text:
Impermanence and suffering in Buddhism
I have an intuitive agreement with the idea that impermanence does mean that everything either is or ends in suffering.
But I am not sure it makes rational sense.
Can anyone explain the arguments for and against this characterization of dukkha?
E.g. perhaps something has innate value, is its own end, but only relative to some time and place, such that we are not separated from the value of it when it passes. Surely, one might cliam, that would mean it is not dukkha.

There is a convolution of meanings for dukkha which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness".
Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.
In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.

So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.

hello thiago, i found that this didn't answer my question, cos i wasn't talking thins being innately unsatisfactory, but either being or ending in that, as in when we no longer have the nice big sandwich :)

Im afraid i dont understand then. Can you elaborate on your question? Ill try to revise the answer once its clear to me

i have to find quotes? i thought it was standard reading of the pali canon to say that even what brings us pleasure will be painful "separation from the pleasant is dukkha"

I'm sorry, feel free to correct me if you notice I still don't understand. The example you gave in your question is dukkha in the "bigger sense" (first noble truth sense) described above by Bodhi. The sandwich example is dukkha also in that sense. It is not dukkha experience, however, in the ordinary sense of painful experience (which the word "dukkha" is also used) -- it passed, it was pleasant, but it it is not an "existential, permanent satisfaction", grossly speaking. I believe variant terms for different kinds of dukkha are used in some texts, but I'm not quite familiar with this.

The "even what brings us pleasure will be painful" refers to something else (though related): its known as the danger of sense pleasures, and our tendency to develop craving/clinging to such things, thus further developing ignorance, etc. In this way, the Buddha recommends "sense pleasures should be regarded as dukkha".

same in the higher realms tho, i thought? i'll find a quote :) ! or try...

collins:
suffering thru change... can be registered phenomenologically as ordinary suffering thru the distress at the cessation of pleasurable feeling
selfless person p1nine1

After you eat the sandwich you will be hungry again.
After years of enjoying a loved ones company they or you will die.
After paying your electric bill you will have to do it again next month.
After having good physical health for several years you will get heart disease or cancer.
After buying your new car it will eventually need a new transmission and you will have to buy anothet car.
After a major promotion at work you will eventually become to old to work and you will retire.
After enjoying a sunset, it will become dark outside.
It is all impermanent.

The Dukka (translated as 'suffering' in English) explained by Lord Buddha in Dukka Ariya Sacca is not the sorrow we feel due to hardships, etc. in day to day lives. Even non Buddhists are aware of such things, and you don't need a Buddha to explain it. The Dukka Ariya Sacca described in 4 Noble Truths, refers to a much deeper concept. This is elaborated in Saccavibhaṅgasutta (aptly named as it means to elaborate the truth).
As someone who studied Dhamma in my native language, I find it quite difficult to explain this in English. This is one of the most subtle and deep portions of Dhamma. So, you should do your own research and study in order to understand Dukka properly. Please excuse me for the long answer, but I don't think summarizing is possible without destroying the meaning.
Lets take the eye for an example;
Your eye receives a picture (bunch of photons). When this picture is received, and it is combined with the mind, to result cakkha vinnana which results vedana (sense), Saññā(signal), Saṅkāra, vitakka and papanca. (Refer: Madhupiṇḍikasutta for more details).
This process results us building a world around us. Which is not the reality. In this interpretation, when you see things, lets say your house, your family, your kids, etc. it results the view of 'nicca' or constant/permanent world around us. Lord Budhdha explains to us about the view of 'anicca' (non constant or impermanent view), which helps us see through this bubble we have built around us. Anicca in this context means; effects will cease to exist, when the causes for those effects are ceased (93. Dutiyadvayasutta). Personally, I view this as an explanation of a process rather than a 'thing'.  We deceive ourselves (moha) by interpreting this process as a constant world, and convince ourselves that there is a 'self' that perceives that world.
Take for an example, a man comes in front of you.

If you are a parent of that man - your see a son.
If you are married to that man - you see your husband.
If you are one of his kids - you see a father.
If he a friend of yours - you see a friend.
If you are holding a grudge against him - you see an enemy.

Did the man change from occasion to occasion or person to person? did the photons that traveled from his body to your eyes changed in these occasions? Everyone saw the same man, but each party interpreted that picture differently, based on the associations formed in their mind. Like this, we only feel our mind. The picture from outside is just a helping stimulus. The feeling, the reality we build in our mind is personal to us. Based on the abstraction we have built up in our own mind, we generate attachments; ether lobha (attraction), dosa (repulsion) or upekhā (neither attraction nor repulsion). This is the reason, while the parents, wife, kids may love the man in the above example, the person who holds a grudge views the same man as an enemy. Man's picture that has met their eyes were evaluated against different abstractions, and placed in different characters in each receiver's world. None have see the man, everyone had seen a reflection of their own mind. And we constantly try to find happiness in this made up world.
Let me prove that this conceptual world is personal to us. Lets say a homeless person who have not had a meal in days received a Pizza. How would it taste to him? Could be the best Pizza he ever had. A billionaire is given the same Pizza to eat. He would view it as 'crappy food' and even reject it. That same billionaire gets kidnapped and thrown in a room where he have to starve for days. Would he view the Pizza with the same contempt after being starved? Did the Pizza change? Why did the Homeless man and Billionaire view the same Pizza differently? Its because their conceptual worlds are different. Why did the same Pizza was viewed differently by the Billionaire before and after starvation? Its because the concepts in his conceptual world changed.
While we live in our conceptual world, in the reality the picture that stimulated the eye is no more. The picture of the man has met our eye, generated a stimulus and ceased to exist in that form. This is why Lord Buddha teaches us 'cakkhu aniccaṁ' - eye is impermanent. But in our conceptual world we see a Son, a Husband, a Father, a Friend or an enemy (a person) who continues to exist. None of those classifications came to us with the picture of the man that met our eye. All that is assigned by our own mind. Concepts associated to the external stimulus builds the conceptual world that each person lives in. The main reason behind building this conceptual world is to ascertain yourself that 'you' exist. The logic is simple; 'because I see the world, I exist'.
'Ditto dittamattam' - What you see is simply a picture. It ends then and there. 'vinñāṇaṁ vinñāṇaṁattam - What you learned or 'got to know' (as a result) ends there. The reality is that these are two processes. Since the causes of these cease to exist, their effects cease to exist too. Its us who combine these two and build up a whole world around us fooling ourselves to believing a 'nicca' (constant) conceptual world exists.
See, 22.85. Yamaka Sutta; where it discuss the question: 'Is there a re-birth for Arahant after death?'. A monk named Yamaka was in the view that Arahant is not re-born after death. To break this wrong view Maha Sariputta Thero asks Yamaka Thera the following questions:

Do you think the rupa became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think vedana became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think sanna became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think sankhara became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think vinnana became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.

Was there an Arahant without the above 5 elements? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think those 5 elements was the Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Then what Arahant won't be born after death?

While we view that an Arahant will not be re-born after death in the conceptual world, we must realize that the aforementioned process cannot be recognized as a person or animal (satva, puggala saññā) in reality. Just a cause and effect relationship of 5 skhandha which cease to exist when causes of those skhandha ceases (Referred as: skhandha udayabbaya).
Lord Buddha teaches: 'Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ' - everything that is 'anicca' results 'Dukka'. This does not mean the suffering we feel in our body or mind or loss in material world. The Dukka Ariya Sacca discussed in 4 noble truths must be perceived through wisdom. Its not a thing you can feel. It is not a thing in your mind. It refers to 4 characteristics of elements:

Pīḷana (Pīḷana atto): This refers to dissolution of cause. If we take the example of the eye; can the photons that bring the picture maintain the picture constantly? No it can't. Can the eye maintain the picture constantly (on its own)? No it can't either. The moment the photons provide the stimulation, the picture was created, and the next moment it ceases to exist. The next moment, a new set of photons provide a new stimulus and eye can generate a new picture which ceases to exist the next moment.
Saṅkhata (Saṅkhata atto): refers to the elements that are the results of a cause. The picture that resulted due to the stimulus from the photons.
Viparināma (Viparināma atto): since the causes cannot maintain a constant existence, and they continue to change, the effects have to undergo changes as well. This transforming characteristic is referred to as Viparināma. The photons provided the stimulus ceased to exist in that form, the resulting picture also ceased to exist.
Santāpa (Santāpa atto): Refers to the maturity of nama and rupa. It is explained that this is related to Tejo dathu which is related to the ability to mature or grow.

