text:
Recurring Lack of Compassion
I am trying generally to follow the Mahayana path, with a union of emptiness and compassion. However, I experience clear problems with compassion. These manifest as : 1) general detachment from people 2) spontaneous and stubborn judgments towards others 3) lack of altruistic motivation.
I'm wondering how to tackle all these problems. I'm similarly wondering how best to develop compassion, or rather what prerequisites might allow greater feeling and furthering of compassion.
Thank you.

Is it reasonable to excpet that you can escape your karma and walk such a path?  Your reactions sound like karmic reactions.

Compassion is the willingness or wish to help others therefore I suppose compassion can only be practised when others need help when it is obviously they want help.

I like that answer, I think that unless people want help compassion will be very very limited.

I think the practise of emptiness & compassion is to not neglect compassion when emptiness is realised, i.e., to not allow emptiness to generate indifference.

These six properties (dhātus/elements) are means of escape. Which six?
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, 'Although compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still viciousness keeps overpowering my mind.' He should be told, 'Don't say that. You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that — when compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — viciousness would still keep overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from viciousness: compassion as an awareness-release.' (AN 6.13)

Karuna (compassion). See also Brahmavihara.
  As a factor leading to liberation: AN 6.13
  Systematic practice of ~: SN 42.8
  Practicing ~ as a way to deal with annoying people: AN 5.161
Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism (Harris)
  "Educating Compassion"

It's not possible to develop compassion, understand it even, if one is after certain elements, follwer of certain dhatus, holding on wrong views and disregard the tripple gems. Such are no means. So fist real refuge is generally the only refuge.
Such answers like

Compassion is the willingness or wish to help others therefore I suppose compassion can only be practised when others need help when it is obviously they want help.

might give foundation for defilements to regard there ideas for right, but such does not cover what is called skillful or path contuctive.
The wish to help other beings has nothing to do if one is actually able or not, regardless of lack in oneself or by handicaps of others: boundless, meaning that all beings are to be included.
Of course such as to develope karuna requires such as compassion or pity toward one self first. This requires the understanding that one actually need to be helped, misses certain things for having no kind of suffering.
If one does not see dukkha, one does not see ground for help. Not knowing dukkha in one self, not spoken about the cause, how can one develop even desire to help other?
There is no being that is not subject to suffering, knowing it or not.
To be able to develope conductive compassion it is required to have right view, without right view, the following parts of the eightfold path, which are in fact deeds of compassion, starting with virtue outwardly, can not come into be.
Developing right compassion, even to expand it torward all beings is therefore not possible for a wordily mind, person, but might be so fare, "just" a training.

One who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with compassion. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Such is impossible for a person with giant ego, totally overestimating one self. Such a person will of course, guided by his defilements, prefer to dwell in his "emptiness" (e.g. in his ignorance).
At least, one IS able to help every being - to pull away the ground of such foolish ideas: even if one might not see certain lack, does not know certain mind, in keeping precepts, being without intention to harm, has threefold rght intention, one helps all beings.

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life/taking what is not given/illicit sex/lying/use of intoxicants, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans... (AN 8.39)

Taken on such on high level, this is by the way the reason why monks and certain brahmans are often addressed as "lord of compassion", because of the gift of virtue and then the other trainings and for teaching possible the way to end suffering.
So compassion in action on the eightfold path helps actually every being, and ideas, like even favored by deluded minds here, giving cause to be corrected for those able to see through defilements, have no rightous ground at all.
Since this is actually a place that gives much reason to face the suffering of beings, caught in wrong views, here is planty place to spread compassion, pity for them, since that grave hopeless situation no one can directly posible help, is indeed a field that "cries" for compassion and may lead later to righous equanimity "beings are heirs of their kamma", that's then dwellingin emptiness, not possible to gain without having done the right deeds in body, speech and mind befor.
So the matter in short, incl. act-ually all being:

And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice: e.g. stating with developing right view by practicing silas], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.
"And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy (e.g. developing a mind, thoughs of compssion). This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself. (BaMboo-acrobats)

So, right here where this is, there is, at the point of a wordling, no better act of compassion as to strive for right view by practicing generosity, precepts and reflecting the Dhamma and let go of certain ego-trips:

Abandoning the wrong factors of the path
"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
— MN 117
Cultivating skillful ways of thought
"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
— AN 10.176

With much karuna! (and mudita) and as a "Bodhisatta" once explained: "How few understand what love (goodwill & compassion) really is,... : Wisdom and the work for it.

Sabbe sattā sabba-dukkhā pamuccantu.
May all living beings be freed from all stress & pain.

For those more interested in how to develop the Brahma Viharas: The Sublime Attitudes: A Study Guide on the Brahmaviharas
Beware of the manifold extrems of Mohayana-Compassion, leading to pain for many and oneself in wandering on, feeding on the "beloved"...

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

They say, on hinayana path you overcome desire and on mahayana path you overcome aversion. Maybe that is your problem, aversion. Maybe you should sit down and try to take a very careful look at this aversion for a few hours? Aversion is often rooted in fear of (emotional) pain, or in some old stereotypes / prejudices based on painful experiences... or, generally speaking, in mental attachments to some conceptual ideals of some kind... Try and understand the source of your aversion.
Now, you have to realize, compassion is not really a pleasant feeling by any means. It is actually quite painful. After all, you empathize other people's subjective situations, including their confusion and dukkha - how can it not be painful? Therefore, in order to open oneself to compassion, one must open oneself to pain. This is the fundamental diff. between Mahayana and others, because in Mahayana we don't shy away from pain, don't try to trick it away - we live with it.
So once you have enough emotional strength to fathom the depth of Samsara and amount of dukkha in the universe... and you're up for the infinity of helping sentient beings... all of which want happiness, but none want your help - so you have to trick them to help them - and this too is painful - then we can call this real Mahayana compassion.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Maybe try some loving-kindness guided meditation and  compassion guided meditation. Ajahn Brahm, Pema Chodron and Joseph Goldstein among many other great teachers have free guided meditation mp3 downloads. Just Google the teacher and "guided meditation".
I like guided meditations because it's a way to meditate with someone other than yourself:) Metta.

One google query consumes energy (=live) of about 15Wh. Food to consider, when after compassion vs. "dislike" seclusion. Not to speak about audio and even video sensual pleasure. Soon as much as cookng food for a whole family for one day.

I've been at an energy low so forgive me.

Beings propaby forgive, law of cause and effect, Self, not. Compassion with such?

Your “general detachment from people” is probably due to a childhood that lacked a lot of love. Buddhism does not do a very good job of dealing with such family conditioning. Modern psychotherapy has a lot more insight into the causal relationships between family conditioning and adult suffering. Neither Theravadin Buddhism nor Mahayana Buddhism provide the kind of healing that a good psychotherapist can provide. The recent development of MBSR and MBCT centers that provide a community of therapists and clients are far more attuned to the needs of practitioners of mindfulness meditation who have suffered from dysfunctional families. In Buddhist cultures, becoming a monk or a nun is more of a calling than a pursuit of psychotherapy. A good way to develop compassion is to be part of a community of friends that are sensitive to your emotional needs.


text:
Why do I experience a second, floating body when body scanning?
When I did the 10 day Vipassana meditation retreat, sometimes I would find that when I was body scanning, I would suddenly realize I was scanning a second, floating body maybe a foot in front and above from my actual body.  I could feel my sensations in the second body, but it was very disconcerting because it FELT like me, but was a projection.  I felt distrustful of my own experience.  If I recognized it, I could get my attention to return to my actual body and the projection would  go away.
What was that and why did it happen?  Should I have just kept on doing what I was doing and observed, or (sort of) forcibly returned my attention to my actual body, as I did?

If it was a goenka retreat it doesnt surprise me.  Those retreats are too ascetic. You become sleep derived and are made to sit for many hours at a stretch that disassociation from the body is probably a natural way to cope. Its like when they put prisoners in solitary confinement.

That's really interesting.  I would say that because Goenka and the ATs (and the Buddha as well) say to scan the actual bodily sensations, the reality, it was the right thing to do to return to the body itself.  Did you talk to one of the ATs about this, by the way?

