text:
The eternal universe
As far as I know, in Buddhism and Hinduism, the universe has birth and death, like the time of life. However, in Buddhism, as well as other Eastern religions, there are a lot of schools and movements.
Is there such a school (in Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism), which would teach that the Universe exists forever, is never born and never dies? Some names, links, concepts would be fine...

Universe is a concept. Concepts are permanent but they have no footing in reality. They exist only in the imagination. If by universe you mean the 'All', this is what the Buddha said about the 'All':

Sabba Sutta: The All (SN 35.23)
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

To thing that Universe = ALL (sum of anything) is a simplistic view, typical of the middle ages. Synergetics and Chemistry teach us that complex substance are not mechanical sum of all, so Universe is not ALL. Like: me is not a sum of organs: organs can be found on slaughterhouse only. So, this quote of Buddha is not applicable to the Universe - it's not ALL, anything, bag of all things

It's not a sum of organs. 'All' is the senses and sense objects. Read the Sutta carefully.

@Paul-AG I'm not sure it's wrong: the sabba sutta talks about objects of the six senses, i.e. of the fives sense (sight, sound, etc.) plus ideas: and maybe what you call "the universe" then is an idea, an object of the intellect; (see also Ayatana).

yes, totally agreed. Kant calls it phenomenas: Universe is "placeholder" here, actually we know it as set of phenomenas.

Is there such a school (in Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism), which would teach that the Universe exists forever, is never born and never dies? Some names, links, concepts would be fine...

Actually that's just a different way of saying about the same thing. It's exactly because the universe's subjected to endless cycles of birth and death, like all conditioned phenomena, that it's also equally valid to say that it's never really "born" and never really "dies".

and most interesting here is that Buddhists, Christians and modern scientists are very-very anthropocentric. All of them can not imagine something which was not: 1) created 2) born 3) will not die 4) exists always. They try to see in Universe or God itself: it looks like we, it dies, born-death is a pulse or a breath. Which is feature of anthropocentrism. But I know that there are Buddhism schools which say even: all is real, Maya is lie. So, my question goal is to get list of names or links (I read early that such one exists, but dont remember its names)

@Paul-AG - This is an odd view I've not encountered before. Of all the things a Buddhist might be called 'anthropcentric' is the last thing I'd expect. Nagarjuna is famous for his logical argument against your view.

@PeterJ: we are accustomed to this point of view. However, we see an emphasis on consciousness, whereas today there is no understanding whether consciousness exists at all or is it a mechanical integration of neural clusters in which there is no more consciousness than in a computer. Hence, in the calculator there is a grain of consciousness, and therefore karma and dhammas, etc. This "love" of Buddhism to "mind" is anthropocentrism too. To transfer the concept of death and birth (the qualities of living beings) to the Universe is unconditionally anthropocentrism too.

Every things which we are see on the Earth have begin and end. But this does not mean automatically that Universe has them too.

@Paul-AG - I see it as just 'what is the case'. Buddhist don't make stuff up. Birth and death are not 'assigned to the Universe'. They are disposed of entirely along with human beings. Perhaps you could dig a little deeper into the teachings.

See for instance this sutta (DN 27) somewhere in the middle

There comes a time when, Vāseṭṭha, after a very long period has
  passed, this cosmos contracts. As the cosmos contracts, sentient
  beings are mostly headed for the realm of streaming radiance. There
  they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through
  the sky, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long
  time.
There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this
  cosmos expands. As the cosmos expands, sentient beings mostly pass
  away from that group of radiant deities and come back to this realm.
  Here they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the sky, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a
  very long time.

So for me this means this is repeating with no discernable beginning nor discernable end. The discurse becomes then more to the details:

Solid Nectar Appears

But the single mass of water at that time was utterly dark. The moon
  and sun were not found, nor were stars and constellations, day and
  night, months and fortnights, years and seasons, or male and female.
  Beings were simply known as ‘beings’. After a very long period had
  passed, solid nectar curdled in the water. It appeared just like the
  curd on top of hot milk as it cools. It was beautiful, fragrant, and
  delicious, like ghee or butter. And it was as sweet as pure manuka
  honey. Now, one of those beings was reckless. Thinking, ‘Oh my, what
  might this be?’ they tasted the solid nectar with their finger. They
  enjoyed it, and craving was born in them. And other beings, following
  that being’s example, tasted solid nectar with their fingers. They too
  enjoyed it, and craving was born in them.

and so on, comparable to old egytian, sumerian and what you want legends. Just read the full sutta, I find it very interesting.

Piya Tan quotes various people saying that DN 27 should be read as a myth ("Once upon a time..."), or as a parody or satire of something in the Vedas. IOW you're quite right that this sutta exists, there are people who don't take it literally. I think I see it as a story that was told to contradict the doctrine that Brahmins are the highest class.

... Anyway, the significant thought for me was solely that "contracting" and "expanding" - statement, assuming: without beginning or end here (which was also stated in the other sutra) Why I give that part of such tales a certain value is because at another place there is a (so-to-say) "skeptical" discourse on the ability of thinking of a beginning at all - which I subscribe to easily. But this is even deeper hidden in my memory - perhaps someone else here can point to that?

This (i.e. whether "the cosmos is eternal") is one of the famously undeclared topics -- "undeclared" meaning that the Tathagata wouldn't answer this question; and "famously" both because the question keeps being asked, and because the "parable of the arrow" is famous -- see Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63)

I become very nervous when answering questions in a Buddhist forum but here's my take.
In respect of the world of phenomena there are no such 'eternalist' schools of thought. The whole idea is the impermanence of phenomena. If they are not impermanent then the teachings become incoherent.
But clearly the 'Universe' or 'world-as-a-whole' must be timeless or eternal for otherwise we wouldn't seem to be here. Thus there would be at least two answers, one conventional and one ultimate, and this may be why the Buddha would not give a straight answer to this question. It is very difficult to untangle the words unless we already have a grasp of what 'conventional' and 'ultimate' mean here.
The clue would lie in Nagarjuna's proof that nothing really exists or ever really happens. If so, then our idea of an eternal universe must leave out all that exists or happens. Only what is left over would transcend time and space.
So the 'All' as defined by the Buddha in Sankha's answer above would not be eternal, but this would not include what is 'beyond range', i.e. beyond the reach of conceptual thought and sensory empiricism. Even if we know this we cannot describe the situation to someone else. Lao Tsu explains 'Tao that is eternal cannot be spoken'.

I become very nervous when answering questions in a Buddhist forum but here's my take. Yes, I post hoping that someone will correct me if I'm misleading! Anyway, I don't know whether this answer is good Buddhist doctrine. I think that in the Pali suttas an "eternalist" school is one which believes in an eternal soul or self (not cosmos). Also I'm not sure whether "impermanent" applies to the universe itself (if there even is such a thing), or whether it's only applicable to compound/conditioned things within the universe (like "ocean waves are impermanent but the ocean itself is less so").

@ChrisW - I see Nagarjuna as putting an end to the sort of eternalism you describe but of course not all Buddhists go along with his argument. I wouldn't disagree with your comment but would question the language. An eternal soul or self would require time so 'timeless' seems a better word. Then we have Eckhart's 'Perennial Now' and the 'Divine Instant', not eternal in time but permanent. I feel it's the word 'eternal' that causes problems, and that we'd probably agree if we sorted the words out. .  .

I suppose an "eternal" soul is meant to be durable, enduring, not impermanent (nicca, the opposite of anicca). The word "timeless" (akālika) implies not only eternal but also immediate, without delay, without any time interval.

I don't really disagree with this answer, except the sentence which says "clearly" isn't clear to me -- when you observe that "we seem to be here [now]" I'd think that implies that the universe is "present", but I don't see how to infer that the "universe" is or isn't "eternal". The next paragraph (about Nagarjuna) makes sense. The earlier suttas say something a bit similar, i.e. that all sankharas are impermanent (and "whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation", unclear though whether "the universe" is something subject to origination -- perhaps it is, if it's an idea).

