Could someone illuminate me in "consciousness"? Is it simply the ability to rationalize, analyze and most important concentrate? With or without ego? Does consciousness dictate who we are?

All sorts of impulses and urges in human and other beings are invoked by nature in order to sustain life. In my way of thinking, it is a rational "I" who attempts to control reacting to these impulses and urges. If there is no "I", how am I supposed to see or think of my acting self? Is this "citta" or the "empirical self"? As I understand it "I" am not an unchanging thing but merely an accumulation of conditioning resulting in habits; a point of view to which modern science would likely not oppose. However, I have or am, then, still a mind (citta)? Is it this mind that has accumulated karma in this and past lives? And how is that, then, not, in a way, "me"?

In this answer Sat-Dharma is referred to. I can kind of get the meaning from the context but what exactly is Sat-Dharma? What is the 'Sat' part. Why not just refer to the Dharma? Does it have additional significance or slightly different meaning? Does it come from a particular tradition?

How does nibbāna relate to the 31 lokas and does rebirth into higher realms of existence precede enlightenment or result from it? Many thanks.

In the Cakkavatti Sihanaada Sutra it is mentioned about three types of raaga or unwholesome acts that people did at the lifespan of 500 years. It is named 1. Adharma Raaga 2. Visama Lobha 3. Michcha Dharma What does these 3 mean? The meaning is not specially mentioned in the pali canon.

I came along with this (http://www.aathaapi.net/dwncounter.php?number=29) detailed description of the Buddhas (during vag and mano pradani era of Gautama Bodhisattva) before the 28 Buddhas. 512000 in number to be exact. I have also heard about this fact in some texts as well. Is this stated in the pali canon? What are the sutras?

I have some questions regarding this Buddhadhasa text saying there is no rebirth in Buddhism. Is rebirth not what enlightenment is supposed to bring an end to? Is there no rebirth because rebirth is actually to be understood in a moment-to-moment manner unrelated to the end of life (rebirth as pertaining to the condition of willing no more)? Then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"? I thought I also heard him imply the rebirth of our consciousness in the context of suicide being a bad idea for this reason.

I have seen in certain books that there is gonna be a lot of buddha shunya kalpas after the bhadra kalpa. Also it has stated about names of 10 Buddhas after the Bhadra kalpa. Is there a sutra source for these facts? Where can i find them?

The six senses are arises from NamaRupa in PaticcaSamuppada. NamaRupa paccaya Salayathana. So basically all 6 senses are a combination of Mentality(Nama) and Form (Rupa - which is a combination of the four great elements). How is the mind (6th sense) created from the Form? As in from the 4 elements? Is it created from unseen molecular level 4 elements? Is it somewhat similar to Light? Where light was considered as an energy but later it was considered as both energy and particles as well?

Where can I find sutras describing about the 10 paramithas and the 3 types of paramithas in the pali cannon? I couldn't find a proper sutra on it.

I am not trying to offend anyone of to be disrespectful, but I cannot help to notice that the images of Buddha always represent him as an overweight man. In my culture an overweight person is associated with an healthy lifestyle. So I am curious to know why Buddha presented as an overweight man?

Plato's Parmenides contains the following eight deductions: > *(D1) If the G is, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.* > > *(D2) If the G is, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.* > > *(D3) If the G is, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.* > > *(D4) If the G is, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.* > > *(D5) If the G is not, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.* > > *(D6) If the G is not, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.* > > *(D7) If the G is not, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.* > > *(D8) If the G is not, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.* > > *(where ‘con-F’ refers to the property contrary to the property of being F):* Do the eight deductions within the dialogue offer a convoluted view of the two truths? Deductions 1, 4, 6, 8 have conclusions only stated in the negative. Deductions 2, 3, 5, 7 have conclusions only stated in the positive. If the classical concept of Form (that from which Essence is acquired) is kept, then: D1 through D4, which assume "the one is" demonstrate that "the one is not". D5 through D8, which assume "the one is not" demonstrate that "the one is". Is this not dissimilar to the duality that the Buddha stated, where "being" and "non-being" 'reinforce' each other - are dependently originated? Are the eight deductions a kind of logical (binary) glimpse of Samsara?