Dukka Ariya Sacca is referred to as Dukka due to the above 4 characteristics. Take note that those 4 characteristics exist in everything. Things we evaluate to Happiness, Sadness or upekhā (neither sad nor happy) all things have above 4 characteristics, making Dukka Ariya Sacca a universal truth.

this reads a bit like the claim that, because everything is impermanent, it is like a picture of things, and so any value (I don't mean pleasure we partake in with) it has  is likewise a mirage. is that right?

The Dhukka Arya Sathya explains characteristics of the perceived world. The ultimate question however is not about the outer world. What started as a bunch of photons stimulating a sense, ended up being a person, animal or a thing and we ended up  forming attachments of different sorts to them. These attachments result us with different sensations which binds us to Sansara. The biggest sensation we strive through all of this is to ascertain that 'I exist'. In the end its all a process which makes up the cycles of Sansara.

the 1st paragraph of this answer appears wrong.

the following statement is wrong. "Lord Buddha teaches: 'Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ' - everything that is 'anicca' results 'Dukkha'. This does not mean the suffering we feel in our body or mind or loss in material world. The Dukkha Ariya Sacca discussed in 4 noble truths must be perceived through wisdom."

the suffering felt in the body or mind or loss in material world is the subject of  the Dukkha Ariya Sacca discussed in 4 noble truths, that is, the 1st Sermon of The Buddha

Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ is the topic of the Three Characteristics, the 2nd Sermon of the Buddha.

@StopObama-BidenStopWar: I learned Dhamma in my mother tongue and it is inevitable I still think in my mother tongue. If you feel any of my answers are misleading you are free to, edit or even remove the answer. I understand that having an answer that creates confusion is against the purpose of this forum.

You should use the same Pali as others. You can learn easier than myself because your native language is closer to Pali than my native language. Thank you for your posts here but this is an English language forum and your Pali should be the standard form. The words I bolded i cannot discern. If i cannot discern your Singhalese then most other people cannot. Thank you

@StopObama-BidenStopWar Many thanks for editing the post an correcting the pali-english translation errors I have made. I have updated the ones you had marked in bold and added a few links to references. If you still feel the answer is confusing and beyond redemption, please go ahead and remove it. Confusing the reader was not my intention.

Not 'all' end in Dukkha, rather anything that follows Akusala-mula Paṭicca Samuppāda will end in Dukkha. But there is another version of Paṭicca Samuppāda which is the Kusala-mula Paṭicca Samuppāda which is the way to Nibbāna and does not end in Dukkha.
It is also said the way to Nibbāna is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle, and beautiful in the end. So for one who is treading the Kusala-mula version of Paṭicca Samuppāda no Dukkha will touch him/her.
The main point is that there are two types Paṭicca Samuppāda, one which is the painful endless cycle of becoming and the other of liberation. So it is not right to say "everything either is or ends in suffering"!

"If we translate anicca as impermanent, the connection among these Three Characteristics might seem debatable. But if we translate it as inconstant, and consider the Three Characteristics in light of the Buddha’s original question, the connection is clear. If you’re seeking a dependable basis for long-term happiness and ease, anything inconstant is obviously a stressful place to pin your hopes — like trying to relax in an unstable chair whose legs are liable to break at any time."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "All About Change" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/PurityOfHeart/Section0008.html

interesting, thanks

Impermanence is a profound concept. It says that feelings do not die or live forever. They are impermanent. They arise , change and vanish.
Let us say a good feeling arises...It will arise based on some condition. Let us say the a good food gives rise to good feeling of satisfaction...
Impermanence says that good feeling is not always achievable.
Sometimes the food is impure. Sometimes the stomach is not right. Sometimes there is no food.Sometimes there is no body to feed.
Bad feeling is inevitable,if there was a good feeling about something.
Why this is so ? Because all aggregates are impermanent... all sanskars are impermanent. Why are sanskars impermanent..? because sanskars are a result of conditioning.. and all conditioning are impermanent...

everything either is or ends in suffering

That which you say ends in suffering can be said on that account to be a creating of that which is there when it ends, for that reason also a suffering and not something that should be.

The word 'dukkha' is used in three different ways in the Pali suttas:
#1. 'Dukkha vedana', which refers to 'painful feelings' at sense contact. The fully enlightened continue to experience 'dukkha vedana', as explained in Iti 44
#2. 'Dukkha lakkhana', which is the 'unsatisfactory characteristic' or lack of pleasure in impermament things, which is the subject of the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59). The fully enlightened continue to experience or directly see 'dukkha lakkhana', as explained in Dhammapada 278, as follows:

“All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha #2)”—when one sees this with
wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha #3). This is the path to
purification.

#3. Saṅkhāra Dukkha, which means the mental suffering of self-becoming, attachment & craving, which is the subject of the Four Noble Truths. This type of 'dukkha' the fully enlightened have completely ended so it never arises again.


text:
Rebirth in the human realm
I need to find the Sutta in where it is stated how a human being will be reborn. There should be different states for example if you are born in a high society you were respectful towards parents, elders, teachers and so forth in the previous life/lives. If you were into torturing and harming people you will be reborn with a poor health, if you were killing people you will be reborn with a short life span. There are more states but i do not know them.
Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

This is where the Buddha explains the answer to your questions in detail :

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at
  Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park.
Then Subha the student (brahman), Todeyya's son, went to the Blessed
  One and exchanged greetings with him, and when the courteous and
  amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side. When he had done
  so, Subha the student said to the Blessed One:
"Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why
  inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among
  mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick
  and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and
  influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born
  people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the
  condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human
  beings, among mankind?"
"Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have
  kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their
  homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to
  inferiority and superiority."
"I do not understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance
  spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be
  good if Master Gotama taught me the Dhamma so that I might understand
  the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief
  without expounding the detailed meaning."
"Then listen, student, and heed well what I shall say."
"Even so, Master Gotama," Subha the student replied. The Blessed One
  said this:
"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings,
  murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to
  living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing
  in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in
  hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is
  reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to
  be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows
  and violence, merciless to living beings.
"But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living
  beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and
  lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells
  compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly
  world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his
  reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to
  the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the
  way that leads to long life, that is to say, to have abandoned the
  killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to
  lay aside the rod and lay aside the knife, to be considerate and
  merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living
  beings.
"Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his
  hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is
  the way that leads to sickness, that is to say, to be one who harms
  beings with one's hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.
"But here some woman or man is not one who harms beings with his
  hands, or with clods, or with sticks, or with knives. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is healthy wherever he is reborn. This is
  the way that leads to health, that is to say, not to be one who harms
  beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.
"Here, student, some woman or man is angry, much given to rage; even
  when little is said, he is furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, he
  shows ill-temper, hate and surliness. Due to having performed and
  completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the
  human state, he is ugly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that
  leads to ugliness, that is to say, to be furious, angry, ill-disposed,
  resentful, and to show ill-temper, hate and surliness.
"But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even
  when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful,
  nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This
  is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or
  given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry,
  ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.
"Here, student, some woman or man is envious; he envies, begrudges and
  harbors envy about others' gains, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  insignificant wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  insignificance, that is to say, to be envious, to envy, begrudge, and
  harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings.
"But here some woman or man is not envious, he does not envy, begrudge
  or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  influential wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  influence, that is to say, not to be envious, not to envy, begrudge or
  harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings.
"Here, student, some woman or man is not a giver of food, drink,
  cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting
  to monks or brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such
  kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  poor wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to poverty,
  that is to say, not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals,
  garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and
  brahmans.
"But here some woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals,
  perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. Due
  to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of
  the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If
  instead he comes to the human state, he is rich wherever he is reborn.
  This is the way that leads to riches, that is to say, to be a giver of
  food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof
  and lighting to monks and brahmans.
"Here, student, some woman or man is obdurate and haughty; he does not
  pay homage to whom he should pay homage, or rise up for whom he should
  rise up, or give a seat to whom he should give a seat, or make way for
  whom he should make way, or worship him who should be worshipped, or
  respect him who should be respected, or revere him who should be
  revered, or honor him who should be honored. Due to having performed
  and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes
  to the human state, he is low-born wherever he is reborn. This is the
  way that leads to low birth, that is to say, to be obdurate and
  haughty, not to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, nor rise up
  for..., nor give a seat to..., nor make way for..., nor worship...,
  nor respect..., nor revere..., nor honor him who should be honored.
"But here some woman or man is not obdurate or haughty; he pays homage
  to whom he should pay homage, rises up for whom he should rise up,
  gives a seat to whom he should give a seat, makes way for whom he
  should make way, worships him who should be worshipped, respects him
  who should be respected, reveres him who should be revered, honors him
  who should be honored. Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  high-born wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to high
  birth, that is to say, not to be obdurate or haughty, to pay homage to
  whom he should pay homage, to rise up for..., to give a seat to..., to
  make way for..., to worship... respect... revere... honor him who
  should be honored.
"Here, student, some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman,
  does not ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir? What is unwholesome?
  What is blamable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What
  should not be cultivated? What, by my doing it, will be long for my
  harm and suffering? Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my
  welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he
  will be stupid wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  stupidity, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, not to
  ask: 'What is wholesome?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for
  my welfare and happiness?'
"But here some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, asks:
  'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be
  long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and
  completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human
  state, he is wise wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  wisdom, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, to ask: 'What
  is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long
  for my welfare and happiness?'
"So, student, the way that leads to short life makes people
  short-lived, the way that leads to long life makes people long-lived;
  the way that leads to sickness makes people sick, the way that leads
  to health makes people healthy; the way that leads to ugliness makes
  people ugly, the way that leads to beauty makes people beautiful; the
  way that leads to insignificance makes people insignificant, the way
  that leads to influence makes people influential; the way that leads
  to poverty makes people poor, the way that leads to riches makes
  people rich; the way that leads to low birth makes people low-born,
  the way that leads to high birth makes people high-born; the way that
  leads to stupidity makes people stupid, the way that leads to wisdom
  makes people wise. "Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of
  kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin,
  kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings
  according to inferiority and superiority."
When this was said, Subha the student, Todeyya's son, said to the
  Blessed One: "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama!
  The Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by Master Gotama, as
  though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing the
  hidden, showing the way to one who is lost, holding up a lamp in the
  darkness for those with eyes to see forms.
"I go to Master Gotama for refuge, and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha
  of bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama accept me as a lay follower
  who has gone to him for refuge for life."
Cūḷakammavibhaṅga Suttaṃ (MN 135)