This is interesting to me, because I experienced the same thing and it turned into a bad habit that took a while to get rid of. My response was to return to the body once I realized what was happening, and that is also what the AT said.
What I experienced was that the projection had some flaws... I could easily map strong sensations to it, but I could not map subtle sensations to it. It took some time before I even realized that I was working on a map or projection rather than just sensing actual body. It also took a while to break the habit. I chalked it up to beginner's fumbling.

What is ones "act-ual", or real body?
It's good to experiment, even look what (kind of regard) is lesser stressful, if certain regard still contains stress, and not so good to assume preoccupations (ideas of phenomenas or the phenomena itself) as "this is real, this is mine, this is my self, this is what I am".
Understand, Nyom Kara.
Do that much, and no need then to ask if certain phenomena was right and real afterwards. Look and investigate again.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is it ethical to develop software for financial company?
I'm wondering whether it is ethical to work as software engineer for financial company that develops software for exchanges and banks. When we consider exchange, different things are traded there, i.e. commodities, currency, money and equities. Unfortunately some of commodities are pork bellies (dead hogs), however there are hundreads other goods which are not meat.
Moreover, markets are not only for speculators (who risk their money by "gambling") but also hedgers (who want to manage their risk by using financial market, so it's good reason). Also, exchanges make it possible for companies to acquire money for further investments. Furthermore, implementing new legislations makes markets more secure against financial crises, e.g. MIFID II.

I assume you're looking for an answer based on this definition:

A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

I'd guess so (that it is ethical or not inethical to develop software for a financial company).
Consider telecommunications or telephony software, for example: theoretically the internet and telephone system is also used for trading meat, but, that's not exactly your responsibility: the same is true for anything -- making cars, for example: a few cars, too, are used in the trade of meat.
I think I mostly just avoided employment with aerospace (i.e. defence, weapons) manufacturers.

First of all Sadhu for the skillful mental action and state of conscious and moral shame.
The Buddha, so his disciples, did not taught laypeople much in regard of "best" livelihood, Justme. He focused on the livelihood he chose as most proper and praised like all wise the going forth, as the best means of livelihood.
It's properly good, in regard of right view, to "start" with right livelihood for the mind, which is best feeded with right thoughts, intentions and right view.
There is at least no food (for pleasure), no livelihood, no entertaining (upadana) that does not require sacrifies and pain at least, if follow the lines in the circle of trade and exchange. So one seeks for the most harmless food to use it for overcoming food. Here with right livelihood.
What ever extend one sees such and understands to ste ossible out of that, go for better livelihood, maybe even to the highest right livelihood as "begging" recluse, what ever makes the conscious ligher and one self out of feeling remorse, is good, if not simply hypocritical.
There are three ways of actions: bodily, by one self; by speech (all kind of expressions), in ordering or encouraging others; and by mind (in toughts by wishing, agree, acepting, aprove). All three action, if based on mind outwardly as well, have dependent on the quality (skillful, unskillful, neutral) their "equal" results.
So most actions, then followed by one adopting in livelihood, can only right considered in ones own sphere and situation. While answering your question general with a categorical yes or now would be wrong and just a view.
Best is always to follow ones conscious, where ever it (good considered) might be more lighter and dependent on current possibilities of change, step by step.
While one could formal argue "but if doing and not agree with certain outcomes" might be sometimes a possible way, especially if not having ways to chance livelihood and being "somehow a slave", going after a live on two vehicles will lead to painful accidents.
There are cases where worker "ungrateful" opposte their leaders/chiefs, the feeding hand: such is very unskillful. But to encourage ones chief or leader, while still bound, to walk better, more virtuose ways, nd act with right intention in all spheres possible for one, could help in a dependig situation. A soldier might be able to seek after work in the kitchen or as ambulance, to give a figural sample.
Even if there are no "this, and nothing else is right" grasps are given here, it might contain food for own good investigation for the situation and for sure the best teaching, for all situation, very clear, is given by the Buddha to his son. It's good to follow just this mode, where ever one for now may walk or stand: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

As a trading platform for financial markets, it is something ethically neutral.

Working in the field of business software automation, I have a similar quandary since I am essentially helping businesses with questionable purposes and also making things so efficient that people will lose jobs.
As the other answers would suggest though, it is one's intention that counts and thinking about the secondary and tertiary effects of one's actions becomes easily unpredictable. Buddha has himself said karma is deep and it is a pointless game to understand all levels.
Better to simply follow the Eightfold Path, confirm that you are following the basic tenets of Right Livelihood and keep walking towards goal of the Three Trainings.
I would thus suggest to focus on the immediate positive effect you are creating and what you can immediately see. The meat after all was not ordered specifically for you.
Should everyone in the world focus on the immediate positives, things would average out to wholly good in the end through all levels of society.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


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

See especially last part on answer on What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?

Wisdom can certainly gather into a collected mental factor or it can be a result (byproduct) with becoming ONE with another's wisdom.  The main issue, I'd suggest, is a difference between Western minds/souls/destinies and others.

In Buddhism, wisdom or special wisdom or omniscience, is direct and deep understanding of principle (principles?) behind all phenomena.
In one sense, this wisdom is universal and applies to all problems and situations. This, however, does not mean that Buddha would necessarily know how to change the tire or pilot a helicopter without training.

As a mental faculty, wisdom is one thing. It is the capacity to discern how things contribute to suffering or, otherwise, contribute to freedom from suffering. The suttas say:

And what is the faculty of wisdom? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with discernment of
  arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to the right
  ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This is
  stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
  of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  stress.' This is called the faculty of wisdom. SN 48.10

However, there are many aspects to suffering because suffering or disharmony is both internal & external therefore the wisdom faculty may not have every possible wisdom that is available. For example, a stream-enterer may have the wisdom to resolve basic internal suffering but may not have the wisdom to help other people or deal with social conflict.
In conclusion, the wisdom faculty is one thing but the types of knowledges that can form part of the wisdom faculty can be many; similar to how a cabinet can store many medicines but not include every medicine.

I'd lean toward wisdom being divisible. It's common knowledge, not limited to Buddhism, that wise people tend to know what they don't know.  The wise are usually humble and know their limitations.
I'm new on this StackExchange site so apologies if this is not an appropriate response.

Wisdom (pannindriya), of course, is a form of knowledge, a very important form of knowledge, but knowledge nonetheless. When wisdom is viewed as a mental factor (cetasika) of a moment of consciousness (citta), then that citta has a certain quality and not necessarily a simple quality. Indeed, I would suggest that none of the 52 cetasika are simple. All belief and knowledge are generated or caused by sankhara (schemata, in the terminology of Immanuel Kant). It does not make sense to say that knowledge or wisdom can be “united.” Nor does it make sense to say that knowledge or wisdom can be a “single entity.” A sankhara is a set of mental dispositions that makes it possible for us to make sense of experience, including meaningless experience. Only by means of sankhara do we make sense of anything. We cannot perform an action unless it makes sense to us. Wisdom does not “aggregate” and cetasika do not “collect.” Knowledge of any importance is necessarily complex.


text:
Object-based Meditation Versus Objectless Meditation
I notice I have practised meditation in a very biased way, in the sense that I contemplate my experience in a neither focused, neither supported way. Here, by support, I mean a contemplation supported by an object.
So, basically, I am aware of my consciousness and the interaction of thoughts and impressions within it, although without a specific support.
To me, a focused meditation would imply moments of consciousness unified by some specific centring focus.
Similarly, supported meditation implies sensory, perceptual focuses rather than experiences which are bound to alter and vary.
An actual object, whether material as a physical object or perceptual as the breath, would fulfill both these aspects.
QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?
QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

Objectless meditation is my preferred approach, which might qualify as 'cultivating the empty field'. You speak of 'focus', but objectless meditation is not about narrowing ones focus. I would suggest a meditation object is an aid to practice that eventually has to be abandoned. Just some thoughts.

QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

Consequences might be that unity of mind cannot happen since there is no object to focus attention on, meaning e.g. Vitakka and Vichara, cannot happen.
Insight-meditationally speaking, without an object to attend to, I don't see how insights could arise.

QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

It might block the (seven) Enlighenment Factors from arising.

Mindfulness on mind, in that case on consciousness, "knowing mind" is actually part of good vipassana objects, one of the four frames of references. Only that object would be great, hight talented, uprooting quick everything. Of course the answer fits good to the asking/ers mind, but if just taking the text in account, like most would, properply good to discriminate in this regard, Nyom Lanka.