Cognition, how it happens on one's mind? Is there any comprehensible English explanation about it?

What is the meaning of *'awareness of the flow'*? Does that mean awareness of the continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things? The phrase is mentioned on several occasions by Stephen Levine in '_A Gradual Awakening_' (which is a book in which the author "writes about his experiences with and insights into vipassana meditation"); for instance at p. 39: > By gently letting go of everything—not through force, not by slaying it, but simply seeing all the content as passing show, as process and flow—we become the whole of our experience and open to our natural understanding. Another example p. 57: > We can observe [with our practice] what anger feels like, what joy feels like, what separation from the flow feels like, what fear or worry feels like. Last example p. 58: > [Hindrances] distract us from an even-minded awareness of the flow.

I've notice people on Instagram are getting tattoos of Mahakala and other Buddhist deities. Are there any cultural or religious guidelines to consider when getting a tattoo of a Dharmapala or any other Buddhist religious deity?

In my understanding suffering -- craving and aversion and all which it results in -- exists in living beings to help sustain procreation, evolution, and life. Can the ideal of all beings attaining liberation, enlightenment, and thereby ending existence, then, be equated with the aspiration of the end of all life?

I have recently attended my first Vipassana 10-day course. I observe the moral precepts fully, practice diligently and attempt to proceed wisely on the path. I came into contact with Vipassana because of my ex, who, both in showing me to the path and in harming me, has been my precious teacher. In harming me, in failing to observe the fourth precept and sila, in seeking passion as a distraction from his suffering and a confirmation of his ego, without apparently being aware of this and even if being aware, not changing his behavior, my ex has caused me concern with regard to my own attempts at leading a proper life. I know I am not in a position to help my ex, as he has harmed me (also, I tried and he reacted with hostility), so what I am left with is the striking fact that this amount of delusion is possible in someone who calls himself a serious Vipassana meditator, which worries me with regard to my own practice. If someone who has been practicing for over 10 years thinks they are aware and are everything but, what am I going to do? I have fled into passion as well, in a quest for distraction from suffering as well as from a need for guidance and affirmation of my own ego. The obvious answer is to truly feel and accept painful feelings without reacting by fleeing into passion. But these impulses are strong and the mind is clever. What can I do to prevent this behavior? Can there be a mistake in the meditation practice itself that causes such obscurations to persist? Additionally, I do hope to find a partner who observes truthfulness towards himself and others. How do I go about avoiding the blinding capacities of passion and idealistic desires in judging any such “romantic" situation accurately? I imagine working on one’s own mental and emotional hangups will diminish obscurations — how is one advised to go about this other than meditating? I know these are big and difficult questions. Any and all input is appreciated.

I'm a mathematics student and I want to become a buddhist because I've heard that they don't believe in any god. How can I get in to buddhism? What kind of books do you recomend to read for starters? Can I be a Buddhist without joining any community? Is there any kind of "secular" Buddhism? I would like to learn about their vision of life without making any rituals. Is that possible?

If Buddhism is a general theory of understanding the cycle of attachments, is it possible that any other 'wise' enough creature could achieve the same thing? In the Visuddhimagga English translation, a creature who can understand this theory is called 'a wise man'. In the Visuddhimagga Sinhalese version, a creature who can understand this theory is called as a creature with 'Trihethuka Pratisandi'. i.e. Tri (three) + hethuka (caused by factors) + Pratisandi (birth): 'A birth caused by three factors' (Pali: tihetukapa.tisandhi).

I heard that when Buddha was asked about God, he kept silent. Although perhaps in Buddhism nothing really exists, did Buddha ever deny the existence of God? Hasn't he really never spoken about God?