For a greater understanding on the workings of kammā in this respect, you
should read the Mahākammavibhaṅga Suttaṃ.

You might want to check out MN 135 and MN 136:

"Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings."

Thank you Santa for your answer. I appreciate that too:)

Important question indeed! But not a simple thing to explain.
Indeed, for the Buddha himself said that karma and reincarnation are one of the four things that can never be explained fully and to probe too deep into it will cause insanity!
There are a ton of stories throughout all the Nikayas.
I reccommend the book "Mind Experiment" by Bavo Lievens. You will see the glorious, intricate web of reincarnation across the planes of existence in vivid, holistic detail and see the things yourself by opening your Third Eye and most importantly the ladder to Buddhahood.
As for your question, I assume you are looking for some formulaic method to figure out someone's future or past based on their present deeds and situation.
Main principle: the present circumstance will help build up the OPPOSITE of whatever the person had too much of (e.g. if they forcibly repressed themselves from sex, they will go crazy with sex next life, if they be hatin'... they will be born in situations where the opposite of that can arise).
Why is this the principle? Because one's incarnation is an educational program.
Anyway, read the book. Here's the excerpt you wanted:

When my mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid
  of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, that is, one birth .
  . .  a hundred births . . .  a hundred thousand births, many eons of
  world-contraction, many eons of world-expansion, many eons of
  expansion and contraction: “There I was so named, of such clan, with
  such an appearance . . .  and passing away there, I was reborn
  elsewhere.” Thus with their aspects and particulars I recollected my
  manifold past lives . . . I directed my mind to knowledge of the
  passing away and rebirth of beings. With the divine eye, which is
  purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and being
  reborn, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and
  unfortunate, and I understood how beings fare on according to their
  actions (karma) thus: “These beings who behaved wrongly
  by body, speech, and mind, who held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell; but these beings who behaved well . . . who held right view . . . have been reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. Thus with the divine eye . . . I understood how beings fare on according to their actions (karma). Thus was the second true knowledge attained by me in the middle watch of the night. (MN 36)

Correct me if im wrong but in theravada buddhism we do not have anything called a third eye. That is from spirituality or mysticism. I appreciate your answer but it this is not what im looking for.

Look up six paranormal powers. Divine eye

But yes, you're wrong. Look up Six Paranormal Powers yourself in the suttas.
The Buddha did not reccommend indulging in the powers but he does explain that he himself discovered all these truths using the Six Paranormal Powers which are accessible in a more stable form to one after at least the 1st jhana and did not forbid their use. He even instructed a few of his disciplies to use them.
The Truth is label-less and there are many different mysticisms/spiritualities that explain these phenomena but no one does so as lucidly and with such disillusionment and copletion as Buddha.

Answer does not address the opening question which was asking for identification of a particular sutta.

Yes it does. Look at the bottom. Even includes how the Buddha himself was able to use Divine Eye power (and other arhats) to do see how people go from one thing to another.

Hi Ahmed. I appreciate your answer but I'm not in any way looking for supernatural powers. I'm not in any way interested in these powers.

"I need to find the Sutta in where it is stated how a human being will be reborn." I gave you such a sutta where the Buddha himself describes such a thing and how he, and anyone else, can see the same (through so-called "supernatural power").

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The relation between the three types of dukkha
Dukkha is said to have three types.

Can Vipariṇāma-dukkha be analysed in terms of Dukkha-dukkha alone?
Is the experience of Saṃkhāra-dukkha nothing more than Vipariṇāma-dukkha?

Very interesting recent Buddhist Geeks podcast discusses this precise question and looks at discrepancies between the suttas and commentaries: http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2015/01/bg-346-debugging-source-code-dharma/

what was the outcome of the podcast, i do not have the patience for audio... i think yes, with the priviso that i don't believe in a clusterfuck at the end haha. i'm not theravadin,,, so don't have a huge interest in the suttas yo, but thanks :)

The conclusion was that the normal ordering of the three types in the commentaries, and their relationship to each other (e.g. can one be analysed in terms of another, as you asked) is not as per the suttas and, in the author's opinion, needed to be read with care.

The discussion in that podcast is in a blog post by the same author (Bodhipaksa), here -- Three forms of suffering, reinterpreted

Dukkha-dukkha (the dukkha of painful experiences):

The physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying.
The anxiety or frustration of coming across what is not desirable.

Unwanted things happening. Coming in contact with unwanted things, beings and stimuli. Resulting mainly as the world and even ourselves are not what we expect or in our control and being averse to such experience. This includes our form and cognitive process which is subjected to decay and change to which we are averse.

Viparinama-dukkha (the dukkha of the changing nature of all things):

The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto what is desirable.
The frustration of not getting what you want.

This is mainly use to change. Wanted things not happening. Not coming in contact with wanted things, beings and stimuli. Or desirable experiences coming to an end (partly in relation to the above as it is undesirable for a desirable experience to end). Resulting mainly, as the world and even ourselves are not what we expect or in our control and being in wanting experiences we do not get. This includes our form and cognitive process which which takes on a particular form but we it to be different.

Sankhara-dukkha (the dukkha of conditioned experience):

A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards

Mainly coming current and past volitional formations and karma. These manifests as sensations. These sensation also change and finite experience in common with the above two.
(Quotes sourced from: Dukkha)

Can Vipariṇāma-dukkha be analysed in terms of Dukkha-dukkha alone?

There is some overlap, i.e., if you are experiencing a something desirable and this changes.

Is the experience of Saṃkhāra-dukkha nothing more than Vipariṇāma-dukkha?

Nature of formations is it change hence some overlap with unsatisfactoriness due to change. Stimulating thoughts, happy moods, positive karmic experience all pass away.

sorry but this didn't answer my question, it just gave a run down of the terms i used

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


text:
Supplication in buddhist practice
Does any Buddhist practice consists of supplication, or is there too much merit being exchanged for that?

Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein
  one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something,
  either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., "Please
  spare my life.") or on behalf of someone else (e.g., "Please spare my
  child's life.").