OP: QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

Meditation requires an object to focus on which is real (Paramattha) or conceptual (Paññatti).
Also, consciousness does not arise without form or faculty as these 3 constitutes contact which is one our senses register. Therefore there cannot be consciousness without and object.

Dependent on _____ and _____,
  ____-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.

Cha Chakka Sutta

the eye, form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the ear, sounds, ear-consciousness, ear-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the nose, smells, nose-consciousness, nose-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the tongue, sounds, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the body, touches, body-consciousness, body-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self.

Cha Chakka Sutta
The object of Vipassanā are real objects (Paramattha Dhammas) corresponding to the classification as nama (mentality) and rupa (materiality) or the classification as citta (a moment of consciousness or a moment of experience), cetasika (mental factors accompanying consciousness), rupa (material phenomena) and nibbana (the unconditioned reality) or the classification as rupakkhandha (all rupas), vedanākkhandha (feelings), saññākkhandha (remembrance or perception), saṅkhārakkandha (all cetasikas, except feeling and remembrance) and viññāṇakkhandha (all cittas).
The object of Samatha in most cases are conceptual like people in case of Metta, coloured discs in case of Kasina.
One can develop choiceless awareness, especially when doing daily activities, i.e., you are aware of the object which comes to your attention and any sensation resulting from it. There is a danger in this though that you keep jumping from the most intense object which catchers your attention to another. The drawback in this is that there are a lot of other subtler objects in the background which one might not develop sensitivity. Therefore, for a reasonable time, one should systematically change the objects so one is even sensitive to the feeling the subtlest object creates.

OP: QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

Since there cannot be consciousness without and object of focus, let me assume this is choiceless awareness where one does not direct one's focus to a particular object.
Less effort may be needed as one is not redirecting one's focus.
This comes at a cost as one is not putting effort to see and experience more subtler objects. Ultimately one must try to see reality of all phenomena.

I have practiced Objectless Awareness for years, an expansion of traditional Mindfulness of perceiving the breath, sensations, thoughts and so on.
Its major advantage is that you are aware of the entire space around you and its objects. Over time my comparison is to have your mind in the center of a balloon with all its space occupying the rest, no room for casual thoughts to come in. It is completely effortless so you can abide in this state endlessly.
The opinion stated previously that insight could not occur is furthest from the truth. Instead the minds power is increased tremendously since it is not stained by passing thoughts and emotion. The passive focus builds equanimity and readiness to truly accept the reality around it. Compare it to the instant that you reach an Aha moment, everything is cleared, now you get it. This is the state continuously experienced in an objectless state.

If the wisdom faculty appears with sufficient intensity and the hindrances are resolved; at that time the path can arise and one then attains to absorbtion by which defilements are eradicated.
Othertimes one might abide far removed from hindrances, gladdened and percepient of pleasurable feelings; thinking thoughts connected to knowledge, development and the goal; or not thinking.
It may well happen that one will attain to various distinctions and become percepient of lights & forms. Eventually attaining all way up to cessation of perception & feeling by which defilements are destroyed; the attainments depend on the faculties, inclination and intentions.

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


text:
Annatta and taking responsibility
I'm a bit confused about "not self". How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening? For example if you're an alcoholic part of the process of healing if you go down the AA route is the importance of admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic"
But Buddhism would seem to say there is just alcoholism (or whatever the issue is) happening and it's not happening to a self.
I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self?
Sure it passes and arises but the same pattern of issues continue to pass and arise and definitely feel like they are happening to me for many many years causing a lot of havoc and unhappiness in my life.  How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"

Awareness reveals new options. More awareness -- more options.

How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening?
A medical doctor has more than one medicine, for example one to make you vomit and another to stop you vomiting, one to make blood clot and another to stop blood clotting, and so on.
With various medicines which they can use, the point of being a doctor is knowing when to use them, how to use them skillfully, what (purpose and symptoms) to use them for.
Similarly I think there are several Buddhist doctrines, some maybe seem contradictory, and it's good to know when to use them.
Firstly I guess in Buddhism there's the notion of doing things "skillfully" -- see for example Does 'kusala' (skillful) also mean 'wholesome' and 'morally good'?
I assume that, broadly speaking, a "skillful" action (or view) is one which tends towards the cessation of suffering, whereas unskillful is the opposite (tends towards suffering).
If you were an alcoholic then I think you might think you have (cling to) several reasons for being alcoholic, for example:

I like alcohol
I am not alcoholic
I am an alcoholic
My mother and father were alcoholic
My friends are alcoholic
My being alcoholic hurts no-one but myself, it's my personal right to drink like this
Nobody else cares about me, I might as well drink like this
It makes me feel good

I think that any or all of these could be considered "views" or "self-views" (and/or possibly conceits).
If views like this are a reason why you're alcoholic (remain attached to alcohol), then Buddhist doctrine such as,

This is not mine,
This is not me,
This is not my self

... could be a helpful remedy (perhaps a prescription to take whenever you find views like the ones listed above).
More generally I think that Buddhism teaches than any "view of self" at all is a cause of dukkha -- How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
Conversely though there's a lot of Buddhist doctrine which encourages "taking responsibility":

Everyone seems to recommend sila (virtuous behaviour) as the basis or first part of the Threefold Training (and, possibly, the only part of the training that's essential for laypeople).

The Buddhist doctrine of kamma teaches that each person is "heir to their own action":

I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'.

Schools of Buddhism tend to emphasise personal responsibility, in contrast with (for example) the notion of a saviour deity (some forms of Christianity, for example, might teach that people are "saved" by God and not by their own efforts).

Buddhism has Right Intention and Right Effort as factors of the Noble Eightfold Path

Suttas teach that one should "be islands unto yourselves":

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"?
Obviously a teacher might help. I find it extremely helpful to interact with (to see and converse with, learn from) people who set a good example.
Without my being a teacher though, to try to begin to answer your question here and now, I think that Buddhist doctrine can be summarised as:

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

It's important to know that things cease ("things" including views, causes, and effects).
They arise and cease. Cease, and maybe arise again. Things arise because of causes, conditions. If that's a recurrent pattern (see also samsara) then you may want to change that by controlling the causes.
One of my friends had PTSD after (among other things) having been attacked, and bleeding in the shower. She subsequently had "flashbacks" (i.e. vivid unwanted memories, reliving the traumatic event), maybe dissociative disorders, and so on. The (non-Buddhist) therapy which she reported as having been most effective (antidote to flashbacks) was "mindfulness": e.g. when in the shower, remain conscious of being presently in the shower, of what you could see and feel now, and so on.
I mention that as an illustrative example because "mindfulness" (albeit maybe a different kind of mindfulness) is a feature of Buddhist "therapy" too.
I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self?
Maybe?
I think my view is that if it's pathological, if it causes suffering, then you ought to (it's your responsibility to) do something about it if you can -- and so to seek help perhaps (as well as taking responsibility).
I think there's some dichotomy in the doctrine: on the one hand, Buddhism attempts the salvation of sentient beings, on the other hand an enlightened view avoids attachment to the view that there is "a being".
admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic"
I think "I'm an alcoholic", meaning that I can view myself as a habit-forming creature. My view (my summary of my experience) is that if I start to drink alcohol then I'll tend to do the same (drink alcohol) again and then again; ditto if I start to smoke, start to read, start to bicycle, etc. (most any other activity).
Being alcoholic isn't "who I am" though: it's not essential, it's a habit I can change or get rid of, grow out of, be and do without, drop, put aside, or (hopefully) "make like a palmyra stump" as the suttas put it.
It's maybe part of "what I am" though (if I resumed the activity I expect I might find it habit-forming again): so when the occasion to think about it arises, then I now try to avoid it (and to the extent that that avoidance is now a "skillful virtue" that is maybe no longer a cause for remorse).