I see here some kind of induction. We know a lot of things in the nature and in humans (emotion, life, etc) which are subj. to origination and cessation. But all what we know is the nature which is around us; Universe is different: it can has areas with totally different physics, e.g. with time which currents in the opposite direction or with variable speed. We can not use induction here (we know that it has problems). "Anything... so Universe too" - is wrong implication IMHO

@Paul-AG To my knowledge, at its core Buddhism doesn't exactly deal with cosmology. PeterJ might disagree with me since he is more familiar with metaphysics than I am. Of course, you will find Buddhist cosmology because in any era, people are interested in the "universe" so you have different answers that are built on previous ideas, depending on culture. The same applies with science; it's just an idea. The existence of another universe with different physics doesn't discount the practical aspect of Buddhist teachings. It is after all a relative truth.

@user29568 - As you guessed I would disagree. Cosmology is what it's all about. If a doctrine doesn't deal with origins then it's non-reductive and not much of one. The Perennial philosophy is sometimes known as the 'primordial cosmology'. Paul's point is rather OT since physics doesn't matter. This cosmology reaches back to the source of the laws of physics. Time and space would come later.


text:
When to let things let go and when to fight for them?
I find myself in conflict with the Buddhist idea of letting go.
If someone insults you, is rude to you, insults a loved one, harrases you or a loved one and so on. According to Buddhism, we should forget about it. Past is past.
But then on the other hand Buddhism also mentions that we should be courageous. And sometimes being courageous can lead to further pain. Say that you confront people who insult a loved one and then they stab you.
I'm having a problem to decide when to confront and when not to.
For now, I always let go and I feel like a doormat sometimes.
Thank you.

I think the best message on this topic is the Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- about insult and anger:
The first message is that, in order to not accept an insult, don't (violently) reject it, just don't participate in it
And secondly,

You make things worse
  when you flare up
  at someone who's angry.
  Whoever doesn't flare up
  at someone who's angry
      wins a battle
      hard to win.

For what it's worth I think that my "martial arts" teacher taught just about exactly that same message -- about anger, fighting, and so on.

Just because if someone is angry and is constantly insulting your wife, doesnt mean that you should allow him to do so. Dont you think so?

My wife had plenty of courage and she did not want me to be a fighter.

So you are saying that you will not do anything when people are saying bad words to you or being rude to you or your family? Doesn't this passive behavior encourage more bad behaviors from others? Thank you

"You make things worse when you flare up..." I'm not much inclined to blame myself (e.g. my "passive" behaviour) for someone else's misbehaviour. This may not be "passive", either, e.g. the Dhammapada, verse 222, "He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins." -- see also verses 3 through 5.

@user14318 To reinforce ChrisW's point: "So even if someone strikes those nuns with fists, stones, rods, and swords in your presence, you should give up any desires or thoughts of the lay life...My mind will be unaffected. I will blurt out no bad words. I will remain full of compassion, with a heart of love and no secret hate" MN21. Indeed Ajahn Chah has a story of soldiers killing monks in a monastery and the abbot wrote each of the soldiers a letter thanking them for visiting the monastery and welcoming them back in the future. Some soldiers became monks.

So, of course, I can quote some Sutta and say this is similar to your situation and so-and-so happened with Gautama Buddha, da-di-da-di-da etc., and so you must do this or that. But I want to get practical here.
I think it is important to understand this. What you are essentially trying to do is looking for a "philosophy" that is a hammer-on-a-nail for every little situation we are faced with.
In this light, you are seeing this "concept" of Buddhism in your head, which has useful texts regarding certain aspects of life. Also it is a fact that times have gone on. The world is constantly changing.  Reliance on a certain philosophy and buzzwords (like "let go") and the general people's perception on Buddhism per se, can cause conflicts like these.
That's why my answer here is a question back to you, because we need to think this through carefully. Perhaps it is your "concept" of Buddhism as this philosophy that asks you to "let go" is the problem. Why look at Buddhism for somebody insulting you?
Too many words are going around like this today. "Let go", "let it be", "mindfulness" are all these so-called Instagram/Twitter hashtags these days. Perhaps we are making a mistake in holding on to some concocted philosophy which you don't know is right or wrong.
Situations in your life and Buddhism as your "concept" are two separate things, don't mix them up. :) Try to change your idea of Buddhism. It is not trying to tell you what to do when someone insults your wife. It is trying to tell you about samsara and liberation essentially.
Finally, coming to your situation of insults and everything, don't look at Buddhism/Hinduism/Christianity/whatever for answers. Will the answer ever be there in the texts as to what is the right thing to do? Has it ever been that way? If your answer is yes, then probably I cannot help you.

I'm not sure that this is a "practical" answer. It seems to be an example of 'answering a question with a question' ... which is maybe not the most appropriate type of answer for this site (reference).

@ChrisW Its absolutely practical because a) this is a practical life matter that he is asking about b) The perspective towards Buddhism needs correction.
Buddhism is about seeing things the way they are. I may not use Pali words/literature or Sutta references. But definitely Buddhism (or any spiritual path for that matter) is a way of looking at life the way it is, not as you are. And I have done exactly that.

...I always let go and I feel like a doormat sometimes.

There're creative ways to both let go while not being a doormat. Humans are still animals with big brains. And like animals, the predator (or bully in the case of humans) only picks out the weakest one in the herd to prey on. This applies everywhere, in school, at work, at wars, etc. So be strong, both physically and mentally. It's simply human nature that if one sees a doormat, he'll step on it. Why? because he can. So do not display any outward sign of weaknest. And no, this is not violating the Teaching. You can be strong while not being angry at the same time.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is there any God or Satan in Buddhism? Is there any heaven or hell in Buddhism?
Every religion has a God and Satan, heaven and hell. Religion by definition means deification of a Supreme Being or worship of any deity. Monotheistic religions, like Islam and Christianity, have a single God and a single devil/Satan. While polytheistic religions like Hinduism have gods and goddesses, and male and female demons. Is there any place for God and Satan, heaven and hell in Buddhism? What did Gautama Buddha say about it?

Not every religion has concepts of God and Satan. Jainism and Taoism for example have no such concept. Buddhism has the concept of heavens and hells (plural) but no God or Satan that puts you there.

There are 31 planes of existence according to Buddhism.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

First of all, Buddhism can be thought of as more of an an agnostic religion, rather than a theistic religion, and certainly not a monotheistic religion.  In Buddhism (Lotus Sutra sects excepted), the Buddha is believed to be, for lack of a better term, dead.  He is non-existent, and the goal of Buddhism for the practicing lay follower is to likewise escape from being re-incarnated in perpetuity, and become (eventually) non-existent.  You would be part of a perfectly tranquil hive-mind, but you would no longer exist as an individual, self-perceptive, sentient being.  And because you would no longer exist in such a way, you could no longer suffer from physical ailments, emotional distress, unfulfilled fantasies, or fear of death, as people often do.
It's difficult to imagine.  You've witnessed physical beings being born and dying; in fact, you yourself and been born and died countless times.  You cannot begin to describe what it is like to "be" in Nirvana, because you have never "been" "there".
That is the goal of Buddhism.  Even the Blessed One, the perfectly enlightened one, is "dead" as an individual and not eternal.  He cannot see you, cannot hear you; "Life in any world has no protector, and no savior" -- see the Second Summary of the dharma, from Ratthapala sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 82.  He cannot answer your prayers; you must meditate, and learn how to answer your own prayers.  So, there is no eternal god or deity in Buddhism.
That having been said, there are lesser deities in Buddhism, borrowed from Hinduism.  They are not really relevant; not part of the Four Noble Truths, not part of the Eightfold Path, but mentioned in various stories and parables, possibly for purposes of metaphor.  In other words, you don't have to believe in them or take them literally in order to be a practicing Buddhist.
There is Brahma, who could be thought of a the closest thing to the Supreme Being.  In the Hindu caste system (which the Buddha rejected), Brahmans derived their name from Brahma.  The Buddha taught that he had, in a previous life, been in the company of Brahma; the way to be born into the world of the company of Brahma is to have a mind fully liberated by loving-kindness, fully liberated by compassion, fully liberated by altruistic joy, and fully liberated by equanimity.
There is King Yama, described in one of the suttas as being the ruler of the abode of the dead.  He harshly reprimands souls in his charge that they did not honor their parents, monks, or philosophers, and reminds those damned souls that they were duly warned of their fate by Yama's three messangers: the sickly, the aged, and rotting corpses.  (This particular sutta is superficially similar to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus from the Christian Gospels, and The Inferno from Dante's work, The Divine Comedy.)
There is Mara, a malevolent being who is said to have tempted the Buddha with his three daughters, named Thirst, Aversion, and Passion.  (Spookily corresponding to lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life, from the First Epistle of John.)  The temptation scene is very analogous to the temptation of Christ, after his baptism.
There are countless devas, or spirits (generally human) who have passed into a higher, blissful realm.  There are "devas of Brahma's company", "devas who delight in creating" and "devas who rule over others creation".  One of the realms is ruled over by "four great kings".  Some have "limited radiance", some have "streaming radiance", some have unparalleled radiance.  However, the Buddha did not instruct his followers to worship or obey any of those deities, but instead taught them that they could aspire to be re-incarnated into their realms, and eventually into even higher realms, before attaining Nirvana.
If you had asked the Buddha whether this particular world was created or governed by deity, and which one, he would not have answered.