If there was a practice like that in Buddhism, it doesn't come from the Buddha's teachings. One practices loving-kindness by making a wish(not a prayer) such as "May I be happy" or "May the world be at peace" or "May my enemy be well" and so on. The purpose of this practice is to help negate states of anger in the practitioner thus benefiting everyone. No God, Buddha or anyone grants the wish. It all happens in our own minds. If one doesn't understand this then one might mistake practice for ritual as well. For example, one doesn't pray but pays homage to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in mindful rememberance. This practice is for the benefit of the practitioner by way of building humble states of mind and when one is humble, that will benefit others as well.
All practices that come from the Buddha's teaching are like this: Benefiting both the practitioner and the beings the practitioner comes into contact with. We practice to build wholesome states for ourselves. The less we are unwholesome the less others will suffer because of us and the more they will be happy when they come into contact with us. We help others by helping ourselves. This is a good kind of selfishness :)

i upvoted but am a little skeptical that you're right now. just cos it's all driven by one's own merit doesn't mean that the buddha has no role to play in the process

Perhaps the Pure Land schools of Buddhism come closest to the notion of supplication. To quote wikipedia

it is one's faith in the salvific compassion of the Buddha Amitabha,
  [..] and the earnest wish to enter the Buddha's happy land, that is
  said to bring deliverance into Buddha Amitabha's Western Paradise

However i believe that even in these schools it isn't a simple matter of just giving oneself over to another power. For instance in Shin Buddhism (also know as True Pure Land School) the Nembutsu is chanted as an expression of gratitude rather than a request for divine assistance.
On the  flip side to this, even Zen practitioners bow to their cushions. So even in Zen, where the emphasis is very much on your own endeavors, recognition is regularly given to something outside of oneself. You could even say that this was almost supplication.

Supplication does appear in Buddhism, even though there is less emphasis on it than in Christian teachings: Buddhists are less likely to e.g. put their successes down to being blessed.
Just an example quote form scholarly research:

According to the general teachings [rather than Vajrayana] of Buddhism only the fully awakened
  one, the Buddha, can be the object of supplication, veneration and
  devotion.


text:
Emptiness of emptiness
Is the following idea of mine a good way to practice the emptiness of emptiness in my everyday non meditational etc., life?
Does anyone suggest something like this, in any Buddhist tradition?

realizing your past happiness is worthless and that no way of thinking about it has any worth, and being happy about that

If you're new to meditation find a teacher. It will save you a lot of time in the beginning.

no i'm not, really. also i DID ask about outside meditation :)

I assume your reply means "I'm not new"? Correct me if I'm wrong.

More on topic however, you seem to be asking two questions. It's implied that the second is related to the first, but far from obvious how it is related. If you read this material somewhere, can you source it for clarification, or somehow restate the question?

i r can't see two unrelated questions there !
i've seen meditation teachers i number of times... :)

It's interesting to begin to understand things about yourself, your actions, your motivations and about what is worthwhile, wholesome, beneficial, and what is not. Some types of meditation can help greatly with these understandings and some would say there should be no "non meditational" part of your day. Every waking moment has the potential to be a mindful moment of being aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it and this can facilitate further understanding of yourself, your actions, your motivations.
I'm not sure that one "practices" emptiness. One hopes to understand emptiness and understanding could come from mindfulness both inside and outside of formal meditation.
But as a disclaimer, in the tradition I practice, the concept is anatta, not emptiness, so there might be subtle differences with emptiness of which I am not familiar.


text:
Is it possible to believe (incorrectly) that one is on the path?
Can one work one's way through the whole path as it is described in the Mahayana literature, and then realize: Even though you were being sincere, and the "right" experiences in the literature describe your work, you were actually not on the Buddhist path at all, but merely on an intellectual path without genuine actualization; without "direct seeing".
Can this nevertheless be preparation for the true Mahayana path?

When you say "work one's way through the whole Buddhist path"  in this question, I suppose you don't mean "become an Arhat". So what does "work one's way through the whole Buddhist path" mean, in this question? And what is "genuine actualization" (what does that mean)?

Please think of some actual title for the question. Every other question has a title ...

er, ok.... i will edit it, the best i can anyway !

better ?????????

Unfortunately I still don't understand the question: because to me, "the whole path" means "all the way to complete/permanent enlightenment", which seems incompatible with "actually not on the Buddhist path at all". Perhaps instead of "(actually) work one's way along the whole path" you mean "(try to) work one's way along (the start of) the path"?

i can't believe you are confused about this! that's exactly what i'm asking,so leave a comment saying 'no' and / or answer the question pls

Isn't there a story in the commentaries about a monk who had very advanced intellectual understanding of the Buddhist path, and was even a very good teacher of others, and brought many of them to enlightenment, but was not himself enlightened. The story goes that eventually something happened to make that problem clear to him, then he did some stuff -- lived in a cave and meditated or something -- and finally was enlightened. Maybe someone can remember who the guy was; IIRC it's a pretty mainline Buddhist story.
The suggestion is that, yes, it's absolutely possible to seem to be very advanced on the path but to be far less so than one thinks. And the second suggestion I take from the story is that if the intention is good, then even if one isn't as advanced as one might think, one may still be better off than having ignored the path completely.

The story of Asangha and his brother! Great story by the way for his question. I read like 20 pages about it in "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization"

Absolutely, it is possible to be incorrect about the notion that one was on the Buddhist path. I have had plenty of this sort of experience in my own meditation practice.
Very frequently I would have unusual experiences in meditation, such as seeing lights, being filled with joy, a sense of time coming to a stop, etc. And I would ask my teacher what these experiences meant, hoping for this kind of answer or that kind of answer. Each time, he would tell me that these experiences don't mean anything and that I should focus on seeing these experiences as they are.
While I wanted these experiences to return quite badly, I failed to recognize the fact that I wanted them to return. Entire meditation sessions were wasted waiting for the lights, or time stopping, etc. It is in this sense that I "thought I was on the path" but now know that I was somewhat stubbornly misleading myself. Well, try and try again.
Although this example is from practice in a Theravadan context, the general principle should still translate to Mahayana practice or any kind of practiced skill: Sometimes it takes a lot of mistakes to realize you need a different approach. This is definitely the case for me.

Yes and ... yes.
One can be wrong about the foundation, the method one chooses, one can be wrong about anything! This is why it is important to study the Buddhadharma first and understand its foundational teachings (any introductory book will do) and to continue to study it outside of practice sessions. Practice is very important because there is a lot you will sort out through the extremely simple practice and heart of Buddhism: vipassana meditation aka self-observation.
The thing I believe you are talking about though is can one be wrong about one's own experiences? One can do this, dangerously generating what Master Huai-Chin Nan calls "false gong-fu", things that you learn from somewhere and you want that experience so strongly that your subconscious mind (which is very powerful in creating entire experiences such as dreams) replicates the experience, oftentimes as a precursor and obstacle to the real phenomenon.
For example, this can happen with kundalini in your body, chi rotations, mental phenomena, and even great peace and ease that occur when you practice Buddhist meditation (or any meditation) correctly.
(See the end of the first chapter of Tao & Longevity of Master Huai-Chin Nan for excellent discussion of this.)
This is why the Buddha never talked about chi, chakras, and various things. All of those things he labelled "fire element" (which is absolutely correct). Thus, his monks did not create mental obstacles for themselves and rapidly progressed to the heart of understanding of non-self and interdependent origination.
That is the answer to the first question.
As for your second question, a master would say "no, you are wasting your time, you can lose your life and opportunity to Awaken any day, any hour.. why waste your breath with false phenomena?"
And that master would be right by saying "no" to your second question.
Nonetheless, I would append my own answer:
I would argue though that some of these false phenomena, although they can confuse and betray a person for years and make a person lose decades of lifetime... they can serve as very specific lessons about oneself in the future towards Buddhahood cultivation, (whether one is almost a bodhisattva or whether one is already a bodhisattva and working towards Buddhahood) where the smallest hairline of an error can cause drastic errors.
This lesson-about-lessons has a thousand Buddhist parallels and parables (e.g. cosmological time in being stuck in the higher absorptions, wrongs when committed in higher realms, deadly result of losing your essence when in a higher stage of physiological cultivation).
This is similar to how overcoming small past failures (e.g. overeating, drug addiction, tv addiction, etc.) can give you the edge you need (discipline, focus, sorrow, memory) to succeed in later challenges, the failing of which can end your career or cripple or kill you.
So yeah, if you stumbled over something and ran in circles, contemplate the lesson you learned, be grateful you had the lesson to learn something valuable about yourself for such a relatively small cost, write an essay, swear to reform and move forward!


text:
The Mahayana faith and wisdom
I have a few questions about "wisdom", which I would personally define as it appears in Zhiyi's book the Great Calming and Contemplation, in the section on the six identities

If one is endowed with both wisdom and faith, then upon hearing that a
  single thought-moment is identical with the positive [aspect that are
  conducive to bodhicitta], faith will keep one from denigrating [what
  one does not understand], and wisdom will keep one from being
  apprehensive [about one’s inability to attain enlightenment]. [In this
  case,] both the beginning and later [stages] are positive. If one does
  not have faith, then [one despairs i] the exalted levels of the
  sage are not part of one’s own wisdom, 344 and if one does not have
  wisdom, one becomes arrogant and thinks that one is already equal to a
  Buddha.

IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom?
And if the latter is in any way the case, then how so, and why would the practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any semblance of enlightenment?
Forgive me if I speak crazily :) !!

To me this comes up like a question "can you ever learn walking without having balance/poise? - So can a child learn to walk without having already the ability to balance physically?" Well - most of us have learned to walk, and even missed the ability to have physical balance before...

Is it possible? Yes but IMO it's only for those that suffer from a mental or physical defect barring them from a deep understanding of the Dharma and enlightenment. One should always seek knowledge, wisdom and faith.

"IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance  >along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom?"

From mindfulness, clear comprehension arise, from clear comprehension, insight arise, from insight, wisdom arise.
Without wisdom one would not know skilful from unskilful action, appropriate from inappropriate body, speech and mind cultivation. How then can one purify oneself?

"And if the latter is in any way the case, then how so, and why would the  >practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any  >semblance of enlightenment?"

It is not the case that one can obtained enlightenment without wisdom. The word enlightenment itself also means wisdom. To be enlighten means to be wise.

Wisdom is formed from the combination of knowledge and experience. Meditation can boost the cognitive processes forming wisdom, but even without meditation you can form wisdom.
As you move along the path, you will form wisdom.


text:
What role does zen or zazen play in Tendai?
I would like to know how Tendai or indeed Tiantai, views its use of zazen or zen.
I would provisionally assume it serves a different role than it does or is in Soto and Rinzai and contemporary Chan.

perhaps as an antidote to zen sickness ?

The Tendai school has its own system of meditation based on the writings of the founder of the school, the great Chinese monk Zhiyi, who wrote a classic meditation book called the Mohe Zhiguan which means The Great Shamatha Vipashyana. This meditation style in Japanese is simply called Shikan, which is the Japanese pronunciation of the last half of the name of the book meaning Shamatha Vipashyana.
I don't know too much about it but it is a different system of meditation than Soto Shikantaza or Rinzai Koan practice. I think that it is a more structured and explicit system of meditation but I don't have much direct knowledge on this point.


text:
Does any school seriously believe Maitreya might appear in my lifetime
Say, the next 30 years?
The world is going to undergo great turmoil IMO, as technology outstrips not just need but the reality we live in.
Is there much or indeed any chance that Maitreya will appear to help humanity through these changes?

Well, things have to get really really bad and then it'll have to get really really good in order for Metteyya Buddha to appear:

"And the sons of these sons will come to live eighty years; their sons to 160 years; their sons to 320 years; their sons to 640 years; their sons to 2,000 years; their sons to 4,000 years; their sons to 8,000 years; their sons to 20,000 years; their sons to 40,000 years; and the sons of those that lived 40,000 years will come to live 80,000 years.
Among humans living 80,000 years, brethren, maidens are marriageable at 500 years of age.
Among such humans there will be only three kinds of disease—appetite, non-assimilation and old age."
At that period, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Metteyya, Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an, Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now. ~ DN 26 ~

Simple accurate answer. To know more about the "really, really bad" read the Surangama sutra preface.

Most of the commentaries say that this Buddha Sasana will last for 5000 years...So there are around 2400+ years still left for the Gotama Sasana to disappear...This link gives a detailed explanation of the way in which the first the attainments will disappear, then the method, then the learning, then the symbols and finally the relics.
http://www.lawsofthenature.com/GotamaSasana.aspx

i can't accept this answer because lots of buddhists give a different date

I don't think so, how can anyone believe that Maitreya would appear in this lifetime?
The main sign of Maitreya's arrival is the life span being around 80,000 years. During The Buddha's time He said:

"At present, monks, one who lives a long time is 100 years old or a
  little bit more" (Arakenanusasani Sutta, AN 7.70)

Which is basically the same as now in modern times. The life expectancy among people that had food has been like nearly the same since ancient times.
But arahants and paccekabuddhas still can arise during the time-period in between the appearance of a Sammasambuddha.
The distinction between paccekabuddhas and sammasambuddhas is that sammasambuddhas are considered as Supreme Teachers but paccekabuddhas can still teach just not as well.

Wikipedia claims that there are non-Buddhist schools or religions, who say variously that Maitreya will arrive soon or did arrive recently (e.g. in the 19th century): see Maitreya - Non-Buddhist views
Although they're non-Buddhist, I mention that in case it has been causing some confusion.

lol. It's going to be a lot more amazing than that when Maitreya comes. I believe there are some signs listed in the Surgangama Sutra or somewhere of the exact signs, but his coming is said to signal the shoring of billions to Awakening..

I think there are some modern alternative religious movements, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, that claim that Maitreya's rebirth is imminent, or that he is even amongst us now, but neither the suttas nor the sutras support this view. The most ancient texts concerning Maitreya clearly state that he will not appear for many tens of thousands of years, when human civilization is enjoying a super-industrial golden age. The earliest scriptural date I've seen for Maitreya is his association with the appearance of Shambhala in the 25th century, according to the Kalachakra. Many sutras suggest that he will not appear for millions of years. Bahais belive that Baha'u'llah was Maitreya. Followers of Adidam believe that Adi Da was Maitreya. The Nepalese "Buddha Boy" appears to believe that he is Maitreya. Other recent claimants include Peter Deunov, Samael Aun Weor, and Claude Vorilhon. Annie Besant and Leadbeater , leaders of the Theosophical movement, made this claim for Krishnamurti but he repudiated it. There have been many people who have claimed to be Maitreya since the seventh century.

I submit that the prophecies of the end times in all religions and cultures are being fulfilled around us, and therefore we should be expecting the imminent coming of Maitreya, or the Prophet expected by all religions and cultures to come at the end times/ending of an age (Messiah, return of Christ, Mahdi, He Whom God Shall Make Manifest, Kalki Avatar, Blue Kachina, True White Brother from the East, Satrio Piningit, etc).
In fact I submit that Maitreya is already here.  He has fulfilled Prophecies from all world religions and cultures, and brought a teaching that unifies all the religions of the world and for the first time shows clearly how all are from the same, One God, each sent as part of an overall Plan which is now coming to fruition.  Maitreya's teaching also unifies the West and the East, science and spirit, and shows how the two are not contradictory but complementary.
Do not take my word for it - I challenge you to study Maitreya's literature, prophecies fulfilled, etc. and prove it to yourself that he is indeed the True Maitreya, the Prophet of God: www.maitreya.org

(-1) I think the question "is any school believing (...)" is obviously asking for buddhist schools and not for personal opinion. You see, "buddhism.stackexchange" was intended to have a Q&A-site for questions concerning buddhism (as roughly described in the FAQ)


text:
What is the term for not believing in cause and effect after death?
Is it just "annihilationism"? Whatever it is called, has is always been a heresy or wrong view?
I can't see how it must be annihilationism, because the budha answers that this dogma is wrong on the grounds that we already lack a self. Unless, that is, there is no empirical self.

Annihilationism - Ucchedavada - Taught by Ajita Kesakambali
This is considered a wrong view. Here is no heresy in Buddhism but any view or notion which you have not verified empirically at the experiential level but cling onto causes misery psychologically as in Buddhism.
Also see my answer in: The "empirical self" in Buddhism

ah but how can you verify that cause and effect lasts after death? at least, how can you do so and be rational ? please do add to your question :)

i added a little more to the question, thanks for any reply


text:
The "empirical self" in Buddhism
Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the "empirical self", as in the conscious mind and its concomitants?
And in order I might make sense of your answer, can the latter "not self" be thought of as an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself?
Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

Peter Harvey in the selfless mind says:

an empirical self strictly speaking neither exists nor does not exist

the empirical self, the bundle of sensation etc. ?

Since the actual beliefs of Buddhists vary wildly, do you mean to ask what is taught in various traditions?

How did any buddhist ever challenge the evidence of "empirical self"? Don't we assign even Names to each other? And didn't the Buddha give help, even individually shaped for each of the "empirical selves" around him, having names like "Sariputta" or "Udali" or "Ananda"...? So I think something in your premises might be somehow uneven and it might be better to do a quest for what the Buddha meant instead when the concept "self" was discussed. In the Brahmanism around him in India was the concept of an "atman" - this is that "self"-concept the Buddha was critical about

ok so you should answer, saying that no buddhist would say that the skandhas do in some sense not exist. which is wrong IMHO, but it'd be more helpful to leave an answer in this instance IMO

I'm not sure why this question has been down voted so much. Seems like a good question to me.

