraged metaphysical speculation and musings. **Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should *delay* certain questions until one can empirically get a definite answer?** For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. **What is speculation in Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to what is immediately accessible?** I guess I could also add: ***How* does one know when one is speculating?**

Householder "[?? English research institute](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/16687/%eb%b9%84%ed%83%80%eb%af%bc%ec%a0%9c%ec%9d%b4%ec%9d%98%ec%98%81%ec%96%b4%ec%84%b1%ec%9e%a5%ec%97%b0%ea%b5%ac%ec%86%8c) " quoted: >`The three things a buddha can't do (如來 三不能 Buddha's three incapacities) 1.不能免 定業衆生 He cannot destroy bad karma for anyone. 2.不能度 無緣衆生 He cannot save the people unrelated to him. 3.不能盡 衆生界 He cannot save the whole world of all living things` rightly answering [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34182/11235) . For the increase of faith and as possibility to make merits in such (as well as asked by ChrisW in [a comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/34215/what-is-meant-by-the-impossibility-a-buddha-can-not-help-someone-not-related-to/34218#comment57903_34218)) : **Where can this statement be found literary in the basked of the heritage of the Buddhas teachings?** *(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of [merits](http://accesstoinsight.eu/en/dictionary/punnakiriyavatthu) and continue such for release)*

Question in the title. I'm looking for answers citing either canonical scripture or the position of any particular school of Buddhism. The *inner monologue* in the question could also be read as mental chatter; mental noise; superfluous thoughts; extraneous thoughts; or the unnecessary thoughts that normal people have every moment. And I mean when the inner monologue has stopped for good; that is, the case when it never comes back. Another way to read this question might be, *Do arahants have an inner monologue?*