There are five clinging aggregates. Here it states that one's self clings to the five aggregates. To quote: > "It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it > walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it > stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right > next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next > to that post or stake. > > "In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form > as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards > feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness as: 'This is mine, > this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right > around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right > next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next > to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right > next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on > one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been > defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the > mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings > purified. It is clear that one clings to the five aggregates during his or her life time. But after death the five aggregates dissolve. My question is : are the clinging aggregates the cause of clinging after death? (Just as one clings to his own existence after death and takes rebirth)

Upon reading Andrei Volkov's answer on this post , I am stricken by a deep questioning. My two questions are: (1) can emptiness be unsuitable for some dispositions? and (2) can emptiness be partially achieved? Forgive my probable vast elaboration on this question, I just feel I should explain. 1. Within Tibetan Buddhism, there are different schools teaching emptiness: Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Svantantrika. The Dalai Lama, in his books [\[a\]][2] ,[\[b\]][3] often suggests this corresponds to different mental dispositions. Similarly, he suggests in some books that religions are different because of different mental dispositions [\[c\]][4] . So, I'm wondering if emptiness could be detrimental when taught to certain types of mental dispositions, i.e. different individuals? 2. For the second part, I feel on the basis of strong faith in Buddhism, and overconfidence on my own cognitive abilities, and a degree of pride, I studied emptiness and -- through that strong motivation -- understood a large degree of it. But, because of pride's *delusional* quality, I learned things in a flawed way. By faith and pride, I thought I understood, but I concluded I understood on partial grounds, which is "inadequate [according to Buddhist logic and epistemology]" [\[a\]][2] . So, I wonder here if it's possible to learn certain aspects of emptiness, but either apply or conceive it in a very partial, dissatisfactory way? Lastly, would humility help in this case? Here, I specifically mean recognizing one's limitations, not overestimating understanding, or insight. Thank you.

Both the Theravada and the Zen traditions appear to regard pain, even extreme physical pain, as a necessary part of sitting, whereas Ngakpa Chogyam in *Journey into Vastness*, speaking for the Dzogchen point of view, seems to imply that pain is an indication that one is not sitting properly and that there are ways of sitting that do not produce pain. The only references to pain in the context of meditation in the Pali Canon appear to refer to the Buddha's six-year period of self-mortification, which he repudiated (correct me with a specific reference if I am mistaken). Therefore, I am interested in the attitude of different Buddhist schools to pain in the context of sitting and meditation. Is it a sign of poor sitting practice or is it part of the experience, perhaps even something important that should be cultivated (e.g., ancient shamans used pain to induce altered states of consciousness, an example being the famous Sun Dance in which in which practitioners hung themselves by the pectoral muscles from a post for several days). What do the different Buddhist schools and traditions say about this?

From suttacentral Parajika rules: > "Non-offenses - There is no offense: **if it is unintentional**; if he > does not know; if he is not aiming at death; if he is insane; **if he > is the first offender**." PJ 3 What happens to unintentional second offenders? The ignorant/under-informed? If one kills unintentionally, but aware of the offence of killing, where does one stand?

I'm wondering if Buddhism has any notion of visual defilement. What I mean is that in Christianity, there are notions of one's purity or person corrupted by pornography, lustful gazing, etc. Is there an equivalent in Buddhism? Also, if a person perceives pornography or gazes lustfully, is this sufficient to be a kind of attachment if there is no action or consequence? I.e. What is the consequence of visual pleasure without further action? What is the consequence of perceiving a pleasurable sight *without* intention, e.g. mindfully? Thank you. PS: What is the scope of such pleasure compared to say orgasm or eating? Is there a pleasure specific to vision, e.g. one becomes accustomed and insensitive to visual pleasure specifically with overuse? (But not, say, other sensory pleasures)

>And then I remembered a passage I had read in one of Suzuki's essays. "What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?" ('"the Dharma-Body of the Buddha" is another way of saying Mind, Suchness, the Void, the Godhead.) The question is asked in a Zen monastery by an earnest and bewildered novice. And with the prompt irrelevance of one of the Marx Brothers, the Master answers, "The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth," the novice dubiously inquires, '"what, may I ask, is he?" Groucho gives him a whack over the shoulders with his staff and answers, "A golden-haired lion." This story is quoted from Huxley's The Doors of Perception. What is the meaning of the story?

is buddhism is not certainly the idealism or materialisn?Buddhism philosophy is about the consequence mechanism about five elements* and those elements aren't viewed as the material,antimatter or spirit.But the motion and change of them is showing that Buddha or at least the nearest original of his book want to say that the motion and objective reality(material or time) is real,and it sounds like materialism.But the motion is come from,where?isn't it an conscious,thinking of mind construct from data,to create the motion,the time concept and feeling about it?Some time buddhism mention about mind,but doesn't it say the mind is a part of motion of elements?
* fundamental elements (vietnamese: ngũ uẩn)

I have a while ago seen a diagram or explanation on this forum. It was about the way in which the five powers interact in meditation. After reading a comment by ven. Yuttadhammo, I gathered there's such a thing as *too much* concentration (and in the case mentioned not enough effort). Can anyone explain the interactions of these five powers in daily life and meditation? Thank you.

Although Buddha (Siddhartha) taught that humans had no soul, nevertheless he taught that there is a reincarnation. My question is not how these two 'dogmas' are compatible but why he 'needed' reincarnation? His teaching are mostly very simple and not really metaphysical. Was teaching the noble eightfold path not sufficient?