I'm a bit confused about "not self". How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening?
It is not just a process. It is a result of many interconnected processes that you habitually identify as your self. By seeing the way it actually is, instead of what you think it is, you can prevent yourself from actions that will not yield the expected results.
You can correct your actions or create changes in behaviour by taking responsibility for your actions. You can also bring about changes if you understand the processes behind them and see the connections that result in those actions.
It is different way of seeing things, not a denial, not abandoning of one's responsibilities. Ultimately every thing is connected by cause and effect, internally as well as externally. You can group certain causes that arise together and call it self, but then if you have to correct any effects arising from that group of causes - you have to tie the resulting effect to that group and try to bring about changes that will prevent the unwanted effect from happening. According to the concept of no-self that is not needed, you can tie the causes to its effects directly and bring about changes, if you realise the illusory nature of this grouping.
But Buddhism would seem to say there is just alcoholism (or whatever the issue is) happening and it's not happening to a self.
Seems like you are confusing non-identification and no-self here. Non-identification is like when you see anger happening and don't assume that you are getting angry. This is viewing with dispassion. Observation of anatta will certainly help, but it is not required for this to happen.
Sure it passes and arises but the same pattern of issues continue to pass and arise and definitely feel like they are happening to me for many many years causing a lot of havoc and unhappiness in my life.
How do things like these keep happening and yet pass under the radar ? Because a) one avoids the issue or justifies it, b) hence one doesn't find a proper solution and c) hence doesn't stick to a solution. How does taking responsibility address the issue ? a) It doesn't allow you to make a justification (by definition) b) It helps maintain the focus at the issue so that a solution can be identified and c) Helps sticking to the identified solution.
If you view the same issues with dispassion a) There is no need for justification since one doesn't identify with it and b) Frees up more mental resources for identifying a solution. Dispassion may not be of great help in applying the solution, you need to use right effort for that. Right effort includes development of skillful means for reduction of suffering.
How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"
As pointed above, observing no-self or viewing stuff with dispassion is not same as denial. Things can be fixed by either taking responsibility or viewing things with dispassion and application of right effort.

I'm a bit confused about "not self". How do you take responsibility
  for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a
  process happening?

When not-self is realised, the actions done are very limited since none of the actions are selfish or self-centred. A realiser of not-self will live according to the five precepts.

For example if you're an alcoholic part of the process of healing if
  you go down the AA route is the importance of admitting to yourself
  that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an
  alcoholic"

The realisation of not-self cannot lead to alcoholism. This scenario is impossible.

But Buddhism would seem to say there is just alcoholism (or whatever
  the issue is) happening and it's not happening to a self.

According to Buddhism, an alcoholic must believe they are a self.

I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal
  emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc
  and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem
  and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff
  happening, passing and arising and not self?

Obviously, in your case, there is self occurring in the mind.
In other words, if those past actions were viewed as 'not-self', all that would be remembered are sets of five aggregates performing actions in relationship with other five aggregates. SN 22.79 says when past dwellings (pubbe nivasa) are recollected with right view, only aggregates are recollected.

Sure it passes and arises but the same pattern of issues continue to
  pass and arise and definitely feel like they are happening to me for
  many many years causing a lot of havoc and unhappiness in my life. How
  do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility
  for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff
  by saying "it's not self"

You are obviously not viewing anything as "not-self", otherwise your mind would be free & enlightened. If the past was genuinely viewed as 'not-self', all that would be experienced are residual energies of defilement, such as anger, sadness, etc, rather than thoughts of "me" & "I". All that would be experienced are images of 'minds & bodies' rather than 'selves'.

Um ok. So I'm not enlightened like 99.999999% of humans. If I meditate daily and follow the dhamma etc and still I have no realisations or enlightenment just what is the point of any of it.  What's the point of reading about the Buddhas teachings if you will never know whether it will ever make any difference? Whether or not you'll ever be enlightened?  I don't get it.

The Buddha did not openly teach anatta. It is something modern Buddhists do. As for the issues you have expressed in your question, anatta is not necessarily required to reconcile them because they generally are "ethical" or "moral" issues. Regards

The concept of self to which the Buddha objected is foreign to the modern scientific concept of self. Back then, the notion of self was that of an uncaused and undivided entity. Modern psychologists view the self as a complex and well-organized system of beliefs, values, motives, skills, abilities, and unconscious processes. The experience of self is now understood in terms of a self-concept, a social self, self-esteem, coherent thinking, and the like. To say that “I am an alcoholic” is to merely acknowledge I am a member of the group of alcoholics. To view oneself as a causal agent of mental and bodily actions is not viewing one as a self. Mahayana Buddhists are quite clear that we should not be confused by a language that refers to an “I,” “me,” “you,” or “person.”
To view oneself as an agent of one’s action, is to engage the concept of object causality, much in the way we would say that a baseball broke a window. To view one’s actions as caused by a mental process of forming a plan of action that in turn causes the performance of an action (in which case the notion of agent disappears like a rainbow as we approach it) is to engage the concept of process causality, as when we say the transfer of energy from the baseball to the glass caused the glass to shatter. As for the “very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood”—they are very real indeed.
In Theravadin Buddhism, the concept of responsibility is understood in terms of sankhara (schemata in the terminology of Immanuel Kant). It is by means of sankhara that we make sense of experience. There are three types of sankhara: (1) Innate sankhara that provide us with “core knowledge” (Elizabeth Spelke). (2) Sankhara that we learn through intellectual, emotional, and social development. And (3) sankhara desperately formed in response to harmful circumstances such as physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse during childhood. The second and third types of sankhara are formed by intelligent and mostly unconscious mental processes. Needless to say, we cannot be held responsible for learning sankhara that are formed under circumstances that are beyond our control. It is our sankhara that cause us to perceive, feel, and understand what we experience. Those of us who have experienced an abusive childhood generally suffer from emotional pain, low self-esteem, depression, unable to form loving relationships, rage, and/or debilitating mental disorders. Those who suffer in this way cannot be held responsible for their experiences. At best, they can be asked to avoid obvious ways of harming other people. The harsh reality is that such people have little chance of finding true happiness, although psychotherapy, medication, and mindfulness meditation can be of limited help. Those of us who have been lucky enough to have had loving parents and supporting circumstances have much more knowledge and the freedom of choice that such knowledge brings. We live in a harsh world. This is the truth of suffering.

I like your last paragraph, about sankhara that we are not responsible for. In a sense we can never be responsible for anything that is in the past, but we are totally responsible for what we do now. If a landslide buried my car, I am not responsible, even if I saw it coming and stopped the car and ran away. But I am responsible to get it unburied, even if all I have to dig with is a spoon. Whatever action I can now take to improve my situation and that of others, is mine to choose now and do, even if the action seems pitiful or unlikely to succeed.

Well you have arrived at the point where the self manifests as not-a-self and obscures reality. And what is reality? duhkha, the first arrow, knows. Remember, you are only responsible for what you want.

You lack determination otherwise quitting alcohol would have been easy. You should try rehabilitation center.
Sabbe Dhamma Anatta says body is not me ,mine or myself. If that is the case then why should you care for the body? You should stop eating. But that is not practical. You should treat body like a wound and should take care of the body like you take care of a wound. Food is the medicine. Just enough is ok. Monks collect food by begging and do not eat at night. They are the true Buddhist. Just saying that there is no self is not going to solve your problems. As long as you are living a layman’s life , you must focus on the practical matters relating to your life.
At least have reverence for Buddha and follow the basic precepts like never lying , never taking intoxicants, never cheating , never killing animals etc…
Finally , be kind and happy. At least you have legs , hands , mobile , house , shoes.. etc ,there are people who are handicapped, live in extreme poverty and extreme ignorance. At least you are in a better position than them . For this reason alone you should be happy. Commit to never harm anybody and feel joyful for the commitment. Commit to non-alcoholism and feel joyful for the commitment.

"No self, anattā", ultimate reality in chapter 1st - 1/2 of 8th of abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, not deny "myself/yourselves word", reality in communication, vijjamāna sadda paññatti. Because buddha and ariya still use ahaṃ/mamṃ/me word, after their enlightenment. So, "No self, anattā" deny just ultimate unreality, avijjamāna attha paññatti (attā arising of wrong view) and avijjamāna sadda paññatti (attā word of wrong view).
Definitely perfect description, this is the reason that why commentary said that abhidhamma is vipassanā focusing point, object. Because abhidhamma describing the whole reality and unreality whiteout any lacking to doubt, if the reader recited tipitaka much enough. But suttanta focusing on each personal knowledge of person who listening that sutta in front of buddha/ariyasāvaka, in the past.

No idea what you're talking about, very unclear

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


text:
What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views?
Maybe a challenging questions for the scholars and literary Abhidhamma-fans, with much possibilities for great merits:

What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views?