I am trying to understand it, but it is tough sledding. I think a worthwhile question is still buried in the current awkward wording. The answer seems quite likely to be: "This is considered one of the Vexing Questions", though.

well awkwardness is subjective; tho i'm sorry it doesn't work for you - etc. suggest an edit if you like, and it will be more useful

In advance stages of Buddhist mediation the exercise is to reduce non conducive notions (see: Girimananda Sutta for such notions). The notion of self or not self is a notion, and it is these preconceived notion you should eliminate as clinging to them causes misery when reality does not match with you notion.
If you have a self image that I am so and so and when this gets shattered it causes pain. If you do not hold into such notion then there is no pin.

Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the empirical self?

I think it's more accurate to say that Buddhists ought to avoid having fixed/specific beliefs, or fixed views, about the self: see for example What are examples of identity-view?

And in order I might make sense of your answer, can the latter "not self" be thought of as an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself?

The "not-self" concept is called Anatta.
Buddhism doesn't deny consciousness, but it says that consciousness too is conditioned and impermanent and non-self.

Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

What "reality" are you talking about?
Still, if you're asking about "reality including the Buddha" then perhaps you want to find out about the doctrines of Buddha nature.

In summary you seem to be saying that the skandhas (including sensation/perception, and consciousness) are "the self", even though (as Wikipedia says),

All of the aggregates are to be seen as empty of self-nature; that is, they arise dependent on causes (hetu) and conditions (paticca). In this scheme, the cause for the arising of consciousness (viññāṇa) is the arising of one of the other aggregates (physical or mental); and, the arising of consciousness in turn gives rise to one or more of the mental (nāma) aggregates. In this way, the chain of causation identified in the aggregate (khandha) model overlaps the chain of conditioning in the Dependent Origination (paticcasamuppāda) model, described more fully below.

I think "have self-nature" means "have independent existence" and "have no self-nature" means "has dependent existence" and therefore temporary and unsatisfactory.
Buddhism suggests that instead of identifying the self with such things ("I am my body! I am my feelings! I am my thoughts!") it's better to not identify yourself in such a way with such things.
This description of right view warns that the following can be called "a thicket of wrong views":

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

If I understand they way in which you're using words, I suspect you shouldn't say that there's "an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself" because that would be saying "there are no sentient beings, sentient beings do not exist": which might be self-evidently untrue :-)
I'm not sure about whether all of reality is conscious. Apparently some schools of Buddhism teach that,

Furthermore, and particularly in Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism, all beings (including plant life and even inanimate objects or entities considered "spiritual" or "metaphysical" by conventional Western thought) are or may be considered sentient beings.

As I mentioned earlier I think this sort of doctrine is later (i.e. post-Theravada) teachings about 'Buddha-nature'.

by reality, i p much just mean whatever is outside my mind.
i found that your answer doesn't quite answer my question, e.g. don't some buddhists say that all fixeed views must be done away with. anyway... p sure u misunderstood my question but i don't know how to improve it :////

whatever is outside my mind I think that Western philosophy tries to distinguish subjective reality (our perceptions) with objective reality (stuff which our perceptions are perceiving), but Buddhism doesn't. Instead of 'subjective' and 'objective', Buddhism describes reality as 'conditioned' (i.e. it can be perceived only on condition that you're present to perceive it) and therefore 'empty'.

I've just been answering another question about "self" here https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10850/5715.  Getting the background to such questions right is imperative. Self/selfless is so often misunderstood! The initial question here is:

Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the "empirical self", as in the conscious mind and its concomitants?

It is never right to say that all Buddhists believe anything. Buddhism is very pluralistic. One has to take a point of view and then work outwards and look at the contrasts in other approaches. Some Buddhists accept the notion of an empirical self and others do not. Personally I don't see how we can understand our experience without some kind of acknowledgement that we at least have a first person perspective  - what I see through my eyes is not the same as what you see. But others are adamant that there is no self of any kind. The unfortunate influence of the Two truths Doctrine can be seen far and wide leading Buddhists to illogical conclusions.

Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

And again Buddhists disagree on the possibility of saying anything about "reality". After many years of studying Buddhist texts I have yet to find a word in Pāḷi, Sanskrit or Chinese that directly corresponds to the European notion of "reality". Indeed the early Buddhist epistemology, which is the point of view that I take as a matter of course, guarantees that we could not say anything about reality anyway. When it comes to knowledge, the only source we have is experience (and Kant says much the same thing in the opening pages of his Critique of Pure reason). Experience is acknowledged by most Buddhists to consist of, at a minimum, a sense object, a working sense faculty, and sense cognition. Since the faculty and the cognition are conditioning factors, experience is always irreducible subjective. I tend to describe experience as being the events that happen when object and subject overlap.
Early Mainstream Buddhists and early Prajñāpāramitā Buddhists argued that though we have experiences, the experience itself is neither existent (astitā) nor non-existent (nāstitā) - it is like soap bubble, like a dream, like a flash of lightening, like an illusion. There is experience, but beyond that we cannot say anything. This is spelled out in the Kaccānagotta Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 12.15) and picked up in the 8000 Perfection of Wisdom text and by Nāgārjuna. In other words "real" and "unreal" are not terms that can be applied to experience. And experience is all we have to go on (Sabba Sutta SN 35.23).
Crucially the first person perspective is also an experience. The feeling that "I am someone" or that "this is my thought" is also an experience. And like all experiences neither real nor unreal. Nor indicative of any noumenal reality (as far as Buddhists are concerned). So "reality" doesn't really come into it. Nothing about experience could help us to understand reality, though it can help us to understand experience!
From this Buddhist point of view, therefore, your questions are not well formed. However, I still think of them as interesting questions because they highlight the kinds of assumptions we make when trying to think like a Buddhist. We have to keep asking these questions in this way until we become much more familiar with thinking like Buddhists.
Now Peter Harvey made a good contribution to the field of Buddhist studies, but one must always read his work with a critical eye. He is not without his biases and presuppositions. As encyclopedic as his work tends to be, particularly his book on Self, he never quite thinks like a Buddhist in the way I've outlined. He collects all the relevant quotes from suttas, which is very useful, but he doesn't get them in the way that say, Sue Hamilton, did. Her books on the Khandhas and Early Buddhism are revelatory (and every bit as difficult to read as Harvey unfortunately). Early Buddhism a New Approach ought to be on every Buddhist intellectual's reading list.
By examining experience we can understand the nature of experience. And this is all that suchness and other terms refer to in my view. We have no faculty that would give us access to other kinds of knowledge and certainly not knowledge of "reality".

Just to pick up on - It is never right to say that all Buddhists believe anything. Buddhism is very pluralistic. There must be some kind of commonality in Buddhist thought. Is it true to say that all Buddhists go to refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha or can't we even say that. Or it that just jargon really? Thanks

In my experience if one Buddhist asserts that something is absolutely the case in "Buddhism", another Buddhist will deny this. Zen Buddhists for example will sometimes argue that rather than going for refuge to the Buddha, that one ought to kill him instead.

I very much like the description / distinction of "reality" and "experience". In my picture of "reality", there are only two real things: The Void, and Experience. People, places, etc are not separately real. But saying that we cannot "get to" reality in any case, only our experiences, is the crucial point. I am also glad that you said that First Person experiences are not real either. This is the answer to this question, as far as I can tell.

Some answers have said that the empirical self is best not believed in the sense of identifying or obsessing with it.
Also, it does not exist because the empirical self is not substantial. Contrary to my question, it is atman proper, the Self, which does not exist in Reality, as something outside the empirical self.

IMO nobody says that the skandhas (etc.) "do not exist". Instead, they "do not have independent, unconditioned existence" and they "do only have dependent, conditioned existence".

so the OP, long story short u both misread my answer are wrong heh

You seem to be having an argument with your empirical self over its existence?

i like the idea, but it's not clear how to apply it


text:
Panpsychism and philosophical interpretations of buddhism
I got wondering, idly it's not part of any practice or effort, that everything has something like empathy, but of one thing, empathy for the buddha.
Can that be read into buddhism, or panpsychism at all?
Might the answer to this fall under the terms "empathy" and "response", as drawn from the lotus sutra?
I promise this will be my last question, sorry for starting so many :)

I don't think asking many questions is an issue, provided the questions are detailed, show some effort and you accept answers that satisfy your question.  I'll try an answer, but if you could flesh out your question, that would probably help in the quality of your responses.

Question not clear, please clarify.

what isn't clear about t ?