God and Satan are concepts invented by humans to personify our ideas about the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence (god) and ultimate evil to do harm (Satan). We ourselves can embody qualities of good and bad. That is, thought, speech, and action that can benefit or do harm to self and others. Heaven and Hell are not real places that you can find on google maps or some star chart. But rather heaven and hell are states of mind that we create for ourselves through out thoughts, speech, and actions.

Yes but no.
I think that a feature of Abrahamic religions was prophets -- a prophet said, "This is what God wants, these are God's laws for us." And then the people agree that that is a real prophet (perhaps because of miracles, which imply divine intervention) and, more or less, accept the corresponding laws (or Christians accept Christ as being God Himself and not only a prophet).
Similarly, Gautama Buddha said, "Here are some laws." But he didn't say, "I know these are laws because God told me", instead he said something like (I paraphrase), "You can know for yourselves that these are 'laws', that this doctrine is true and beneficial, because it is self-evident, testable, inviting inspection" --

Dhammānussati
Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo:
  The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
  visible here and now, immediate,
ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  inviting to come and see, effective,
paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

Examples of "Dhamma" include the Three poisons, the Four Noble Truths, the Five precepts.
An example of how the Buddha explains these as evident, as something you can know for yourself, is the Kalama sutta.
They are taught as being more-or-less a "natural law", rather than "God's law" -- like a boulder will sink in a lake and not float, so someone who breaks the precepts is destined for a unfortunate rebirth.
To that extent, "heaven" and "hell" exist (though some Buddhists see "heaven and hell" as states of mind in this life). Even Gods (inhabitants of the heavens ... sometimes Guardians) exist, but they too are subject to the Dhamma (i.e. natural law, including karma and impermanence), e.g. they too are subject to rebirth.
To some extent Buddhism teaches that people are responsible for their own salvation (they're "heir to their own karma", they should be "lamps or islands unto themselves"), though it also teaches that having admirable/spiritual/good friends and teachers is really important.
There's also "Mara", who in the suttas seems to act (like Satan) as a tempter or a voice of temptation, or of distraction, an obstacle.

You've hit on the reason why many people argue that Buddhism is not a religion. What the Buddha taught was that nothing really exists or ever really happens, and this goes for Gods and Devils. These would be conceptual things, as would be all things.
EDIT: This is the dhamma as summed up by Nagarjuna. The two views 'something exists' and 'nothing exists' are both refuted leaving us with the Middle Way expression 'nothing really exists or ever really happens'. This is explained by Khenpo Gyamptso in his book on Nagarjuna The Sun of Wisdom as being a correct expression of Nagarjuna's logical result. The word 'really' would be crucial and steers us clear of both Realism and Nihilism. It signifies the dual-aspect (or no-aspect) approach of N's 'Two Truths'.
Thus the Universe is described as Unity transcending the exist/not-exist distinction which, like all distinctions, would not be fundamental.
As Nagarjuna is credited with putting in place the philosophical foundations of the sutras it seems safe to say that what Nagarjuna proves is what the Buddha taught. If this is not the case then Nagarjuna's logical argument in 'Fundamental Verses' refutes the Buddha's teachings, which is an implausible idea.

In which sutta did the buddha teach that "nothing really exists"? Isn't that (or mightn't that be mistaken for) a kind of doctrine that's defined as "wrong view", here? Are you maybe referring to Nāgārjuna's doctrine of emptiness, rather than the Buddha's (not that I'm saying that Nāgārjuna's doctrine is necessarily "wrong")?

I think I heard this, "Buddha taught was that nothing really exists", a long time ago, and didn't understand it then (see also e.g. the Zen story, Nothing Exists) so I fear this isn't enough to be an informative answer -- hence my asking for (in lieu of a more complete explanation) at least a reference.

@ChrisW - I added an edit to be more helpful.

Buddhism has many brahmas and devas but they are also subject to death. Buddha is supreme among all beings. He is the teacher of divine and humans. There are 31 planes of existence and all these are real places.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
You should also read Dn 11. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Combining meditation and bright light therapy
I am using a (medical) bright light therapy lamp in the morning for 30 minutes during the darker months.
I have also been meditating for about 30 minutes a day.
I lately noticed myself almost reaching a meditative state during this activity anyway. So, I thought about combining the two.
The difference to meditation as I am used to would be that instead of sitting with my eyes closed, I would look at a really bright light (not harmful to the eyes), which usually blocks out everything else, visually speaking.
Has anyone tried this or can anybody offer thoughts on why or why not this is a good idea?
(The reason why I have not tried it yet was that I usually listen to a news broadcast programme of about 20 minutes during my bright light therapy.)

You could have a look here

You can  get the citta into samadhi with what the buddha calls āloka·saññaṃ  which is sanna of light. The result of this samadhi is the knowledge of karma and before that, it energizes you.

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the
  case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved
  on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him]
  is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an
  awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is
  the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads
  to the attainment of knowledge & vision.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Unfortunately, this samadhi is the least detailed of the 4 samadhis. Some puthujjanas claim it is just perceiving light, some say the light means the light of the jhanas (because they claim that the mind is luminous in jhanas), some say it is a kasina and some say it is light of wisdom...
Do not forget to perceive the origination, establishment and cessation in order to become an arhant.
For more info you can read

for the energy, section ''The 8 ways of overcoming drowsiness''
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.11-Pacala-S-a7.58-piya.pdf
for the karma
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/24.1-Samadhi-Bhavana-S-a4.41-piya.pdf


text:
Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights and International Buddhist Ethics Committee
Friends, I was surfing online on buddhist ethics and came across International Buddhist Ethics Committee and Buddhist Tribunal of Human Rights.
https://buddhistcourt-gov.net
The tribunal is based out of Hong Kong and conducts trials on countries like Indonesia, organizations like unesco and also Individuals like Ken wilbur,  pronouncing verdicts and publishing them online in general forums
http://www.integralworld.net/visser110.html
http://www.academia.edu/30820216/Judgement_of_Case_Indonesia
http://www.academia.edu/34125176/Ethical_Judgment_on_UNESCO
The President and Judge of Buddhist Tribunal of Himan Rights is Maitreya Samyaksambuddha
https://maitriyana.in/master-maitreya-samyaksambuddha/
Has anybody heard of this tribunal?  Is it a private organization or an affiliate of a legal Buddhist body?