Deatal explaining of each would be a great gift of the deathlessness.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Extracted from Ten Bases of Meritorious Actions (Ten Punnakiriya-vatthus):

There is a good result in an act of alms-giving, charity giving.
There is benefit in veneration.
There is benefit in offering gifts.
There is the Law of Karma and Its Results which teaches that moral and immoral deeds have respective consequences, in this life and the next.
There is benefit in tending and supporting one’s own mother, while neglecting her means an evil deed.
There is benefit in tending and supporting one’s own father, while neglecting him means an evil deed.
There are unseen worlds of hell, hungry ghosts, demons, devas, Sakkas and brahmas. Existence of such beings should be accepted as a fact.
There is this present world.
There is the next world or lives to come.
There are holy persons who have subdued their thought, word and deed. There are persons with jhanic insight or concentration who see this world and the next clearly. They teach such sights, views and visions in a correct way. We should have confidence in such samanas and brahmanas.

This is puthujjana samma ditthi from MN 117: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

@Dhammadhatu What is that supposed to mean? It's right view for anyone, isn't it? This isn't what the OP was referring to?  I wonder if someone is reacting to #7 because I didn't' make this up and what was I supposed to do, leave it out?  This is either the right answer or it's not, I don't understand how I could be both voted up and voted down by a sane system.  The truth MATTERS but this system has leaves THE TRUTH to a schizophrenic democratic process. If this is the wrong answer then I will delete it, it's that simple.

That, the answer, is a good and proper approach, deriving from right view, Sadhu!

There are two levels of Samma Ditthi (right view). One is the puthujjana (ordinary life) samma ditthi and the other is the lokuttara samma ditthi (with direct aim to realize Nibbana i.e. understanding the Four Noble Truths). First we have to begin with practising the puthujjana samma ditthi to shed the more coarse defilements of the mind, and then we can more easily make progress with the lokuttara samma ditthi (understanding of the Four Noble Truths).
May you realize Nibbana!
Sadhu!


text:
How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does?
Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting question, or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:
How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does?
There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha".

`(Mv.I.6.7) [11] Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”
(Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses:
“All-vanquishing,
  all-knowing am I,
  with regard to all things,
  unadhering.
All-abandoning,
  released in the ending of craving:
  having fully known on my own,
  to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]
I have no teacher,
  and one like me can’t be found.
  In the world with its devas,
  I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
  I, the unexcelled teacher.
  I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
  Cooled am I,
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
  I go to the city of the Kasis.
  In a world become blind,
  I beat the drum of the Deathless.”
(Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.”
“Conquerors are those like me
  who have reached fermentations’ end.
  I’ve conquered evil qualities,
  and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”
When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` (The Discussion of the Group of Five)

As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant".
Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good...
Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like:

Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)?

So what is that all about with this paradox?
How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?
Just a "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did?
[[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

The "I" the Buddha is attributing all these virtues to is not the ego/illusion of self (atman) but the non-self (anatman), the no-soul or no-self doctrine. American-born Zen masters sometimes call this "Big Mind".
It is this non-self that speaks to the atman (in the form of Mara) in the Buddha enlightenment story:

Mara appeared in front of Buddha and said ” you, who go where no one
  else will dare, will you be my guardian” and Buddha said “architect,
  finally, I have met you. You will not build your house again”. Mara
  said, “but I am your house, and you live in me.” Buddha said, ” oh
  lord of my ego, you are pure illusion, You do not exist.”

How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does?

The difference is that the teacher is a fully enlightened Buddha - the only one of his kind in this Aeon.
A fully enlightened Buddha has uprooted all defilements. There are absolutely no traces left of any defilements. Its impossible for a Buddha to create Kamma.
What might seem like praise or blame from the perspective of a non-Buddha is vastly and completely different from the perspective of a Buddha.

There are two things going on here:

A Buddha is a completely enlightened being who has perfected all the virtues
For us non-Buddhas, there are many virtues that can be cultivated by rejecting praise for oneself

It can stop or combat the improper arising of arrogance
It can be a practice in the perfection of truthfulness and honesty
It can stop the arising of lust for worldly reputation
It can stop the arising of the self-cherishing attitude

It can easily be seen that Buddha's are by definition completely perfected and have accomplished the perfection of all virtues. Therefore #2 is unnecessary and irrelevant for them.
To be really clear, the problem with accepting praise can be that it is not warranted OR that it causes improper or non-virtuous thoughts to arise. Or both. For someone who is on the path and has yet to perfect themselves, praise - even if it is truthful - can be problematic as it can act as a cause for the arising of arrogance and all the non-virtues mentioned above. That is why you see highly, highly, highly accomplished masters who reject praise for themselves. When you see HHDL and Lama Zopa Rinpoche rejecting praise ... well, how on the earth can such a lowly being as I accept it.
For lowly beings like myself, praise can be a really hard thing to skillfully handle. It causes definite arrogance to arise for me so I really don't want it. For a Buddha, there is no such problem.

Remember that popular "Knights and Knaves" puzzle? The Knights can only say the truth. Otherwise he'd be a Knave. Similarly, the Buddha only said the truth and He'd be a Knave otherwise. For us worldlings who are trying to walk the path, we can't praise ourselves 'cuz we'd put ourselves on the Knaves camp if we do. Simply answer honestly those questions in Mv.I.68: are you all-knowing? ended all cravings? have no counterpart? rightly self-awakened? beat the drum of the Deathless? conquered all evil qualities?


text:
Why can't we call Nirvana as our true self?
It is true that there is no permanent identity of self and there is no identity of self which doesn't result in suffering.
Nirvana is permanent , full of blessings, and is unchangeable.
We humans can reach to the state of Nirvana by following the Buddha and his Dhamma.
So my question is : Why can not we call Nirvana the true self of ours?
(As an example I can say that I am not form,feelings,perceptions,volition,consciousness but I am the permanent , pleasant and unchangeable state of Nirvana)

Is there a reason why upvoted? That's a general good question by Dheeraj Verma.

I'm not sure Nirvana is "pleasant" or "full of blessings". That sounds like Sat-Chit-Ananda. In Vedic tradition that said to be the nature of Brahman or Ishvara.
Some Mahayana traditions actually do what you say and call it our true nature or true self.
It doesn't matter what you call things as long as you know what is what. Labels are useful for their explanatory power, but once you have direct vision, you see that labels are only fingers pointing the direction. Dharma is a map or rather a guidebook. The jungle is not the book.

Dheeraj Verma,
It is described as nicca, unchangeable "stage" if reached, but since all Dhammas are anatta, it would be not unconditioned proper to regard it as such (atta), and the Buddha would have (like popular movements, Dhammakaya in Thailand for example and many individual teacher, doing laypeople a favor with such notion) easy more followers, since beings delight in "being".
Of cause one can call it "true"- Self, if one seeks sense or Self in it. But it would not hold. If understanding "real self" as senseless, meaningless, as like somehow "aṭṭa", than it will probably hold.
Consider the three meanings of aṭṭa carefully, high confussing or giving realese. Since one might see the base of atta and anatta, as a "game" of perceptions, stands.
Certain Brahmic-Attman- and certain Mohayanic-appoaches, are dangerous, had lead to bad thing in history, on it's account.
The Dhamma of the Buddha is not taught for certain Self-seeking, true self-purposes, but to get free from suffering. He rebuked a "rebelling" monk who said, "if you don't tell me if there is a Self or not, I will return to lower life", with asking himn "Did I ever told you that I will regard this matter, will ever teach such, as you ordained?"
(Careful read and proper attention was required to understand, for the case not, not grasp the message, after the finder, not looking at the moon)

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Pls. explain - "Did I ever told you that I will regard this matter, will ever teach such, as you ordained?"

Best to take the whole, which includes the instance, Dheeraj Verma: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta, it gives a good practical understanding and include many aspects here in hundreds of questions already answered compact. Much joy.

