We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for *the* self. For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant. The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing. Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion. Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?

Animals are sentient beings and therefore are also bound to the cycle of rebirth. However, animals are far less intelligent than humans, and are certainly not smart enough to follow a particular code of conduct, or take decisions which are against their nature. Does Karma and rebirth work differently for animals? Or are animals pretty much doomed to remain animals (or worse) because their nature, for instance, causes them to kill?

To my understanding, the killing of any animal will produce bad karma to whoever or whatever it committed the murder. For humans, I can understand that we have the power to go vegan and let animals be by themselves, it is our nature. But for predatory animals, their instinct is that they must kill for food. If they don't, they simply can't go vegan, they are going to die. So do predatory animals get bad karma for killing, a natural instinct for survival?

Thinking of Buddhism a lot lately and I really love the concepts in it, however I just can't seem to find Buddhism to have a potential to become an universal philosophy as it seems very life negating. Let me explain my self. In Buddhism we are constantly reminded how all problems are an illusion and should be ignored. But are they really? Buddhism seems like a perfect ideology for rich white people or other population isolated from real problematics hitting this world. Buddhism not only says: "You have so nothing to care about, you really should just enjoy yourself" it also gives you a relief that other people are unfortunate since it reminds you all problems are only illusion of ego. That all problems are only illusion of ego is not true however, since there are serious problems like hunger, wars etc. troubling this earth. Buddhist ideology doesn't have any clear directions on how to resolve these problems but only works as an outside observer. What I am asking is, isn't Buddhism life negating? Is Buddhistic ideology more inclined to ignores / detach from problems rather than to try to present exact solutions? Thank you for your answers and critics of my views.

**Why** do we have to watch body sensations separately by **sitting meditation**, when even in our daily life we are experiencing sensations moment to moment (and realizing everything is vibrating in our body)? And can we achieve omniscience and knowledge of our past lives, karma, etc., by watching breath and watching body sensations only? Or there is more to it in vippasana meditations, other than watching breath and body sensations? --- (This question was originally titled "tibetan buddhism chanting om mani padme hum and watching the breath meditations and watching mental states")

It is usually said that the root delusions of attachment, anger and unawareness/ignorance are the causes of Dukkha. Of the three, unawareness/ignorance is the root cause. I see very how unawareness/ignorance can lead to Dukkha. But is there any evidence in the scriptures that unawareness/ignorance itself is Dukkha?

Anything like a PDF or a website link or a podcast audio is OK for me :)

A standard model of human practical reasoning is the belief-desire-intention model of action. Very simply put: The agent has a desire (“I want to be a doctor”) and a set of beliefs (“Studying medicine will get me there”) on the basis of which s/he forms an intention to act in a certain way (“I’ll study hard and try to get in to medical school”). When you ask a person, the intention and the desire is what the person refers to as her or his reasons for doing (and not doing) what s/he does. F.ex. staying home and reading instead of going to the pub. Does Buddhism have a model of practical rationality that can be extracted on the basis of canonical texts? And if so, is the Buddhist practical rationality model normative (what's beneficial/not beneficial) or descriptive, based on the agents subjective rationality like the belief-desire-intention model of action? Here is more on the model (as ascribed to D. Davidson, the idea is pretty much all over western philosophy and goes goes back - hold fast! - to Plato).

Reading various threads here, I know that plants are not considered to be sentient beings in Buddhism. But I still can't help wondering whether Buddhists create bad karma if they cultivate non-native plants. By 'cultivate' I mean for example *planting* a palm tree in a temperate climate (with large temperature changes over a year) or a giant sequoia anywhere but in the Sierra Nevada mountains in California. (I do *not* mean caring for plants that have been planted by others before me.)