Don't waste a penny on them
H.E. Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha (https://buddhistnations-gov.net/2018/08/01/president/)
Let me break down the name for you
H.E. - His Excellency - This shows Mana or pride. No matter what Buddhist text you follow Abhidharma or Theravada, it will teach that arrogance and pride are illnesses of the mind
Maitreya - Is the reincarnation of Buddha in the current times.
Samyaksambuddha - Is someone who has attained nirvana (there is a lot more to this)
So yes the claim of being the promised Buddha goes a long way in explaining the trait of a teacher which lacks humility
Now, there is nothing wrong on calling oneself H.E. Buddha himself and presiding over a university with rate card without classrooms or any qualifications or lineage whatsoever or anything remotely close to zen or Buddhist values. Some people may choose to do business in the name of Buddha and that’s a moral wrongdoing.
But let's put attention to other things that you asked for.
International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights
These 2 organizations are affiliated to the same university via United Buddhist Nations Organization (buddhistnations-gov.net) registered in 2017
Starting with the domain you can say this site has been created to falsely promote the university as a GOVERNMENT unit.
They conduct trials on individuals for reasons ranging from war crimes to un Buddha-like behavior.
The Tribunal
buddhistcourt-gov.net - A domain registered in 2017
This tribunal - uses a proton mail id and claims to be a legal body that has rights internationally to prosecute anyone it deems fit from United Nations to World Leaders to a common man
They send out notices in legal language accusing vaguely of things like waging war, fraud, and 100s of such things with a threat to malign and defame people. Which Buddhist in his right mind would do this
Just look at some of the cases online and you would see so many cases posted on educational portals and academia.
If they get offended by you, they will put a case on you :) I am doing this at the cost of being at the receiving end of one such notice
Above all, the cases are judged by Mr. H.E. himself - Now if that's not a fair trial, then what is?
So to answer your questions - As someone who has devoted her life to meditation, I can tell you don’t waste your time on this. There is no university, there are no classes and there is a massive scam of scaring people with -gov in the urls
Put that money to buy a big tub of ice cream and stare at it instead :D

I didn't understand the paragraph which starts "there is nothing wrong" and ends "that’s a moral wrongdoing" -- isn't that a contradiction?

When I'd read a bit in this site I had come to a similar negative impression myself. I think there's an non-buddhist agenda, political I assume, don't know more, am not investigative yet.

Here is another page, which lists credentials and roles of "Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha":
Governing Council of WBA

RECTOR of Maitriyana Buddhist University since 2005, ... Master Maitreya has ... received higher Buddhist Degrees from World Association of Theravada.

The "World Association of Theravada" is described here:
World Association of Theravada – Maitriyana Buddhist Community

WAT has created a project of Free Education for all the Bhikkhus of the world, offering them the possibility of advanced Buddhist studies free of any charge, like studies in Buddhist Philosophy, Buddhist Psychology, Buddhist Politics, Buddhist Law and Theravada Spirituality, due to an international covenant with Maitriyana Buddhist University.

The "Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights", which you asked about, seems to explain its provenance on this page of its:
Governing Council – Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights – International Buddhist Ethics Committee

In Resolution No. 12 of the Steering Committee of the Seventh Buddhist Council organized by the World Association of Buddhism it is created an International Buddhist Ethics Committee which will be led by etc.

The "Seventh Buddhist Council" is described here:
Seventh Buddhist Council – Maitriyana Buddhist Community

Steering Committee of the Seventh Buddhist Council
President: Master Maitreya Buddha

In summary, the Tribunal was created by the "seventh Buddhist council". The same person is or was president, both (formerly) of the council and (now) of the tribunal. The person has received "higher Buddhist Degrees" from a "World Association of Theravada", which awards degrees due to "an international covenant with Maitriyana Buddhist University" -- and this same person is rector (i.e. leader) of that university.
Apparently the Agga Maha Pandita title usually refers to an honorific which the Burmese government confers to distinguished Theravada monks -- but apparently not in this case, e.g. from his photograph Master Maitreya doesn't look like a Theravada monk.
The various qualifications (i.e. "certificates") from many recognised universities are possible (not impossible), for example the "certificate in Global Diplomacy from the University of London" is described as an online course, "5 weeks of study, 1-2 hours/week".
The bottom of the https://maitriyana.com/ home page says "© 2005-2018 MBU" so I guess it was founded in 2005, and that therefore Master Maitreya was its rector from the beginning, i.e. he founded it.

The is only one "legal" and constitutional organisation within the Buddha-Dhamma: The Savaka Sangha of Bhikkhus of the Buddha. When this is gone, there is no more constitutional organisation. Neither before that nor after, are fake copies good but harmful, especially when mixed or even leaded by householder. It's the nature of hanging on household to act corrupt.
And as for "rights", "claiming", demanting, such has nothing to do with the liberationg Dhamma, but is based on grave wrong view:
Tribunal... politic... wordily affairs and yet not even metta and Silas...

They covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be deported or cut apart or sized or sweep away, or may they not exist at all!' They have wrong view, are warped in the way they see things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'. Kammaraputta

Approving and honor of monks like Buddhadasa is for the most a sign of corruption and objectives toward world and bondage rather to liberation leading refuge.
[Note: this gift of Dhamma is not thought for any trade, stackes or exchange for wordily gains]

In summary, the Tribunal was created by the "seventh Buddhist council". The same person is or was president, both (formerly) of the council and (now) of the tribunal. The person has received "higher Buddhist Degrees" from a "World Association of Theravada", which awards degrees due to "an international covenant with Maitriyana Buddhist University" -- and this same person is rector (i.e. leader) of that university.

Wow! That's vicious - to use the virtue of the Buddha's name and teachings to attempt to confuse and chastise. I've read of this organisation and Master Maitreya person's erroneous deeds on other Buddhist forums. I wonder why people would take so much trouble to create and foster confusion for mere material gain - it's obvious he stands to gain by accepting donations through each one of the many interlinked organisations. My accountant brother-in-law would have been better equipped to outline all the ways such organisations commit fraud. But hey, I'm only concerned by how badly this will affect the community at large when people who get conned relate such quacks with real teachers and genuine traditions.


text:
Is the experience of suffering or enjoyment completely reducible to physics e.g. such as in materialist views i.e. materialism?
What do you think?
I believe the experience of suffering or enjoyment is not equivalent and is not reducible to physics e.g. things like "repulsion", "attraction" etc.
I cannot see "suffering" or "enjoyment" arising out of or being equivalent to forces, force,energy, waves, atoms etc. no matter how one configures it.
It seems suffering cannot be reduced to "energy", waves etc. in the same way that hearing cannot be reduced to seeing.

I think the moment you can reduce consciousness to binary forms is the moment we will have artificial consciousness.

Also suffering seems inexplicable in that context.

I cannot see the purpose of trying to reduce anything to physics since it's physics that needs reducing. If physics had a metaphysical foundation then perhaps the idea would make more sense but at present it's castles in the air.

Is there any special reason why correcting 4, 5 questions constantly? Maybe another question with what really worries householder Angus might solve certain restlessness.

Your question is quite interesting because it starts out with an openness regarding identity view. Awesome! You ask about what is and are puzzled at the rise of feelings pleasant, painful or neutral. You ask whether we have experimental evidence for such feelings and equations for them. Indeed, you might well be asking for the wave equation for "self" or "consciousness".
An interesting read that delves into the five grasping aggregates is SN22.80 With Khemaka. Khemaka is gravely ill, perhaps dying, and the monks are very worried for him. So they keep pestering him with Dhamma questions in an effort to rouse him and cheer him up.

Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is:
  the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Do you regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self?’

This Dhamma dialogue is relayed by poor Reverend Dāsaka, who runs back and forth between Khemaka and the senior monks, relaying questions and answers again and again.
Finally, the exasperated Khemaka rouses himself from his almost deathbed and limps over to the senior monks. And what he says is quite remarkable:

For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.

Regarding the nature of physical forces, I think that might be a simple confusion here resulting from the inadequacy of terminology. The attraction of two masses to each other is a nature of space-time, not the ephemeral "I love you, love you not" that the Buddha addresses. The Buddha addresses suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path to that cessation. Without physics.
To understand suffering (dukkha), we are given the rather perplexing:

Everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.

However, for those seeking deeper causes, we have in MN1, that

Delight is the root of suffering

This small phrase (Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti) is the E=mc2 of MN1, The Root of All Things. This is the canonical statement of the "I love you, I love you not" dilemma. Yet it goes much deeper, since we are led to explore further into how nandī generates dukkhassa. And THAT is dependent origination (search SE Buddhism).
On a side note, physics is the science of modeling the physical for predictability. Per DN33, there are three ways to see and study the world with:

the eye of the flesh, the eye of clairvoyance, and the eye of wisdom. --DN33

If we say that physics is the second, let us consider that Buddhism is the third. Remember that physics gave us Hiroshima. Buddhism has a different goal. The ending of suffering.