That might be possible a way for satisfaction of unclearancy, @DheerajVerma

You got it somehow. True self or true nature of the mind is luminous, reflecting everything as it is. It is the buddha itself. Everyone has this true self and everyone can follow the Buddha's path to realize the true self.


text:
Should person with schizophrenia have children?
I wanted to ask you whether it is ethical for a person with schizophrenia to have biological children. Do any Buddhist traditions teach anything in that regard?
When one parent has this illness, the chance that kid would have it too is about 17%, as compared to 1% in general population.
The doctor says that it shouldn't prevent one from having children, as similar situation is for many diabetics, where there is also hereditary factor, and they decide to become parents. And some other illnesses have even greater factor than 17% and those people decide to have children, who are in many cases healthy.
Some may suggest that it's better in this situation not to have biological children, but to adopt. However, mental illnesses are one of the main reasons why adoption is impossible.
According to some statistics (I don't know how accurate) one person with schizophrenia in ten commits suicide; three or four in ten have at least one suicidal attempt. Nonetheless, the illness can be treated so that there is full remission, i.e. no symptoms whatsoever as long as one takes medicines. And we may expect even better understanding and treatments in the future.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

that's a loaded question with many factors to take into account.  Priority in life for those with serious illness should be given to self to make sure they live a happy healthy life.  If life is already difficult more than the norm, then having children will cause even more difficulties (if self is ill and having to take care of possible ill children).  Since this a Buddhist Q and A website, I'm going to try to link that.
remember this

"whatever brings you joy, it will cause suffering"

It comes to personal choice, if he/she decides it is a fair trade off.
As for my personal thought. No, dont risk adding more troubles to an already troubled life.

Is it ethical for a schizophrenic to have children?

I am not a Buddhist, but I am a medical professional. Buddhism teaches  "right view/understanding" (see things as they truly are without delusions or distortions). I would advise that you learn more about your schizophrenia. There are types that are more likely to be progressive than others, and while medications may control the symptoms, they cannot prevent progression. Know your illness without distortion before making the decision to bring into the world a perfectly normal child that you might not be able to care for or one who has the disorder. Either way, there will be joy and suffering.
"Right thinking" involves a dedication to overcoming self-centered craving through the development of loving kindness, empathy and compassion. Is it self-centered craving to want a child? I don't know; I think it was for me. Once they are grown, though, life is given more meaning through the above. No children necessary.
The decision to have children is always difficult for people who are self-aware. Which is worse to you, to suffer physically or to suffer mentally? To my thinking, I would choose physical suffering over mental suffering. Giving birth to a child who may develop a physical illness is different than one who might suffer mental illness. That should be considered.
If the risk is unacceptable, your wife can become pregnant via sperm donation, which would reduce the risk of schizophrenia, but carries other risks. It is unlikely, however, that a reputable sperm bank would accept sperm from someone with a serious mental illness.

People who develop schizophrenia in there life should not have society discriminate against them, and should not have to feel that if they may give birth to a daughter or a son that will have a similar condition they should not have to feel society would view them as making a bad personal choice.
Schizophrenia as well as other illnesses should be treated similarly. When schizophrenia can become a burden to "society" is when the recipient is not treated accordingly, if they are they can be come a valued member of that society and equally contribute to it as any other person less disabled than they are.
Society should recognise this part of the community to be as equally capable of and as productive as any other member within in it. I don't think they should be eugenically separated from it.

Do any Buddhist traditions teach anything in that regard?
I don't know, but I doubt it.
A lot of Buddhist law is monastic, with something of a line drawn between the sangha and lay society. There are ethical rules or guidelines for laypeople but (IMO) they tend to be brief or broad (e.g. the five precepts), rather than detailed.
I think there's no Buddhist law that regulates marriage, for example.
There may be cultural rules (but I'd suspect they're cultural or national rather than "Buddhist" and timeless).
If you want to pursue this question, the one thing I can suggest is this:

Look at this answer, which includes Buddhist advice on how to choose a marriage partner -- it summarises one chapter of this book, which is an anthology of advice for laypeople (taken from Pali suttas)
I think the next chapter of that book contains advice for parents ... but I haven't read it, and I no longer have the book. I recommend you get the book and read it, and see whether that chapter (of advice for parents) sounds like something you're able and willing to take on!
Say if you want me to summarise it, like I did the other chapter (if so I'll try to buy or borrow the book again).

The doctor says that it shouldn't prevent one from having children ... in many cases healthy
If one responds well to doctors' treatment then I think they say that one can have a normal life, without disability.
And, yes, schizophrenia is not the only malady that can affect children and other people.
Given that children are vulnerable to one thing or another, perhaps this question isn't different from (or is just a special case of) a more general question, which is whether a Buddhist "should" have children at all -- so you might find that answers to some of these questions may help to answer yours:

Should a Buddhist have Children?
Benefits of Producing and Caring for Children
Pursuit of raising children ok?
How to combine Buddhism with being a parent?
Is there any mention of child adoption in any Buddhist writings and what is the view on child adoption with regard to Buddhism?
Does buddhism allow for families?

Your questions seem to concentrate on whether the child will be healthy (or inherit an illness).
I think my first (and perhaps only) concern was whether the parent[s] will be healthy, but it's more your decision to make than mine.
mental illnesses are one of the main reasons why adoption is impossible
As an example of different possibility, my wife (and my mum too, for that matter) became teachers ... preschool teachers, actually, after a year or two or more of training.
If you take a job or a career like that, you could have 20 children a year (shared with colleagues). :-) And be good at it, and maybe sleep at night as well.
Of course you must be healthy (symptom-free) to do that, but it has advantages: no adoption red tape, less stress than children of your own, social ... and more short-term, e.g. if you're healthy this year then do it, without having to worry about whether things will still be good 10 years from now.
According to some statistics
I don't completely agree with your posting these statistics here.
Schizophrenia is a bit complicated, for example hard to diagnose properly, and varies a lot from person to person. So if you're asking a personal question (about someone in real life) then maybe you could get better (more specific, personalised) estimates than the non-specific statistics you posted.
For example you were trying to estimate a risk of suicide. I'm pretty sure that depends on whether there's comorbid depression and comorbid substance abuse and so on (see e.g. Psychiatric Comorbidities and Schizophrenia).
Things may also vary depending on how good and how available a person's doctors are, their family, friends, and society, and so on, as well as on their mental health.
As anongoodnurse wrote, I'd recommend you learn more. The "best case scenario" could be better than you expect (and the worst case scenario less good).
Nonetheless, the illness can be treated so that there is full remission, i.e. no symptoms whatsoever as long as one takes medicines.
I agree there's good reason to be optimistic if that's what your doctor is saying, but maybe don't be too complacent either.
In particular you said, "no symptoms whatsoever as long as one takes medicines":
I agree there may be no symptom of mental illness, and that one may have a good reason to take medicine even if there are side-effects.
Nevertheless beware there may be important physical symptoms (side-effects) of the medicine, so do be careful (to consult the doctors because there is a variety of medicines) rather than heedless.
You might want a plan as well (possibly a family/medical/legal plan), for if ever there are symptoms of mental illness (sometimes a prescription ought to be varied, or sometimes one is "non-compliant" and stops taking medicine, and mental illness may affect the ability to make informed decisions).
Sorry this based more on personal experience than on references, so it may be too personal and not very useful to you. Maybe you'll at least find useful the references to other topics (about choosing a marriage partner and about Buddhists having children).


text:
Lack of Pleasure and Joy
I noticed aside from gross sensory pleasures such as eating, or sometimes writing, I don't feel much pleasure or joy. It is as though the emotional spectrum of joy and pride, and other such positive emotions, is limited in myself.
This considered, is there any likelihood of success to any meditations or practices given I am doing things without happiness and joy?
I feel like I'm trying to move forwards while something is inherently lacking.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Also, what are the wholesome pleasures and joys usually implied in the Buddhist path?
EDIT: I would like to say that it feels as though such positive emotions are unFELT, but not unSOUGHT. Basically, I am drawn to positive situations and joys, e.g. listening to music, but the FEELING seems absent. Anyone have any idea what is going on?

my 5c: I'd say that you may be suffering from a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhedonia - it's a medical/psychiatric condition that can have multitude of underlying reasons, many of them strictly somatic (e.g. serious hormonal imbalances due to gland disfunctions/tumours) - I'd be more focused on getting you to properly feel positive emotions again, than to focus on Buddhist path ATM. I'm not saying it's always the best choice, but sometimes it's best to heal the body before healing the spirit.