It's all pretty unclear I'm afraid. For example: in your first sentence, what do you mean by "...but of one thing, empathy for the buddha"; second sentence, what does "that" refer to, what is meant by "read into", and why are you asking if "that" (whatever it is) can be "read into" (whatever that means) into panpsychism since this is a Buddhism group, not a group about philosophy of consciousness; finally, third sentence, what do you mean by an answer "falling under" terms? I'll take a (very) wild swing at an alternate version, but correct/delete it as you like.

(-1) because I don't like such "wild swings" without recognizable relation to serious attempts to penetrate the difficulties of the dharma which occur by practizing - at least here in stack-exchange.

i've read like 100s of academic books @GottfriedHelms

All is consciousness and all is not consciousness and neither of the preceding is true. This is the kind of logic that Zen sees the world in ways that at best are uncertain.
In one sense you are asking does a table have Buddha nature?
This has been answered in this post Does a dog have Buddha nature?
The Buddha-nature of a dog
I have only found one thing that helps me, when I find empathy and compassion for all beings. What their nature is does not seem to affect me. My own acts in consciousness do affect me directly.

EMPATHY
empathy
• n : understanding and entering into another's feelings
.
I don't if i am upto a satisfying answer or not but the empathy that i have got after getting your question is that 'it is within'. If you think that everything about buddha ends up as an empathy than its not wrong. But the empathy (may be very-2 important question to everybody) is just a milestone where one can relax at his doings (karma) , only if that one's practicing it right. Buddha left his body long years ago, but not his will ( a will that can benefit many of us and our inner know it somewhere somehow). That is strange. Thats concern. Thumbs up for you. You are on right path. You are picking up stones but not making yourself or your pocket heavy. It is all within. You are the nearest to it for you, not for becoming a buddha. Regards for coming up.

I agree with the criticism about the lack of polish in the articulation of the question, but I try to see if there is any there there, no matter how inarticulate the questioner may be(could be a second language issue). So...... I will try to keep my answer simple and easy to understand but hopefully of some depth in spite of all that. First, consciousness has a very large amount to do with Buddhism. There are the five skandhas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha )of which consciousness is one of the skandhas.
The subject of consciousness was considered so important that it became the point of a split off from Madhyamika Buddhism into Yogacara Buddhism with the assertion of the existence of alaya consciousness ( What is storehouse consciousness? ). Recently (january 17 to 22, 2013) there was a Mind and Life Conference where a prominent Cal Tech scientist (Christof Koch) had a dialog with the Dalai Lama where both Koch & the Dalai Lama agreed that panpsychism was a virtual sine qua non for forming a foundational understanding of consciousness and Buddhism.
So my answer is that the relation between panpsychism and Buddhism is of absolutely central importance.
   The question of empathy is more difficult. I can't quote any Buddhist sutras on this subject but if there is empathy as an inherent aspect of consciousness, then it does not seem to manifest until the relevant organism has the ability to have a theory of mind ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind ). It may be possible that there may be some form of subconscious or unconscious drive to include the consequences of one's own actions on other living beings (especially with respect to kinship factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection ).
I suspect that(altruistic behavior) may be evidence for the possibility for empathy being part of basic panpsychic consciousness. For most people, however, there is an assumption of awareness of the emotional impact on the consciousness of the other that becomes an important consideration in karmic choices(volition, one of he five skandhas). I think the question is extremely interesting and wish more people had chosen to weigh in with informed responses.


text:
Is the Chinese/Lunar New Year a Buddhist religious holiday?
In the New Jersey State Board of Education's List of Religious Holidays Permitting Student Absence from School, the Chinese/Lunar New Year (Feb 19, 2015) is listed as a "Confucian/Daoist/Buddhist" holiday.
I didn't think there was any connection with Buddhism. So is there?

It's probably a coincidence, or the school board made the designation for bureaucratic convenience.

Celebration of the "Buddhist" New Year varies by both geographic region and ethnicity in the predominantly Buddhist countries of Asia.
From http://www.buddhanet.net/festival.htm:

Buddhist New Year -
  In Theravadin countries, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Lao, the new year is celebrated for three days from the first full moon day in April. In Mahayana countries the new year starts on the first full moon day in January. However, the Buddhist New Year depends on the country of origin or ethnic background of the people. As for example, Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese celebrate late January or early February according to the lunar calendar, whilst the Tibetans usually celebrate about one month later.

Perhaps in New Jersey there is a sizable population of Chinese students who might be celebrating Chinese Lunar New Year and this was designated as an allowable "religious" day off as a practical matter? In any case, it seems to carry more ethnic significance than religious significance. (Can't imagine that ethnic Chinese students who are Christian, for example, would be any less interested in the celebrations! :)

Thank you robin for expressing so clearly what I wasn't sure how to express.

Thanks @qweilun. I'm finding figuring out which Buddhist holidays have actual religious significance as opposed to cultural significance has been challenging. From what I've read it seems to be the Buddha's birthday/enlightenment day/parinibbana day (which is 3 separate occasions in Japan but one day in most other places), plus the day commemorating the first sermon and the day commemorating the establishment of the monastic order. If there are others, let me know. It's a learning process. :)


text:
Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman?
Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman, the Self of buddha nature?
Assuming a resounding "no", may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything, or is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self, like death is for philosophically enlightened atheists?
It is not true that qualia are substances, not only in Western philosophy, but in Buddhism too, because otherwise the skandhas, being insubstantial, would not be like anything!
Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities !

I see, so I guess you're talking about This "true Self" is the Buddha-nature, which is present in all sentient beings, and realized by the awakened ones. or something like that. The people who answered your other question in a way that you didn't expect (or didn't like) were all using ...

... a different understanding, i.e. they were saying something like, "Atman" in early Buddhism may simply refer to the sense of "I am", similar to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism, which link the feeling "I am" to a permanent "Self". Contrary to this the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything

I think that:

'Atman' is more commonly used in Hinduism
Buddhism usually denies that 'Atman' exists ... the more usual Buddhist doctine is 'anatman': according to Buddhism, 'anatman' is a better description of the world
Anatman is a word whose definition is a negative (negation) of Atman.
'Atman' is a word but not necessarily a reality (the mere fact that a word exists doesn't imply that what it's describing exists: see for example "unicorn").

So Atman is a word with a meaning, which other schools (not Buddhism) claimed had existence.
When some schools of Buddhism were trying to describe something (i.e. 'Buddha-nature') they re-used an existing word (i.e. 'Atman') for that description.
I think it's less confusing to view/use 'Atman' as an adjective instead of as a noun.
For example, this says,

Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self ? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ’the Self ’ [atman].

I (perhaps incorrectly) understand that as saying that 'atman' can be used like an adjective to describe anything/whatever is "true, real, and eternal".
When you ask, "ia atman 'like' anything?" IMO that's as if you're saying, "assuming that atman is a substance or a thing, can I understand it as being 'like' some other substance or thing which I already understand or have a word for?"
It might be better to say, Atman means "true, real, and eternal" and you can use it describe that which is true, real, and eternal.

is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self

If a dog is (immediately/already) not a cat, or if the moon is not a finger (or if a chariot is not an axle and an axle is not a chariot), then I think you can say that "it is not" -- without trying to say, "a dog is like the eventual non existence, annihilation of a cat" (but maybe whether or not you call it "eventual" depends on whether you believe in "sudden enlightenment").

Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities

The Buddha warned about the 'thicket of views' you get into by trying to understand 'self', so I don't understand why you (IMO) persist along these lines of enquiry.
The Buddha specifically said that instead of asking "what is self? what is the Buddha? etc.?", he wanted to teach people about the four noble truths (i.e. dukkha and the way to end dukkha).

Beware that although I tried to answer this I know even less about Mahayana doctrines and terminology than I do about the Pali suttas, i.e. this is my opinion and liable to be ignorant.

When you ask, "ia atman 'like' anything?" IMO that's as if you're saying, "assuming that atman is a substance or a thing, can I understand it as being 'like' some other substance or thing which I already understand or have a word for?"
not quite hat i meant, i was asking about qualia, i'll edit the question :

if you say that only substances can have quale, then sure ? i don't know if that's true tho !!!

In Paul Williams book on the Mahāyana Buddhism he notes that "According to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: 'self [i.e. ātman] is the meaning of tathāgatgarbha.'"  (p.98) and "One thing is clear: the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra teaches a really existing, permanent element in sentient beings" (p.99) (I'm quoting from the first edition, 1989. There is a revised edition).
I take this to mean that the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra has become infected with Vedantic ideas similar to the ātman. Certainly the basic teaching on anātman has been lost sight of. Williams plausibly links this to the problem of how the unenlightened can escape from greed, hatred and delusion. This is a perennial problem in Buddhism. We keep losing sight of the possibility and having to reinvent it. Unfortunately some of the reinventions are better than others. As time goes on they tend to become more and more eternalistic.
so the answer is not a resounding "no". It is a definite "yes".


text:
Do we sense the mental stream (santāna)
Do we sense the 'mindstream' (citta-santāna)?
Or is it inferred?
I think it is inferred, and that this means we cannot say "I will die", except as a fictionalized explanation.
But, is it inferred? And anyway, what do Buddhists say about explanations ?