Imo "pleasant", "painful" and "neutral" doesn't explain suffering very well.
But quoting you  "I love you, I love you not" does.
I think it is important to be able to come to the conclusion that suffering is something present at the level of experience and is not reducible to physics terms etc. but that it is still a real and valid phenomena.
If one doesn't come to this conclusion then it seems that there is perhaps no or less desire to get rid of suffering or a sense of aimlessness and hopelessness (which was my case many years ago).

Good point. Answer edited.

Suffering in the sense of meaning mental suffering.

The way I understand the present physics teaching does not address the consciousness.

Yes that appears to be true, according to Physics.SE.

Thant topic closed as off topic.-  They even don't want to know about the  consciousness.-)

It says that they don't want to discuss consciousness on the Physics site, because that's not a topic of "mainstream Physics".

It's a laugh isn't it. So much for 'scientific' consciousness studies. .

There are the three poisons or three unwholesome roots in Buddhism, namely, raga (greed or lust), dvesha (aversion) and moha (delusion).
Raga is a type of psychological attraction and dvesha is a type of psychological repulsion. These are not physical but of the mind.
For e.g. you may experience physical pain or pleasure, but you don't have to mentally react to it. If you enjoy physical pleasures and lust after them, that's raga. If you dislike physical pain and become averse to it, that's dvesha. If you become irrationally consumed by raga or dvesha, then you are overcome by moha (delusion).
In Buddhism, suffering (dukkha) is a rather special term encompassing both happiness and sadness, pain and pleasure. It's a sense of deep-seated dissatisfaction that happiness, pleasure, wealth and health do not last forever, while pain, sadness, sickness and death are not avoidable forever.
All these pertain to the mind, and not the body. Of course, in Buddhism, the mind and the body are also not completely independent of each other, and the mind can reach beyond the physical realm.

If by the experience of suffering, you mean the experience of the ignorant, volitionally active, then yes. Because kamma-vipaka is just the third law of Newtonian mechanics that states 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction', but for intention posessing entities. It's not as self-evident as billiard balls, but it arises out of the same emptiness from the ultimate frame of reference.

Actually suffering is a false reaction of self to an action of non-self, resulting because of as an output of any kind of craving/wrong Karma that is out of context of Noble 8 fold path. For example, if a person earns money, he also earns the day of losing it all, if a person has children, he also has suffering of losing them to death eventually. Any accepted attribute of self will lead to suffering at some point in life.

Adhyasa is a Buddhist concept referring to the false
  superimposition of an attribute, quality, or characteristic onto an
  external entity. It can be seen as a direct result of māyā (illusion)

If there is Nirvana, there is no suffering, suffering is a reaction of Adhyasa of non-self over real self. As every action leads to opposite and equal reaction. Self is always a subject while matter(including body and world) is the object. Matter is governed by physics but self is above everything even mind and intellect.

This sounds like Advaita Vedanta disguised as Buddhism. I don't think Adhyasa is a Buddhist concept. Maya is also a term that is not normally used in Buddhism. And there is definitely no such thing as a REAL self in Buddhism. That's against anatta. Sabbe dhamma anatta means that all phenomena is not self.

@ruben2020 Its not vedanta, Vedas are conclusive predefined statements, but Buddhist literature focuses on experience and understanding, "sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta". This means Sabbe-Sabhi(All) Sankhara(Things) & Dhamma(duties/Karma) are Dukkha(misery) Anatta-Anitya(temporary-not real). When you subtract everything from yourself like body, mind, religion, duties, fear, world etc, only pure silence is left thats the Nirvana-empty state.


text:
The Buddha and the Jhanas
This is a continuation of an original question I asked, linked here: Buddhist Jhanas, how best to describe them?
My question is: can any of you link me directly to the instances in primary sources (likely the Pali canon) where the Buddha either enters the Jhanas, or discusses the Jhanas?
I have found the Buddha entering the Jhanas on his deathbed, but am specifically looking for the instance where he spontaneously enters the Jhanas at a ploughing festival in his youth, or where he discusses the Jhanas with his students.
Thank you!

Jhāna is an important keyword to understand tipitaka. Most short sutta, which had an enlightened one at the end, were taught for the attained jhāna practitioner, such as dhammacakkappavattanasutta. Khandha-word, aggregates, was used by the jhāna practitioner before the buddha appear to the world.

The Buddha already attained the 1st jhana when he was a child as per MN 36:

I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion."

In MN 26, the Buddha already mastered both Rupa and ARupa jhanas when studying under the two masters Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. The topic of Jhana in general was discussed extensively in many suttas, here're some examples.


text:
Buddha verifying his enlightenment
If I remember correctly, Buddha wanted to verify his insight after his sit under the Bodhi tree. He took a leaf and reversed the cause-and-effect leading to him holding that leaf in order to check something. Can anyone point to the story?

In the case of Gauthama the Buddha, there is no description about a leaf. The Buddha did review dependent origination, direct, reverses and direct & reverse order, as in the other answers.
But there are cases of Pacceka Buddha's who have been enlightened by seeing a withered leaf.

Two other Jātaka tales report the attainment of Paccekabodhi on seeing a
  withered leaf fall. In these cases, too, it is clearly an external condition
  that is responsible for the break-through to awakening.

Paccekabuddhas in the Isigili-sutta and its Ekottarika-āgama Parallel Bhikkhu Anālayo

At that instant Darīmukha seeing the garden now empty came and sat on the royal seat in the garden. A withered leaf fell before him. In it he came to see the principles of decay and death, grasped the three marks of things, and making the earth re-echo with joy he entered on paccekabodhi.

No. 378. DARĪMUKHA-JĀTAKA. The Jataka Volume III tr. by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil ed. E. B. Cowell [1897]

But when the king was gone, Sonaka returned and sat on the stone seat, and so it was that a withered leaf of a sāl tree fell from its stalk in front of him, and on seeing it he cried, "Even as this leaf, so will my body fall into decay," and acquiring supernatural insight by reflecting on the impermanence of all things he attained to the state of a paccekabuddha, and at this very instant his characteristic as a layman vanished, and the marks of an ascetic became visible, and saying, "There is no more re-birth for me," in the utterance of this aspiration he set out for the cave of Nandamūla.

No. 529. SONAKA-JĀTAKA. The Jataka Volume V tr. by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil ed. E. B. Cowell [1905]

I think you're referring to a section in the first of the seven weeks after enlightenment:

In the middle watch of the night the Exalted One thoroughly reflected
  on "The Dependent Arising" in reverse order thus: "When this cause
  does not exist, this effect is not; with the cessation of this cause,
  this effect ceases.
With the cessation of Ignorance, Conditioning Activities cease.
With the cessation of Conditioning Activities (Relinking) Consciousness ceases.
With the cessation of (Relinking) Consciousness, Mind and Matter cease.
With the cessation of Mind and Matter, the six Spheres of Sense cease.
With the cessation of the Six Spheres of Sense, Contact ceases.
With the cessation of Contact, Feeling ceases.
With the cessation of Feeling, Craving ceases.
With the cessation of Craving, Grasping ceases.
With the cessation of Grasping, Becoming ceases.
With the cessation of Becoming, Birth ceases.
With the cessation of Birth, Decay, Death, Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief,
  and Despair cease.

I think the OP is asking for something like that, but including the use of a leaf.

How the Lord Buddha verified his awakening he told his first later disciples, the story delivered in the Mahavagga here.

...“Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: ‘ … has been comprehended, ...abandoned, ...experienced, ...developed’...

My person does not think that an Awakened would use a leave, matter, for his situations verification. So it might have been a folk or fake story, if having been touched by such.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks of stories and entertaining with it, but as a door for release from bonds and interest)


text:
Did the Buddha ever define what he meant by "self"?
Added: I am asking this because I am not sure if anything I observe would be considered "self" according to the Buddha. I don't have this problem with craving or suffering because I can observe/experience craving and suffering and it seems quite clear that they can be and are defined as such.
It seems to me I am unable to determine whether there is, isn't, what is or what isn't "self" because I don't know what aspect/s of reality the word "self" is defined as corresponding to.
I am wondering if it is possible to describe what aspect/s of reality the word "self" is defined as corresponding to.
It looks like the Buddha  may have defined the aggregates as "not-self" so if there is a "self" (What is a "self"?) then according to the Buddha it's definitely not the aggregates. In my opinion this cannot simply be a "view for practicality" because then the Buddha would be a liar in that case.