Sounds like you are looking for positive emotions from entertainment (e.g. music). That is one way to get positive emotions... not necessarily invalid but rather superficial and not lasting.
Another way to get joy is through setting challenging goals and achieving them. When you can overcome your weakness / limits, you will feel rewarded, and worthy of self-respect.
In Buddhism the challenging goal we set is Right Bodily Behavior, Right Verbal Behavior and Right Mental Behavior. When we overcome our bad habits and achieve certain level of perfection, we can truly congratulate ourselves and that gives the special type of joy. (And then the joy of Completion, which is the highest.)
But even on mundane level, you can set challenging goals, like sport, raise yourself to challenge despite pain and weakness - and then congratulate yourself. Try it, it really does work ;)

The proper themes of meditation for beginning and to provide joy: What should one meditate upon as a beginner?
To have joy in something, it requires devotional practice: Respect, Confidence and Patient
And yes, without joy no headaway, going forth.
One needs a "star" or to see good attributs of real stars in one self.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in the world]

You are stiffled. You think that you are not allowed to enjoy life, enjoy women and pleasure in life because of clinging and craving and dukka and death and the danger in sensual pleasures.
But you are not a monk. You don't meditate as much as a monk would do, who would enter jhana and be content with robe, bowl, medicine.
You don't have to stop following the red thread, enthuziasm, that will make your life worth living and enjoyable.
Do the things that make you enthuziast. If you don't know them find them. Let yourself express the life in you. Take dance classes. I do and it helps.
Get involved in social circles. Expand them and meet new people constantly. It is the joy of life.
You can have a break with meditation until you will be enthuziastic at the thought of sitting. I do so and it helps my meditation.
Don't rush things, be patient. Be outcome independent, don't do things having expectations, do them because you enjoy being yourself doing them. Results are bound to come.


text:
Biology, Brain tumours and mental disorders, behaviour and Budhism
The biologic construction of our brains leads to diferent behaviour and personalities. Like different antennas or generators, we can process signals diferent ways or receive them diferent ways.
Our brain is very bad understood, and it is more evident that behavioral patterns  can relate to the presence of brain tumours, or chemical unbalances.
If our construction affects our behaviour, and that we were born with those, how can those people follow  the Noble Eightfold Path, if their biology is made to go out of those principles.
Examples, a pornstar can love sex because the hormonal level is naturally calling that need. However in other living aspects can be  very compassionate.
Or a good man who worked all his life get a tumour that transform him in a violent person and eventually kill someone.
How can budhism "criticize" these behaviours if they are natural ocurances?

Buddhist practice doesn't start from the premise that the world is a just and fair place; rather, it aims to reveal that all conditioned existence is marked by suffering.  Suffering is the real problem and assigning blame doesn't help to alleviate it.  It's also not particularly helpful to consider what-if scenarios like "would I still be to blame if I had a tumor and couldn't control my actions?"  I have enough real problems without imagining new ones
See, reality doesn't happen to someone else and it doesn't happen somewhere else or at some other time.  Reality happens right here, right now.  This is not a hypothetical practice, this is a real practice and it deals with a real problem, the suffering that marks every passing moment, the clinging that creates it and the out-of-control mind that is churning away with these thoughts.  Not, "who's to blame for that?", but "who's to blame for this?"  Maybe drop the blame and just look for the cause.  Maybe drop the cause, too.  Just look.
Ultimately, Buddhist practice urges us to investigate this matter thoroughly, to find the root of suffering.  And then, remove it.  Perhaps this whole sordid affair is predicated on a misunderstanding, a subtle delusion that got out of control.  The Buddha suggests that there is such a cause to suffering and that it is possible to remove it.  The path of practice is prescribed as a way to purify this mind and reveal, with full clarity, the reality of this situation.

Buddhism explains what brings suffering/unhappiness & what brings happiness/non-suffering (rather than 'criticizes").
I watched a documentary recently that said the average career time of a porn actress is 3 months; that each year, many girls & ladies attempt a career in porn but only a tiny minority continue. Many porn stars have drug addiction or commit suicide. In Buddhism, pornography is considered harmful behaviour because it leads to suffering & an inability to find contentment.
While some girls may be genetically (naturally) predisposed to be prostitutes or porn actresses, Buddhism does not say this disposition brings lasting happiness or freedom from suffering.
For example, in former times, when society was morally conformist & there were only a literal few women engaged in porn, the famous women without inhibitions, such as Marilyn Monroe, were officially diagnosed with mental illness.
I most think pornstars love money rather than love sex although the classic stereotype of a porn star is a lonely child-abused girl looking for love & self-affirmation. It is obviously the on-screen "illusion" that "pornstars love sex" that makes watching pornography appealing & a money-making industry.
In the documentary I watched, a girl said she tried porn because she could earn US$100,000 per year rather than $8.50 per hour working in Burger King. But she quit after spending so much money on costs and because she fell in love with a low-level industry guy and wanted to get married.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

People can do bad to others and Not Suffer because that.  So what will happen to those?  Hell?

There are also people who like pain,  sado maso.  if  pain  remove their. Sufering,  are  they in. Correct. Path?


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

I lack the Buddhist training to give a Buddhist answer, but for me, it was helpful to observe that, if there is no self, then that means all those around us who perceive themselves as drivers are, in fact, driver-less.  And yet billions of us have managed to function not only without a driver, but with the (presumably) false belief that there is actually a driver.  You never had a driver, never truly needed one, so what truly changed?  Do you even need to know what changed?  Does knowing it help?

Let’s get this straight. This is the problem when your mind is active and you’re reading all this stuff and thinking about it. The mind can only be confused. Because “moving above your intellect” is enlightenment, nirvana and all that jazz. Right now you seem stuck with your intellect, which can only dissect stuff and make you operational in this world which is a level lower.
You have to play a role in this society with some element of identity. Otherwise I can’t be talking to you right now. If you keep telling yourself “there is no self, there is no self”, that is a wrong view, because you have a viewpoint. There is a bias in your mind telling you that what you read somewhere is correct.
You cannot “think up” no-self. It is a direct experience. Not a thought. You’ll only end up dissociating and creating personality disorders for yourself. Just going crazy. Your mind will split itself up into a guy who is the ego and a no-self perspective. You see this mechanism of the mind? It is not true in your experience. I cannot stress this point enough. Right now your mind is sitting there going, “oh I am not-self, then what else is there...”
Let’s clarify this chicken and egg story. You are thinking right now because you’re alive, not the other way round. If I take your breath away all your mental nonsense will cease. What do you then know about this life actually? Nobody knows anything. They just “think things up”. If you try to think it up, then all kinds of contortions and twists will start to brew inside your head. And it will only lead to mental disorders.
When the Buddha (and so many other Buddhas) talk about no-self, they come from a direct experience of unity with everything. That is the source of “no self”. Their perspective is abolished. There is only truth for them. Unlike our experience where we are this body and mind and everything else is separate. And we have opinions about everything from our perspective.
So how to live life, you ask? Respond to everything, you are very much there, there is no “no-self” or “all self” or whatever your mind is brewing. If you really experienced no-self you wouldn’t be here asking this question :)

Ignorance &, alternately, wisdom drive life. For example, when the hand is accidentally placed into burning fire, wisdom quickly withdraws the hand from the fire rather than any "self". When anatta is realised, wisdom drives life, as it has always done when life has been driven in the right direction.
Its like when women have children. The instinctual wisdom in the women know how to look after the children. 'Self' is not required here to draw the child to the breast for feeding.
In summary, whatever moral or social wisdom is developed prior to realising anatta remains. Also, after anatta is realised, more social wisdom can be developed however it is the mind rather than self that develops this wisdom of how to live skilfully in the world.

The concept of anatta is hard to get. But the concept of anatta is not same as  experiencing anatta.
Seeing anatta is to see everything as being made up of constituent parts and lacking any inherent essence. Like seeing forest as nothing but a collection of trees, a chariot as nothing but assembly of related parts put together. And seeing what one thought of as self as made up of various aggregates.
If you have such an experience, nothing needs to be done by you. Just the very nature of experience will transform you, redefining the way you view yourself and the way you experience reality. The self/world division disappears as everything is seen as made up of processes/aggregates that are inherently impermanent and without any essence. You cannot do anything anyways as the experience itself will change everything.
Ok, what to do if you don't have the direct experience of anatta but know what it means ? Again nothing. The self arises not because you believe in a self, but because the conditions for its arising are present. So the self doesn't go away because you intellectually realise that there is no self, (that would be too easy :) ) it will continue to arise till you have a life changing experience, like experiencing No self, because only that changes the very conditions of its arising.
So your worry about changing the way you think is unnecessary. The very meaning of anatta is that you are not in control, just that you have thoughts that you are in control because of belief in self-view. To change the content of your thoughts is not going to make you drop your self-view. You can change it from one form to another, but that will only complicate things.
So only thing to do is practice seeing things the way they are, i.e., practice mindfulness and in time things will change of its own accord.