If there is no rebirth, what is the response for a layman asking as below? Oh, monk, I have been feeding you for ten years and I was told that my good deeds could secure me a better fortune on my re-birth, and that I will be paid a hundred or even a thousand times more. I was told that this deed of mine could even secure me a place among the Devas. But now I hear you say in secret amongs you that there is no re-birth, so tell me why should I give you this bowl of rice if there is no reward for me? I feed my son too for ten years, but he gives me delight and I also know that he is going to support me when I'm aged and weak from feeding you and him. But you, you say that you will be extinguished like fire and be here and nowhere, so why should I feed you? Ooh, is it because of my compassion that I feed you? But if so where is your compassion when your aim is to delight in the Jhanas and at last be extinguished leaving me and my son at lose? Tell me why I shouldn’t call you a hypocrite?

I'm curious as to whether wisdom is truly united as a mental factor, or whether some people can be very wise, yet very ignorant in other aspects. Basically, my question is: is wisdom a single entity, or made up of parts? I feel like the answer needs to be both, to some degree. As, if it were completely divisible then there would be no such thing as wisdom, there would be nothing unifying these parts. And, if it were completely indivisible and unified then it would never change, increase, etc. Perhaps the real issue is whether wisdom aggregates into a collected mental factor. Any thoughts? Thank you.

I have questions linked with wisdom and self-compassion. (1) Does *self*-compassion arise from wisdom? (2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion? Thank you.

I am aware of Indian spirituality associating orgasm with a loss of energy. This conception is present in other cultures as well. However, it is conspicuously absent from Western culture. Why isn't there more rigorous evidence of orgasm -- and sexuality in general -- and lack of enthusiasm and vigour? How can one perceive such an association if it exists? Thank you.

Would you characterize belief in rebirth as a central component of Buddhism? Are there Buddhists who do not believe in it? How is this concept understood, i.e., what does rebirth mean (in as much detail as possible) to a Buddhist?

I acknowledge that there is no-self. But now I don't know what to do. Previously I was driving a bus called life. Now I am no more the driver because according to anatta , I am not the driver. Since no one can replace me as a driver because each one of us is without self,I am seating on a bus without any driver. I think discovery of anatta means that I should stop thinking about controlling life. Infact I should stop thinking at all because I am not the thinker or the thoughts.(In other words I would not like to associate with thoughts or the thinker) My question is: How to live life after acknowledging anatta? And how can I change the direction of the bus called life?

Over the years, I've noticed that the idea of karma is quite popular in the USA. Specifically, specifically this is the idea "karma" means that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you *in this life*. I recall coming across the idea that the more advanced a Buddhist practitioner becomes, the more immediate the repercussions of negative thoughts or actions. Experience leads me to believe that negative thoughts and actions do have fairly immediate repercussions in terms of personal suffering for a given individual. This seems to hold both in cases where suffering is the goal of the individual, whether consciously or unconsciously, and in cases where the individual is seeking release from suffering. This may be distinct from the popular idea of "karma", but nevertheless is immediate. Is there validity to the concept of immediate or "instant karma"? Is there a distinct term for this type of intra-life cause and effect?

If a person has murdered someone: ie. A fellow human being (eg. By directly attacking someone; or by indirect attack- by speech/action ; or by other means such as abortion) , what methods are available for such a person for personal reconciliation? It is inevitable that the Law of Karma is in direct effect, but how can such a person attain peace of mind and repay for his sins truly? Many patients I meet in surgery wards have serious past histories of attacking/assaulting others and murder is inevitable sometimes. Please offer your advice. It will greatly help me when consoling such persons in the future. Thank You!

After I started to practice meditation and the Dhamma, I had some very unusual situation with animals, receiving a lot of kindness from them, I was never very "popular" with cats and dogs and it completely changed, more than once cats (very affraid of strangers) came to me in a lovely way, also I had crazy situations with moths that if someone told me I would probably not believe. So 2 questions I would like to ask: Is there any Buddhist explanation for that? I know Buddha had a special connection with sentient beings, but he was a Buddha!! Does anyone had a similar experience?

Thought there is a great Guru, displaying personally the joy of abundance and teaches the attaining of [Cockaigne](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockaigne) , would you still seek for Nibbana? **Yes? No? If, or if not, why?** *He doubts you have any argument against it, you just don't know the way!* "Don't get it wrong!" [He](http://www.zugangzureinsicht.org/html/index-names_en.html#mara) says: "[There](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise)` is endless sense pleasure, for all strings, no aging, no sickness, no death.` `Eating the whole day without belly pain... Cockaigne is not temporary.` `Your favorit food, pleasure as long as you like, chaning it as you wish.` `By abundance Detached from any stressful' no consequence, non-dual in that sphere!" who seek rel-ease from IS`

As I understand from what contact I've had with Mahayanist explanations, a prominent feature of the enlightened mind is that it no longer splits the world into "X and non-X" categories but sees it all as a single harmonious continuum. But that would mean the same mind would also no longer split human experience into "suffering and non-suffering". What motivation, then, to follow the Bodhisattva path of helping all beings escape "suffering", if "suffering" is no longer distinguished? Or is it the case that Mahayana never said enlightenment *guarantees* that a Buddha will take this path, and therefore that Mahayana *does not* guarantee you will come out a moral person once you have followed the path to its end?