A complication here is your use of the upper-case 'Self' in the question. The upper-case Self is not the lower-case self and it's the latter you're asking about.

@PeterJ Isn't the same word (atta) used for both "self" and "Self"? Or translated as both, or translated as one or the other, depending on the context? See e.g. this definition gives two meanings, 1) "soul" 2) "oneself".

@ChrisW - I was thinking of Indian religion where 'Self' would be Brahman and the Biblical 'I Am' while 'self' would be the non-existent ego-self. This confuses the question for me.

Okay I changed it.

Anattalakkhaṇasutta is a short sutta for "self" explanation. Brahmajālasutta is a long sutta. All abhidhamma, especially paṭṭhāna, is "non self" explanation. This is the longest explanation. If you can't understand "self" by all of these sutta, it means your pali skill is lacking.

You might find this video of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ll_n4MSOCQ&index=3&list=PLUPMn2PfEqIwVSzQQ4sWzo-AsAfPgxcPs

Possible duplicate of Did the Buddha consider anything else as being "self" beyond simply the aspect of control/power?

I suppose that "self" is not easy to identify, especially since Buddhist doctrine is that everything is "non-self".
The words "atta" and "anatta" are used without much obvious definition, in the Anattalakkhaṇasutta (which is maybe the most fundamental sutta on the subject).
The a or an prefix there (i.e. which distinguishes anatta from atta) is just "the negative prefix" which implies the negative or absence of something (I think that's like in English, e.g. "theist" versus "atheist") -- you can't tell whether that means exactly (i.e. you can't usefully distinguish between) "non-self", "no self", "not self", "without self", "independent of self", "free of self-theory", etc. -- those are all more-or-less the same thing, in my opinion.

I asked this question on this site: What are examples of identity-view? (forgive or skip the long question, but perhaps the answers there will make sense to you).
I asked that question because it's (specifically) "identity view" that's listed as a "fetter".
"Identity view" is how people translate sakkāya-diṭṭhi -- you can find definitions of that, for example here

'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana).
It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotāpatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala).
There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha):

(1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness;
(6-10) to be contained in them;
(11-15) to be independent of them;
(16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1).

... and here.
I think it literally or etymologically means something like:

sa -- true or good or own (maybe it isn't clear what word this was)
kāya -- body
diṭṭhi -- view

In summary I think it's identifying with the aggregates, e.g. "I am this body", "I am the feeling", "I am this perception", etc. -- or "I am contained in this body", or "I am independent of this body", or "I am the owner of this body" -- IMO what these views all have in common is the view that "I am" or that "I" am.
An analogy is Gaddula Sutta: The Leash (SN 22.99) which implies that people are tied to it, keep running around it, like a dog might be tied by a leash to a post or stake.
I like Pirsig's description of "the old South Indian Monkey Trap" ...

...  the most striking example of value rigidity I can think of is the old
  South Indian Monkey Trap, which depends on value rigidity for its effectiveness. The trap consists of a hollowed-out coconut chained
  to a stake. The coconut has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole. The hole is big enough so that the monkey’s
  hand can go in, but too small for his fist with rice in it to come out. The monkey reaches in and is suddenly trapped...by nothing more
  than his own value rigidity. He can’t revalue the rice. He cannot see that freedom without rice is more valuable than capture with it.
  The villagers are coming to get him and take him away. They’re coming closer—closer! -- now! What general advice...not specific
  advice...but what general advice would you give the poor monkey in circumstances like this?

... though obviously that's not canonical.
See also MN 44 which associates identity view with craving, as defined in the four noble truths:

Then the layman Visākha went to see the nun Dhammadinnā, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to her: “Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘identity’. What is this identity that the Buddha spoke of?” “Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.”
Saying “Good, ma’am,” Visākha approved and agreed with what Dhammadinnā said. Then he asked another question: “Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the origin of identity’. What is the origin of identity that the Buddha spoke of?” “It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence. The Buddha said that this is the origin of identity.”
“Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the cessation of identity’. What is the cessation of identity that the Buddha spoke of?”
“It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not clinging to it. The Buddha said that this is the cessation of identity.”

It uses the word "self" (atta) to define "identity view", without defining the word "self":

But ma’am, how does identity view come about?”
“Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti?
“It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.
They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity view comes about.”

Another aspect of "self" is pride, apparently, i.e. conceit or māna.
I asked about that here: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
The answers there are fairly easy to understand.
See also perhaps Sakkāya Ditthi is Personality (Me) View?, which emphasises a distinction between the two fetters.

Another topic I found helpful was: How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- not that there is or isn't a self, but that any "view of self" leads to suffering.
I was taught history-of-science at school; I think that, to a scientist, a "view" or "theory" is like a description of something. You can choose any view[s] you like, but some views fit better with other views, fit the empirical observations better, are more useful or make better predictions -- so anyway I don't see "is there or isn't there a self?" as being a question of fact, I see it as a question of whether "self" is helpful theory (and Buddhism suggests that it isn't, that it's a hindrance).

I think that another helpful hint as to what the concept of "self" includes can be found towards the end of the Anattalakkhaṇasutta:

“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In other words there's "self" in the idea of possession or ownership -- i.e. the view that "that is mine" implies that there's a "me" or a "self".

Another way to approach it is in Buddhist descriptions of "a being" -- e.g. "a sentient being". Take the parable of the chariot for example (e.g. "what you call a chariot is a mere assemblage of parts") -- see the Vajira Sutta.
I think that too related to the idea of self (e.g. "I am a being"), though maybe other fetters too (e.g. bhava "becoming").

Is self even a theory? What is it even postulating?
I think it's postulates like these, which Buddhism declares to be wrong views:

A thicket of wrong views (quoting from MN 2)
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."

I think that "self-views" include:

I exist
I don't exist
I will die
I will live forever
etc.

People sometimes also distinguish between "existing relatively or conventionally" versus "existing absolutely".
I called that a "theory" (or "like a scientific theory") because, per my understanding of the first paragraph of this answer ...

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.

... a "view" is some kind of long-lived "belief" and not just a short-lived "perception".
I am asking this because I am not sure if anything I observe is considered "self" or not. I don't have this problem with craving or suffering because I can observe/experience craving and suffering and it seems quite clear that they can be and are defined as such.
Well ... good, then, all for the better?
I think there are maybe two kinds of meaning in the word "self":

"Eternal soul" (see e.g. theories of transmigration)
Oneself (e.g. as used in a sentence "you must know for yourself whether something is true")

I think that the first of type of meaning  (i.e. "soul") was a topic of debate or argument at the time, between different sects of wanderers -- see e.g. the 64 views described in DN 1.
The other kind of meaning (which I think of as "conventional, worldly") is alright maybe as far as it goes -- but it's more than only a matter of grammar, I think that "self views" can lead to various forms of suffering, like "self-pity" ("woe is me!"), "self-aggrandisement", "selfishness", and so on.
And I think it (i.e. the "self" concept) is related to craving and attachment ("I want X", "I have X", "I don't have X", "I have lost X", etc.).
Perhaps it's for the better though if you can or do see that without "I-making".

Lastly, Samana Johann wanted me to mention papañca and to reference The Arrows of Thinking.
In summary, I think that papañca may refer to excessive verbalization, possibly "discursive thinking", of a style that you might want to avoid -- because it isn't restful, because it's obstacle to truly seeing the world as it is, and so on -- possibly related to the "thicket of views" that I mentioned earlier above.
And the suttas also use papañca in the description of why people argue with each other.
See also What is papañca -- some of the answers to that question reference Nagarjuna's doctrine of emptiness, which I think says something like "our descriptions or definitions of things (of any and everything) is not the way in which everything 'really is'" -- which maybe agrees with you and with what I said at the ouset, i.e. that "self" is difficult to define or to identify in reality.