When somebody asks if it's OK for a Buddhist to do this or that, different answers may be given: - It goes against n'th precept - It is an unwholesome action - It will produce bad kamma - It will cause rebirth in hell - Anything else? If there is something more, please let me know. Other possible answers may include: - It does not break any precepts - It is a wholesome action - It will produce good kamma - It will cause rebirth in heaven - It will lead to nibbana/enlightenment - Anything else? If there is something more, please let me know. I wonder which of these things are completely equivalent (e.g. is an unwholesome action exacly the same as an action that produces bad kamma?), and if there is a gradation of these things (e.g. is breaking a precept worse than an unwholesome action that doesn't break a precept?).

It seems that many fiction writers were very wise, including those, who had little or no access to spiritual teachings (e. g. the Strugatsky brothers). Allegedly, in Japanese culture non-spiritual activities (tea ceremony, archery, calligraphy, martial arts) are being used as tools for spiritual development. I heard some people say that any activity can be used for approaching enlightenment. If it's true, then fiction writing can be used in the same way as well. If someone spends a lot of time and energy writing fiction books (they regard it as the most important part of life), what can they do in order to get maximum spiritual benefit from this activity? I. e. if the enlightenment is the goal, and fiction writing is the engine, what kind of maintenance acts is necessary to reach the goal using that engine? Notes: 1. Preferably, it should be concrete advice, ideally with some data supporting it. 1. Those recommendations should be compatible with (or adaptable to) the Diamond Way Buddhism .

The Lakkhana Sutta says, > Endowed with three things, monks, a fool can be known as a fool. What three? By bodily misconduct, by verbal misconduct, by mental misconduct. Endowed with these three things, monks, a fool can known as a fool. But everyone has bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct and mental misconduct (I say that because we make mistakes from time to time, at least to a certain extent). So how to differentiate between a fool's (bodily, verbal and mental) misconduct, compared to a wise person's (bodily, verbal and mental) misconduct?

Is there such thing as mindfulness thinking about the future or past? I have a job that requires a lot of "going" into the future and past (projecting forward and assessing the past). I was wondering if could practice mindfulness while working. But it's not like I'm working with my hands, where I can be completely concentrated at the current moment with what I'm doing. From what I understand, mindfulness practice has to do with staying in the present. So my understanding is that it is inherently in conflict with what I do for work.

This question is about these images: This incident (depicted) happened after Lord Buddha visited a certain Deva realm. - Can someone provide any sutta or sutra reference? - If you can, please explain the event and the drawings?

Is it right if i say the origin of Saṅkhāra is not by a natural process of the mind but it is a byproduct of Avidyā which dominates the non-arahant mind?

Is using a Daruma doll as a means to motivation to meditate a good idea ? or is it counter productive ?

I have sometimes heard that Siddhartha Gautama's philosophy was influenced by Cārvāka system of philosophy. Is this true, and if true, to what extent has Cārvāka system influenced Buddhism?

Christmas Humphreys founded the London Buddhist society in 1924. Would this have been the first sangha in the West? Wikipedia says of it > The Buddhist Society of London is one of the oldest Buddhist > organisations outside Asia So were there other groups of western born Buddhists practicing together even earlier than this or would this truly have been the first such grouping? For the sake of this question I am taking sangha to mean any sort of Buddhist community. I appreciate it often refers specifically to a monastic community however I want to use a broader definition here.

I am bit Confused about Inner and Outer Peace. If they exist, how can I know and how can I achieve them?

In the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta: >There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he does know, he says, 'I know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I have seen.' Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, _for the sake of another_, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, _holds to the truth_, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world. For example, a monk witnesses a murder and asks by a police for information. The monk knows his information/testimony will cause the murderer got murdered. Is giving this testimony break any vinaya rules or correspond to the rules? As explained previously on another thread: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9518/enlightened-lies-can-lying-be-the-correct-action-in-certain-situations Skillful means can be used to deal with this situation or lying with the intention to save others. But the same thing can be true as well, for example, when someone is asked by the police, his intention is to tell the truth, it's not his decision to take the murderer life away. Is truth telling in this case is right or wrong and why?