Until now I thought that Buddhism teaches that a sense of self is bad in all cases. Now I read that developing a sense of self around good actions can increase motivation for our spiritual development, and that we can choose to see 'not self' in bad past actions, and see 'self' in beneficial past actions. From this I gather that it could be beneficial to develop a sense of self. In my practice I don't really have a sense of self around good deeds yet. In general I don't really have much of a sense of self, perhaps low self esteem. Should this change? Does Buddhism encourage a sense of self around skillful actions to be developed?

I came across a Vaishnava critique of Buddhism which questions whether Buddhist ethics can have a stable foundation without having the concept of devotion to a supreme God. Quoting the excerpt from here > **what is the problem with Buddhism?** > > Before the advent of Sri Shankara Acharya, Lord Buddha (Sriman > nArAyaNa Himself on the authority of srimad BhAgavata PurANa) has > given an illusory theory for the people of material consciousness and > made them adharmic with His excellent philosophy (Lord is beyond our > perception and His actions are in-conceivable without guidant of > Acharyas). He gave a philosophy based on moral laws, athiesm, denial > of vedas and illusory "nirvANa(viodness)". His instructions are somuch > attractive that any person who is not adherant to vedas and devotion > unto the Lord gets easily carried away. He lures unintelligent men by > saying only intelligent men can understand His philosophy. That > enables people not to investigate His philosophy critically and > accept. Moreover, on the surface, one cannot find fault as it is based > on moral laws like non-violence and truthfulness. Even today many > people think philonthropic actions and being good is ultimate purpose > of life. But they miss the critical point why should one do either > philonthropic or good works. They have no clue what actual good is. > The purpose of all good actions is to attract the attention of the > Lord and get pure devotion unto Him. > > When we do not develop love for the Supreme Lord, we lose all our > morals and dharma at some point or the other. We are never independant > of Him. As we can see today, in countries like china, people lost > their own religion, forgot all good (their own moral laws), consume > more meat (including frogs and snakes) than any other country, and > work day and night like machines to improve material comforts. This > proves, how it is most important to have mercy of the Lord for the > living entity to have ethical life and subsequent desire for eternal > bliss (liberation). Lord doesnot allow selfish people to serve Him, > for He accepts only unselfish, unbroken devotional service. We should > know from this example that acting in all good ways is only to develop > love for the Lord. According to this critique, without divine guidance and devotion, ethical conduct eventually collapses, and moral laws lose their meaning. How would Buddhists respond to this critique and provide a solid basis for morality and ethical behavior within their philosophical framework, given that Buddhism does not ground ethics in pleasing or serving a personal God?

There is no permanent unchanging self. Are past actions therefore "not self"? In my practice I find that seeing past actions as not self allows me to contemplate on them better.

I came across this article on Indica Today which argues that traditional Buddhist chronologies (e.g. placing the Buddha’s nirvāṇa around 500-483 BCE) might involve a significant error, and that his historical period could be shifted by as much as 1200 years. The article mentions contradictions between Theravāda chronologies, Puranic records, and historical/archaeological data. Questions:- - How do Buddhist traditions themselves explain or reconcile these discrepancies in dating the Buddha’s life? - Is there any textual or archaeological evidence from within the Buddhist tradition that supports such a large chronological shift (e.g. Buddha at 1704 BCE rather than 500 BCE)? - How do Buddhist academicians assess these claims in comparison with the Ashokan inscriptions and other historical anchors?

Is it fundamentalism if Buddhists believe Buddha's path is the only path, and that all other spiritual traditions or sects are false? And if so, does it exist much in Buddhism? By fundamentalism, I mean a person believing that their path is the only path, for them and others who believe like them. I.e. can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism? Such as an agnostic or a mystic from that tradition?

What is the most important thing or idea about Buddhism? "The Buddha dealt with that which is most important", compared to the other spiritual traditions, according Rupert Sheldrake. So, what is most important in Buddhism?

Is there a relationship there? sankharoti asavas

What was that word about a Buddha's concentration? Is not easy to remember, thank you..[So you might remember...

Some major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have a *Creation Story*, which describes how God created the universe. These stories describe how a deity created the earth and then the first man and woman, who are regarded as the father and mother of all mankind. Does Buddhism also have a similar *Creation Story*?