Did the Buddha ever define what he meant by "self"?
Maybe the definitions of non-self are better. From the Anattalakkhaṇasutta perhaps we can infer that if there were a self then it would be ...

Controllable (if it were me I could control it -- I could tell it to do this or that, or to be this or that)
Permanent
Pleasurable rather than unsatisfactory

... which the Anattalakkhaṇasutta says that the aggregates are not.
Also I think that anatta is taught for an effect: e.g. to effect dispassion, renunciation, "this isn't me, isn't mine, isn't my self", a turning away, a release (i.e. the opposite of the attachment and craving).

"Self" is this highly childish, simplified, vague, unexamined idea in your mind: "This is me". It's not a concrete thing, it's an overall thing, it's a blob: "I am such, overall". It's an overgeneralization and an oversimplification.
It exists exactly because it's unexamined, and because it exists it attracts all kinds of funny ideas. For example, you may assume that "I am a good person" or "a bad person" or "a horrible person", or smart, or stupid, or ugly and so on. Self is like a Christmas tree on which we keep hanging all these ideas - but if you look carefully, there is no tree. It's all made of the decorations, or ideas - hanging on each other!
That is the point!
We acquire an opinion about politics, or some kind of judgement about the world and we add it to the tree. Then we identify with it so completely that this opinion becomes our second nature. It is natural to us to think that (put some popular controversy here). So once there is self, once there is this Christmas tree of ideas we have internalized and identified with - about ourselves, the world, and everything in between - we begin to see things a certain way, a certain reality arises in our mind.
But this reality is not THE reality. This reality is a projection of the Christmas tree! It's a shadow or a reflection of our conglomerate of ideas.
So when Buddhism talks about no-self in practice it first and foremost means getting rid of this deep fundamental assumption that reality we see is actual reality, and our idea of self is actually a truthful representation of how things are.
To this goal we are instructed to examine our immediate experience (thoughts, emotions, interpretations, perceptions etc.) until we see how the Christmas tree is made.
Then of course we see that what we thought were our "choices" and "actions" were actually knee-jerk reactions and impulses coming from the Christmas tree. We realize that all speak of free-will is nonsense when we are in fact driven by our ideas like sheep, and freedom is only possible when we un-identify from all that and learn to be nothing (yeah, like Arya Stark).
When we are nothing, we are free, because there is nothing one can point to and say this is us. When this happens, the notions of death etc. are no longer applicable - because the object it was supposed to apply to only exists in the unenlightened mind, but we don't have to hold on to that.
This, generally, is the overall context in which these conversations about No-Self happen in (Mahayana) Buddhism. At least, this is how it is from my perspective, but mine is not final of course. For example in Theravada, the no-self talk is primarily ordered around Five Aggregates, which from Mahayana perspective is nothing but a didactic device to provide an alternative functional interpretation of Everything that would not involve a notion of single agent or single observer. So Theravada is slightly more concerned with the low-level phenomenology of observation and action while Mahayana is more concerned about the higher-level (social and psychological) manifestations of the same illusion of a single solid entity.
Anyway, what's important to understand for a beginner is that "self" is this unexamined blob, which seems like you until you start analyzing it. I am this, I am such, I like this, I hate this, This is right, This is wrong - all this stuff bundled together into one "This is who I am and this is why I do what I do" - is the self.

That is similar to how I see it. Did the Buddha ever explain it like that?  Imo the idea of "self" or "I" is only used and found in thoughts to mean "this person not another person" but for some reason language isn't like that.

In Mahayana we study the words of teachers who were the students of teachers who were the students of Buddha. So we primarily study the live tradition, not just the Pali texts. The way I explain it, is the way I understood from my teachers and from the many books written by their teachers. Self, in Mahayana, is an idea that "this" is special and separate from "all that". If you're looking for a book about this, try Maitreya's Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga), with comments by Thrangu Rinpoche.

@Angus H. H. the Dalai Lama says something like that here: https://youtu.be/IUEkDc_LfKQ?t=124

Yes puthujjanas who love to qualify themselves of rationalists crave definitions of terms. they think that definitions makes thing clear and it is possible to define things in the first place and once people agree on definition, they will communicate clearly. Of course, to this day, they still have not provided one single definition of any term, of all terms they strive to define.
It is one of the most moronic views created by puthujjanas.

In which case it seems the Buddha is defining the aggregates as
  "not-self"

The buddha does not define anything. At best the buddha says something like "why is XXXX called XXXX? XxX is called XXX, because it does XXXX." [like he does for vinnana, vedana and so on]
There are two little suttas about atta:

That is the Self (or see SN 24.3)
This is Mine (or see SN 24.2)

There is a little summary for each sutta.

Etaɱ Mama Suttaɱ, III.203

The Buddha states that the view that some thing belongs to the self,
  or that some thing is the self arises from not understanding the
  impermanent and painful nature of shape, sense-experience, perception,
  own-making, and consciousness and the seen, heard, sensed, cognized,
  acquired, investigated, or turned over in mind.

So Attā Suttaɱ, III.204

The Buddha states that the view that that which is the self and that
  which is the world for one will become stable in the hereafter arises
  from not understanding the impermanent and painful nature of shape,
  sense-experience, perception, own-making, and consciousness and the
  seen, heard, sensed, cognized, acquired, investigated, or turned over
  in mind.

A puthujjana has zero difficulty to ''have a sense of self'' like some puthujjana speculating about anatta phrase it.
The most common and toxic experience for a puthujjana is when the puthujjana thinks and says

'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me'"

When this experience is expressed as a view, it is called sakkaya ditthi.
The other famous word on which puthujjanas struggle a lot is the word satta, typically called being. The puthujjanas embarrass themselves by speculating and trying to tie some static thing to it.
The problem of the word being is that it is a word created by puthujjanas and as usual there is zero definition to that word. Puthujjanas love to create words, then to wonder for thousands of year what is this word as an experience or, for the most intellectual, what is the entity behind this word.
The claim of the buddha is that there is zero difference between a being and craving. When you experience craving, you experience ''being'' or ''being a being''/. Since experiencing a being is a weird phrase, you can say that ''you create a being'' as long as there is craving.
The buddha rephrase fully the vague word ''satta' created by puthujjanas and that no puthujjana know what it means into fully knowable and universal experience called craving:

Satta Sutta: A Being (SN 23.2)
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
  caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
  fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.

All puthujjana on earth knows what craving is. Zero puthujjana on earth knows what ''satta' means (because it means nothing).
But the puthujjanas who are philosophers and daydreamers and creators of views despise that. they prefer to continue to speculate, to create and share  their little views and sciences that they call ontology, epistemology, metaphysics.
And the buddha is always clear with what must be done with what is conditioned, because there is zero way to turn  a conditioned thing into a unconditioned thing,

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish
  form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving
  for form.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for
  play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit
  for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them
  unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit
  for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for
  the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."

And just like for satta, the buddha says in the two little suttas above, that ''there is a sense of self'' to phrase it like people say today and which is the view:

'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me'.

is fully the  craving, the dependence on something, which means, for rupa for instance,

There being a body, brethren, by clinging to body, depending on body,

⚓ Yes:
Eye, it's object, touch at it, recognising on the eye, felling, and all what arises around it, is not self, no refuge, has no hardwood in it, nothing of real worth, making no "sense".
The ear, it's object,... the nose..., the tongue... the body..., the intellect, it's object, touch at it, recognising on the intellect, felling, and all what arises around it, is not self, no refuge, has no hardwood in it, nothing of real worth, making no "sense". Why? Because not real, changing, insecure and sick, stress and suffering.
Try it, look for yourself to know as it comes into existence and decays.
How to use the food for beyound is good nourished here: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta.
Oh, and Nyom Chris, there is stille something missing in Nyoms answer, something importand: "
The Arrows of Thinking - Papañca & The Path to End Conflict"
A serial of Self-definitions: Ditthi-samyutta — Views - 25. Okkanta-samyutta — Entering and at near least the Dhatusutta

❓I am asking this because I am not sure if anything I observe is considered "self" or not.
➥❓Who considers observed? Others? Is there anything beside aggregats, senseobjects, dathus... observed? if ⇨ ❎ No ⇨ then go on, cutting away one after another, "no refuge, not self, of no worth, senseless..." while sticking to the basics, formost Sila, firm. Support: The Essence of the Dhamma
[Note: The gift of Dhamma is not thought for any trade or wordily exchange]

Thank you for the reference to papañca -- I may read that soon, to see how I might add that to "my" answer.