Dheeraj Verma,
Esh gave some useful points of the situation.
The only drive of a mother (normal being) that leads to her holding on to her child is (self) identification, and such is not bad per se, but a good even required to gain release.
If one acknowledges that there is no Self, no driver, yet is still driven by the drives of wrong view, he could be good, following Mara, be on the highway to hell.
Believing that there is no Self, no drive, is strong wrong view, and naturally followed by extreme dukkha, such as "depression".
"There is no Self" is no realisation of Dhamma at all, like "There is a self". The driver is conditioned, yet in a person not finally liberated, still present, become and decay, moment for moment.
If having realised the spotless eye of Dhamma, having entered the stream, meaning that gained release, first of all, joy and bliss are its indicators and second, such a person would not ask what to do:

Just as a clean piece of cloth, free from grime, would properly take dye, in the same way the dustless, stainless eye of Dhamma arose for the money-lender as he was sitting right there—
“Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.”
Then the money-lender, having seen the Dhamma, having attained the Dhamma, having known the Dhamma, having fathomed the Dhamma, having crossed over and beyond uncertainty, having no more perplexity, having gained fearlessness, independence of others with regard to the Teacher’s message, said to the Blessed One,
The Discussion of Going-forth

So in short, in regard of your personal problem in this question: seek for admirable friends and assosiate with them and avoid enemies in disguise like fire. Serve and make merits in this area which will bring about fruits exclusively, and have joy knowing following and doing the right.
Usually, if one of the seven noble disciples, if not indebted strongly, seeks for outwardly going forth as well. In cases of having changed lineage, one either leads a very modest lay-life, withdrawn from association with people of no integrity, or asks for going forth and walk there on.
Once again, such person has made the Dhamma to his island and would not ask (even worldlings) what to do with life. And again, such a person is safe from low states of existence, which includes also things like strong depression and other animal-like (virtueless and primitive), hellish (strong suffering), hungry ghost (not able to find even slight satisfaction, joy) states.
Be careful and attentive. No one can actually help you if not taking on the right for yourself, might it be available and given endless times.
If already a faith-follower, seeking the right bus, this guide will be a good friend: Into the Stream - A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

How to live life after acknowledging anatta?

If one is not yet enlightened, one should continue to practice until Nibbana is realized.

And how can I change the direction of the bus called life?

Practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, will change and steer the direction towards Nibbana.

This seems to be a very practical advice.

Let me remind you the wrong view of Makkhali Gosala:

The attainment of any given condition or character does not depend either on one's own acts, nor on the acts of another, nor on human effort. There is no such thing as power or energy or human strength or human vigour. All beings (sattā), all lives (pānā), all existent things (bhūtā), all living substances (jīvā), are bent this way and that by their fate, by the necessary conditions of the class to which they belong, by their individual nature; it is according to their position in one or other of the six classes (abhijāti) that they experience ease or pain.

So Makkhali basically held the view of rigid determinism leading to fatalism, and therefore to helpless surrender to the forces at play in Samsara.
To which Buddha said:

Makkhali is like a fishing net set at a river mouth, existing for the distress and destruction of many beings.

Why did Buddha bother to mention the river mouth? River mouth is a place that all fish and all river creatures go through on their way to the ocean. A fishing net at the river mouth is a strong weapon of mass destruction that the fish is helpless against.
Just like a fish, who gets very close to the freedom of the ocean, gets caught in a net like this, a student of Dharma who gets very close to liberation, through understanding of This-That Conditionality, The Second and Third Noble Truths, and the right application of Anatta for liberation from Birth, Death, and Dukkha - can get caught into a wrong view of fatalism. Fatalism is a powerful trap for the very reason that it sits very close to the right application of Anatta and the ultimate freedom of Unbinding.
Instead of succumbing to fatalism, we must realize that despite corelessness, emptiness, and determinism (the principle behind karma) -- actually not even despite but exactly due to them -- the will power still matters. Making the right choice still matters. Performing the right action still matters. Most importantly, we use our will, choice, and action - to control our minds, in such a way as to eliminate Dukkha arising due to mismatch between "is" and "should". In this light, application of Anatta for liberation is an ultimate act of free will! Makes sense?
Anatta is a choice that we make, not a burden.

Choices are given before me but I am not the choice maker(I am not the one who has free will.) Will power is impermanent, cause of suffering and changeable.

Sounds like you are firmly caught in the Makkhali trap my friend :) Even though you are not the choice maker, the choice is made by the mind, so I beg your mind to please keep making right decisions. And no, LOL, will power is not a cause of suffering! :))))

No self does not mean disappearances. Acknowledging Anatta means we are mindful of others more than self. If I'm driving a bus, I'm mindful of the safety of all my passengers, not just myself. I don't disappear and let the bus drive by itself because it is reckless to the passengers. Disappearing is not Anatta.

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning you , me everyone is without any permanent self. In fact any recognition of ego in me or anyone is due to illusion.Only ignorant persons recognize their own Self or anyone else's Self as True.  So now tell me who should I be mindful of when there is no self?

You should be mindful of the Buddha. Or the 3 jewels.

What are the 3 jewels?

To begin from the foundation.... a buddhist takes refuge in the 3 jewels. The 3 jewels are the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

My answer for you is as follows.
You say "No one can replace me as a driver." How can something which doesn't exist be replaced? What would be replaced? How can something non-existent be replaced?
You also mention you should "stop thinking about controlling life, stop thinking at all." If no thinker exists, what are you fearing to associate to?

Your language implies you recognize selves exist. In Buddhism, the absence of self is usually not seen as the non-existence of a self, but its relativity.
So, you might ask yourself: what's the difference between you, and this bus called life? What is the difference between you, and these people who could replace you?

If no one exists, who is living non-self? I would advise that another interesting contemplation you could engage in is to ask: what is the self? Who is the self? Before claiming the self doesn't exist, try to examine what a self is. Is it you? Is it the bus of life? Is it the thoughts?
At some point, maybe, I'll suspect the questioning of self and the questioning of non-self might seem similar. At this point, whether the idea of something or not-something arises, whatever it will be, it will arise as what it actually is.

I am afraid you have acquired a common misconception of the Buddhist concept of anatta. At the time, the Buddha was objecting to a concept of self based upon an experience of self while in a state of full samadhi. In this illusory state, the self seems to exist all by itself without being caused in any way. The Buddha taught a concept of self that is the same as the modern scientific and philosophical concept of self. From this modern point of view, a self-concept is the product of our efforts to make sense of our common-sense experience of ourselves. The concept of self to which the Buddha objected is now extremely rare. What you have acknowledged is the confusion that comes from talking about the causes of action in two different ways. In our common-sense understanding of the causality of action, we can refer to object-causality or to process-causality. An example of object-causality would consist of talking about a baseball breaking a window or talking about a person trying to solve a puzzle. In this case, a person is viewed as an agent of his or her actions. An example of process-causality would consist of talking about the process of energy being transferred from the baseball to the pane of glass, causing it to shatter or talking about a person formulating a plan of action that may solve a puzzle. Both explanations are talking about the same thing. Both are correct, although the process-approach allows for more scientific detail.
Concerning your question about changing the direction of the bus called life, I suggest you look into the process of learning explained by the Buddhist concept of sankhara and how mindfulness meditation helps you unlearned confusing sankhara. You can read my book on the subject if you like.

I do not think that following is true :"The Buddha taught a concept of self that is the same as the modern scientific and philosophical concept of self." If you try to asking the question "Who are you ?" in a philosophy sister site , you will get negative answers(the thread might even get closed for subject being too broad) :-) I know that because I tried asking the same question on a philosophy forum and it was closed and deleted. :-( So much for modern understanding of self.

I respect your view about the Buddhist concept of self because there are many views. I borrowed the concepts of object-causality and process-causality from Alvin Goldman in his book, A Theory of Human Action, published back in 1970 when it was a textbook for a course on the philosophy of mind that I took when I was an undergraduate.