Is santana the same as dharma? Can you provide a definition or a link to a definition - I'm struggling to understand the question to be honest and maybe others would appreciate some clarification too. Thanks

Hmmm this is where psychiatry start picking drugs for us... Keep in mind that is is purely theoretical until the Haldon Collider find evidence of other dimensions...
Mind and brain are not the same, but connected like two wheels learning against each others edges. So one might call it two different species. The Buddha spoke of 31 planes of existence, which could be understood as 31 universes. Universes would then also move and overlap each other. If overlapping, a nexus is created in which reactions happen. Now imagine that somehow that because of the nexus, the brain has an attraction on another species and this other species attached itself to the brain like a parasite... It would mean that if we are Citta, then we are the aliens from another universe experiencing this universe through the senses of a body...
But we lack so much data on so much to actually make technical descriptions on how it works... Much right now is just thesis stage. Nothing more.
It is said that you will get this experience in the ninth Jhana...

If you are talking about the particleaccelerator in CERN its called "Large Hadron Collider" or short LHC.

Argh! Yes - Thank you for the correction :)


text:
Buddhism and the so called "hard" problem of consciousness
Hello Buddhists namaste!
Would it be wrong of me to suppose the anatta means at least partly, the following two theses?

No explanation of a conscious thought is complete: mind is not absolutely transparent to itself.
Consciousness is only explicable by way of an explanation of some particular conscious thought.

IMHO that would make the "hard" problem, disappear :)

I don't understand why 'anatta' partly means (1.); and, I don't understand what connection you see between (2.) and the Hard Problem. Therefore IMO your question is unclear. Also, is it true that you're not simply asking for a Buddhist definition of anatta and of consciousness, unless the answer includes an understanding of your argument?

Dunno why people downvoted you. Maybe because it's kind of an ugly question and you put "hard". Which was in quotes anyway and referring to your article.

You're a new user, so I'm not downvoting. But this seems like a question about philosophy of mind, not about Buddhism, your mention of "anatta" notwithstanding. Could you modify it to bring it more into the heart of Buddhist questioning? Failing that, maybe you should ask it here. I would recommend, however, tightening it up a bit first. Those guys will be well aware of Chalmers's "hard problem" and will eat you alive if you go in without a bit of preparation. And, FWIW, no I don't think your two theses solve it.

Also, specifically on the meaning of anatta, I got a very good answer from @Yuttadhammo on that very question here

A good question. But hampered, as are many such discussions by mismatched terminology. There is no Buddhist concept that quite matches the idea of "consciousness". We don't really notice this because the early translators used quite imprecise terminology and we're stuck with it. If there is one thing that vijñāna is not, it is "consciousness".
Another factor that one must take into account is that what ancient Buddhists meant by "mind" and what modern philosophers, like David "The Hard problem Chalmers mean by it are two different things. Buddhists for example make no categorical distinction between thought and emotion. There is no word for emotion in either Pāḷi or Sanskrit. See Emotions in Buddhism. Emotion is a kind of citta, as it thought, or perception. And yet the distinction between thoughts and emotions is critical to modern philosophy.
Nor is there any notion of the mind as a container for experience. The metaphor of the "theatre of consciousness" is entirely absent from Buddhist thought. See The 'Mind as Container' Metaphor.
The early Buddhists never claimed to fully explain conscious thought. The project would not have interested them. They were trying to understand dukkha - unenlightened experience. They were interested in the intoxication (pamāda) of ordinary people with sense experience and how to sober up. However as I understand it they would probably have agreed that because experience arises in dependence on sense object, sense faculty and sense cognition, and that most of us proceed without pause to proliferation, that a complete explanation of a conscious thought would be difficult. But I don't think anattā has anything to do with this.
On the other hand experience of samādhi changes the ball game. One can get a kind of insight into the arising of cittas that are as yet not incorporated into the modern theories of mind.

Consciousness is only explicable by way of an explanation of some particular conscious thought.

The trouble is that what you are calling "consciousness" is almost certainly ruled out in Buddhist thought by anattā. From the early Buddhist point of view there is no such thing as "consciousness" in the sense that, say, David Chalmers uses it. There's just conscious experience. Chalmers own solution that "consciousness" must be different from matter is also ruled out - if something is not accessible to the senses then we can have no knowledge of it. And this is the most important implication of anattā.
It does leave open the question of the Hard Problem though, because there is still something that it is like to have an experience. It's just that solving this problem would not tell us anything interesting about why we suffer. We suffer because we have an aberrant relationship to pleasure/pain.
So it seems to me that you're barking up the wrong philosophical tree with this question. However, it's worth asking because it helps to clarify the distinctions between Buddhism and philosophy.

Anatta, in the Buddhist context, means you have not control over the aggregates or anything else to be considered as self, me or mine. Also there is no core which is unchanging or everlasting which you can consider Atman. It does not relate to the concepts given in your question.
Viññāṇa is also Anatta as this has the above properties too. Mind content is also has the above properties hence Anatta.

i'm sorry i don't understand the answer are you replying to the question ?? !

Yes, Suminda states: "It does not relate to the concepts given in your question". He's politely suggesting that you seem to have your own unique idea of how Buddhist terms are used, and he's also explaining what the conventional usage of the terminology is.

Does it really mean you have "no control"?
For example we are all influencing ourselves to write in such a manner and we must put effort into doing so.
I think anatta just means aggregates. Simple as that.

If you call some one say my grand father. Can you ensure he does not die at some point? Can you say he become young. This is no control. You are calling him my grand father with a notion of permanence in the reference. There is nothing worthy of calling self, me or mine. Anatta mainly means no core and no control.

@Ahmed I think that Suminda's saying, "we have no control over the aggregates" is a paraphrase of e.g. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Also, maybe using the first-person pronoun we in "we are influencing" might imply an identity-view? But yes, "no control" might be a nihilist extreme (the opposite of "total control"), whereas "some control" or maybe "apparent control" (or 'temporary' control etc.) might be more accurate -- maybe that's a subject for a different or new question/topic.

Partly what I meant. But we can have other entity view regarding external entities who we relate to. We cannot even control their aggregates. Also any formation which we call mine. Say my car.

Partial control yeah youre right. And isnt it paradoxical how as one comes closer to Buddhahood and realizes the lack of control and self.. One gains more control and more actual self substance.. A discussion for another question :)

Also Chris I don't like the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta very cogent in explaining it because in some dhyana heavens we can control the various skandhas including form by will (Buddhist cosmology says this, for example the Form heavens)...
I think to your credit Suminda though we can't really control anything... it might be a domino like effect and interaction among our thoughts, will, and physicality that is causing us to type out our thoughts exactly as so.
The True Self is an observer just sitting in the background...
But then again that is a (extreme) "view" and wrong as well..

Even in this world we have some control. Say we can change form by changing our posture. But this is not a absolute. Can you stay in one posture say for a year? Even in the form realms can you maintain the same form without ding to infinity? This is lack of control. More than this if you look at for arising and passing away in any realm can you wish that the for arise like so or not pass away. You have no control over the Kalapas which constitute form.

You have no control is only clearly apparent at the level of arising and passing.

I think that Anatta means that there are only correlated processes instead of the (thinking of perceived) subject (self, Atman). So Anatta does not imply that understanding of consciousness or mind is incomplete. Conversely, Anatta suggests not to introduce additional entities into this doctrines. Yes, our mind is not perfectly transparent to itself, but this is due to defilements, not due to Anatta.  And, of course, Anatta does not mean that materialistic theories does not explain the conscious and thinking soul or mind. Concerning Hard Problem I think that all its verifications also are mental or perception processes, so they cannot bring us additional evidence.

Yes, no explanation of thought is complete without dependency on some other phenomena. Everything is interdependent, nothing is itself without anything else. (But not necessarily "transparent".)
No! Consciousness is the 5th aggregate/skandha. It is at an even more root level than thought itself! (which is the 3rd aggregate/skandha) You can perceive consciousness (without thought) through the usage of prajna wisdom. There is also a jhana that is pure consciousness, no thought (one of the four formless skandhas).