Mudita and mainly much insight and release with it.

I think that Veiculo longo and Dhammadhatu are different people, though their posting style is slightly similar in some ways. That observation doesn't belong in your answer though (it doesn't help to answer the question) so I'm trying to delete it.

That's fine. Thinking sometimes also, for relexation, relativation of troubles.

Just to understand Vunerables new "how can I break Silas" idea: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=33010&start=15#p491021 Nyom @ChrisW. Maybe liking to check the dates if feeling doubts, this or that.

I did notice once a while ago that "DooDoot" posts on DhammaWheel. But I don't really follow (i.e. I don't read) what's posted on DhammaWheel (and I don't know what that has to do with this site and/or with Veiculo longo, nor what you're trying to tell me about dates).

So you don't? No problem and no need to read much or even follow, Nyom. Btw, without much outwardly reading, following... a question to investigate. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/29738/is-hidding-or-cheating-about-ones-identity-unskilful-and-probably-harmful-for-ot

When I perceive something outside of myself, whose perspective is it really? The nature of self and everything else has always intrigued me and I am overjoyed by the question and the many answers posted. Did I create this joy by thinking thus? Am I the self I believe I am? Who am I?

In my current simplified understanding I have come to see not-self in two ways:

Mind self
Physical self

They are both intrinsically connected - meaning they both symbiotically inform each other of being an isolated 'one' and thus separate from all other physical and mental circumstances. Body informs mind and mind informs body only because of conditioned momentum.
It's not important to know that there is or isn't a self. in fact, this could be more of a hindrance. How so? Adopting a belief of there is a self or there isn't a self is to use your conditioned state to govern the mental abstraction of itself thereby falling back into that which one must non-judgmentally observe. This is because belief is rooted in the absence of fact and can, therefore, only exist as mind structures. This can be likened to you being punched in the face and then handing your assailant a user feedback form. That being: the conditioned you creates your discontent only to refer back to the conditioned you for a remedy to that discontent.
It is important to see that it works in that way but from outside the context of your conditioned frame of reference. The issue here is that this cannot be done in one thought moment or even several.
So, what of mind self and physical self? Using the Four Noble Truths and The Three Mark of Existance we can understand from a place that is slightly more distilled from our conditioning and dismantle what appears to be a static form; ourselves. In the Satipatthana sutta, section five states:

And further, monks, a monk reflects on this very body, however it be placed or disposed, by way of the material elements: "There are in this body the element of earth, the element of water, the element of fire, the element of wind."

Contemplating the elements in this way loosens up the sense of the physical self being independent from all other forms. It's not possible to say that the water in your body is yours or the heat in your body is yours. It's just passing through you from somewhere else. Likewise for the other two. In this physical sense, you are not you; the elements are impermanent, unsatisfactory and therefore not-self.
Furthermore, in the Satipatthana sutta there is the contemplation of mental objects; the contemplation of the aggregates (saṃjñā and saṃskāra are really critical here) and the contemplation of consciousness.
In The Sabbasava Sutta the Buddha discouraged monks from speculating about the notion of a self...

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.


text:
Is it wrong-view to think there might be more than 5 aggregates?
Although the 5 aggregates seem to fully explain my experience, is it wrong view if I think that there might be more?

There are only two realities: saṅkhāra (dependent origination such as aggregate) and asaṅkhāra (no dependent origination such as nibbāna). All others are paññatti (concept;imagine;not reality) because saṅgkhāra must have tree sub-characteristics and asaṅkhāra must have not tree sub-characteristics. But paññatti has nothing, it can't arise like saṅkhāra and can't cease saṅkhāra like nibbāna.
By VN Parivāra of upāli-etadagga:

Aniccā sabbe saṅkhārā, dukkhānattā ca saṅkhatā; Nibbānañceva paññatti,
anattā iti nicchayā.
Saṅkhāra, which means saṅkhata(effect-saṅkhāra)*, is
anicca&dukkha&anattā; But only nibbāna&paññatti which are explained
as only anattā.
(*Saṅkhāra, which means cause-saṅkhāra, use in more fixed meaning word, such as saṅkhāra-khandha, saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda. You can notice it
in each context, because it is already appear clearly.)

And by KN Paṭisambhidāmagga of sāriputta-mahāsāvaka:

sabbe  saṅkhārā  aniccā  sabbe  saṅkhārā  dukkhā sabbe     dhammā     anattāti
All saṅkhāra are anicca, all saṅkhāra are dukkha, and all dhammā are anattā.

There is no saṅkhāra which is not aggregates (Khandhavinimuttako hi saṅkhāro nāma natthi.)
Below, the second group is the conclusion of the first group, Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

"Aggivessana, 2 the Blessed One disciplines his disciples in this way; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples: ('Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant.)
Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. (All fabrications are inconstant.) All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which the Blessed One disciplines his disciples; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples."

However, "All phenomena are not-self" in above context include more than "Form is inconstant", because it include more two, nibbāna and paññatti, as I have described above.
Abhidhamma and atthakathā have this same explanation as well.

I am thinking "maybe there is more saṅkhāra than the five aggregates but I cannot see these extra/more saṅkhāra"

There is no saṅkhāra which is not aggregates (Khandhavinimuttako hi saṅkhāro nāma natthi.)

"There is no saṅkhāra which is not aggregates" (It means only the 5 aggregates, yes?)
Does it say this same thing in the Sutta Pitaka anywhere?

@Angus I already edited the answer. Let's see in the end of answer area.

I marked this answer down. Its too difficult to follow plus it misunderstands the word "sankhara". The word "sankhara" has more than one meaning. This link I wrote might help: https://dhammadhatu.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/the-word-sankhara-in-context/

Your link and my explaination is same. The misunderstanding is yours. You never think "every sankhara conditions by the other sankharas". Actually, each dependent origination depends on many causes. You need to think more think more complicated as the real life is.

It is not wrong view to think there might be more aggregates. The aggregates are merely a summary of the things clung to. What is right view is the understanding that clinging to the aggregates is suffering.

❓Although the 5 aggregates seem to fully explain my experience, is it wrong view if I think that there might be more?
➥❓To answer correct, a counter-question seems to be required: of how sould "there more" look like?
If their nature might be susbected similar, no wrong view out of this can be traced. So just look for the five to know their nature totally, in all aspects. Act-ual-ly there are countless holding-on-aggregates. To do so Sila is the foundation, no change without it. Having planted the seed, fruit, seeing without knowing, comes by it's cause given.
Note that your current experiance is limited, and as long as not having been "traveled till the end of the world", there will still remaind doubt (e.g. one needs to see as it is also in refined spheres of existence, deva-realms, Jhana).
If thinking there is just what can be experianced in a very gross existence, the subtil doubt of special sense experiences remains, sometimes the dangereous wish "oh may I not experience anything" (e.g. destruction)
[Note: this gift of Dhamma is not thought for any kind of trade or wordily exchange.]

You can come up with any number of aggregates, from 5 to 27 (obviously joking). What matters is not the number but realization that:
1) Our experience of ourselves, the world, and all phenomena "external" and "internal" is in fact always subjective, it is always mediated by the mind. There is nothing that can be perceived, thought of, or be said "to exist" outside of the context created by mind.
2) When we look at this experience, things are no longer solid. It's not that there is "a cup" anymore. No. There is a bunch of visual stimuli, the tactile stimuli, etc. the memories, the associations, the attitudes, the tendencies -- which all come together to form this ephemeral flickering image of "cup" made from the raw "mind material" (I'm simplifying here).
So, when you look at things this way, you are no longer fascinated by things, you are not controlled by things. You see how things are fabricated, so you receive a certain measure of freedom. It does not matter how many aggregates you identify, in fact you are expected to look at your own experience closely and see first-hand how the cup is made. You can designate any number of building blocks based on what you see.
What matters is the freedom that this process gives you.
This is my current understanding based on my study and practice.