I read the [following](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/53819/what-are-the-major-deviations-from-the-buddha-s-original-teachings-in-later-budd#comment88883_53821) on the internet: > `new scholarly Western fads particularly created by the Australian > Ajahn Brahm/Sujato sect and also embraced by American Bhikkhu Bodhi.` > There's no need to insult and smear the Sangha. Have some integrity, > your answers referenced the translation works by these reputable > scholars, yet at the same time you insinuate and display contempt at > them Below is two translations of AN 3.76 by Sujato. The 1st is how I recall the translation was for a number of years: Repeat of the above, otherwise click on the above to expand: The 2nd translation by Sujato below is what I surprisingly read for the first time, just now. My impression is Sujato recently changed his translation, including replacing the translation of "**re**birth" with "**re**generation". Next is Thanissaro: > Ananda, if there were no **kamma ripening** in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned? Thus **kamma** is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the > moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & > fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus > there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Next is Bhikkhu Bodhi: Which translation of AN 3.76 is correct and what are the implications of these translation variations?

I read the following former multi-year translation by Sujato on the internet, about "reincarnation": Today, for the first time, I read a new translation by Sujato, using the word "regeneration" instead of "reincarnation": What does the term "regeneration" mean in Buddha's teaching? Please also provide some other examples if possible?

Buddhism has developed into many schools and traditions since the time of the Buddha, each with its own interpretations, practices, and philosophical systems. While this diversity is valuable in some respects, it also raises the concern that certain ideas or practices may have strayed from what the Buddha himself originally taught. This raises the question of what counts as a significant deviation from the original doctrines of Dhamma and how such differences can be identified. I would also like to know how a lay follower can recognize these divergences in a clear and practical way, and how one might remain faithful to the spirit of the Buddha’s message without falling into sectarian arguments.

A lay person that reaches arahatship/Nibbana is said to either take up robe within 7 days or die, since that state of detachment makes household duties unbearable. Dhammapada 155-156 warns the lay youth of regret in old age from failure to accrue wealth. It feels a bit like Buddhism is gatekeeping the holy life, shoving the lay person out the door and telling them to just "do your lay stuff, like uh, have sex or something", which feels a bit disheartening. To what extent does Buddhism discourage the lay person from seeking liberation from suffering, and just encouraging them to participate in the rat race?

What is the source of the Buddha telling his disciples about why Maha Moggallan had died. Moggallan died in the laps of the Buddha? Is it so?

Nirvana is considered by many religions the pinnacle to strive for. What do I need to do to achieve Nirvana? Are there different perceptions of the requirements held by different sects?

If we centered our efforts in life around having and keeping 4 requirements (sufficient food for survival, clothing to cover shame etc), and otherwise practiced the Dhamma, would that be beneficial for reaching Nibbana? So, when going to work, instead of thinking about getting promoted or earning a raise, we just saw it as due effort for minimal secluded shelter and minimal food necessary to survive.

I'm looking for the discourse where Buddha supposedly gave advice to Ananda about how to deal with the public during mediation/concentration, eg. someone walks up, while he is in jhana, etc.. Does he say, 'just ignore them'? Or how might he have phrased it? thanks.

In Nyāya epistemology, pramāṇas (means of valid knowledge) include perception, inference, comparison, and testimony. Since Buddhist thought often restricts ultimate reality to momentary dharmas (kṣaṇikavāda) and denies enduring substances, how do Buddhist logicians account for the reliability of inference across time, given that the subject and predicate cease to exist in the very next moment?

On the one hand, we're told in Buddhism to "stop thinking", "do not think about thinking", and such things, by monks and laymen. As an example, I remember a monk describing how when he first started, his teacher would shout at monks (a simple HEY! or HO!) he suspected are deep in thought, to wake them up. On the other, there's such a thing as "contemplation of death". One is to sit and think about death. What's the difference between *thoughts* and *contemplation* in the eyes of someone who would espouse anti-thought advice?

How can our meditation practice, change the way we relate to everyday challenges? For example, more space between stimulus and response: Instead of reacting immediately, meditation can train our awareness so we can pause, breathe, and choose how to respond. A challenge becomes less of an automatic trigger and more of an opportunity for skillful action...