text:
What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body'?

When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the body.

from MN 36 Maha-Saccaka Sutta translated by Thanissaro.
Pleasant feeling (vedanā) is not limited to five senses, but can also be experienced by the mind. To understand the sutta, it seems important to understand what exactly is meant by development of the body.

When that painful feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the mind.

Here the Buddha makes a clear distinction here between 'development of the body' and 'development of the mind', and from MN 119

[The Blessed One said:] "And how is mindfulness immersed in the body
  developed, how is it pursued, so as to be of great fruit & great
  benefit?

What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body' versus 'development of the mind'?
Then, how does one develop the body?

I only quickly browsed the sutta (not reading it all) but the question seems to not really be relevant to the Buddha because it was not the Buddha that introduces the phrase: "development of the body". Instead, it was Saccaka the Jain that introduced the phrase, probably from Jainism.

Then Saccaka the Nigantha...said to the Blessed One, "There are, Master Gotama, some brahmans & contemplatives who live committed to
  the development of the body..."

The Buddha answered as follows, which is just the standard teaching about development of mindfulness & wisdom in relation to the six spheres of sense contact:

And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

When suttas are read, such the often cited SN 44.10 which is about 'self' & 'no-self' (rather than about the Buddha's doctrine of 'not-self'), I suggest we should be very careful about putting words into the Buddha's mouth based on terms used in questions made by non-Buddhists.
Another example is the Tevijja Sutta, in which the Buddha answers questions to Brahmans, yet some scholars believe it is about Nibbana.

Asked about the path to union with Brahma, the Buddha explains it in terms of the Buddhist path, but ending with the four brahmaviharas;
  the abbreviated way the text is written out makes it unclear how much
  of the path comes before this; Robert Gombrich has argued that the
  Buddha was meaning union with Brahma as synonymous with nirvana.
  Wikipedia

Similarly, the Buddha often uses the term 'nama-rupa' in answers to questions made by Brahmans. Since the Brahmans did not know the Buddha's teachings, the term 'nama-rupa' in these contexts probably retains the Brahmanistic meaning.

It appears to be standard for the Buddha to answer a question by quoting it back word-for-word, which explains why 'development of mind' and 'development of body' are distinguished in this sutta. The meaning that is important to understand I think is to develop mindfulness.

Also the quote most taken from sutta MN 36 is probably  "I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities..." for discussions on the Middle Way

There Buddha said "The developed body" and "The developed mind" (I deliberately changed the word development of to developed because it would be more closer meaning to Buddha speech by following).
How you can have "developed mind" and "developed body" in Buddha teaching in this particular Sutta?
Developed Body
When a student of Buddha who has moderated mind and knowledge in teachings has pleasing sensation. Like having pleasing view by eyes, pleasing sound by ears, pleasing smell by noses, delicious and/or pleasing taste by tongue, pleasing touch by delicate fabrics/material(s) or by a touch of human being. One of the five senses of pleasing or very pleasing which make him/her "out of the world" feeling happens. Then this very clever student has his/her mind in a way that he/she does not leave the mind where it pleases, does not leave this pleasing sensation to overwhelm his/her mind (it does not make him/her obsession). He/she does not let his/her mind to follow the sensation. He/she does not let go Sati; he/she has Sati while he/she has pleasing sensation, Sukha. This is the one who has "developed body".
Developed Mind
When a student of Buddha who has moderated mind and knowledge in teachings has unpleasing sensation (suffering or very unpleasing sensation). Like having unpleasant view by eyes, unpleasant sound by ears, unpleasant smell by noses, unpleasant taste by tongue, unpleasant touch or pain in body. One of the five senses of unpleasing or very unpleasing which make him/her feel the pain happens. Or the pleasant sensation described above is ceased to persist or depleted.  Then this very clever student has his/her mind in a way that he/she does not leave the mind where it sticks himself/herself to feel the pain and allow himself/herself to let crying, lamenting, burning, loosing consciousness;he/she does not leave this unpleasing sensation to overwhelm his/her mind (it does not make him/her angry, sad). He/she does not let his/her mind to follow the sensation. He/she does not let go Sati; he/she has Sati while he/she has unpleasing sensation, Dukkha. This is the one who has "developed mind".
The rest of the Sutta said when Buddha was being a monk he had Dukkha when he did asceticism (limiting food intake himself, limiting breath), Dukkha Vedana cannot overwhelm his mind.
When he had Sukha Vedana (Dhyana Sukha which much more powerful and stronger than Sukha Vedana by five senses [Karma Sukha]), it cannot overwhelm Buddha's mind too. It is recommended to read the whole sutta to respect more on Buddha, to behave like Buddha when we have sufferings or pleasing sensations. This will lead you escape from all sufferings and guidance to attain Nirvana.


text:
Are the four noble truths supposed to be applied to every type of anguish separately?
In the answer to another question user Dhammadhatu wrote that according to the Four Noble Truths

suffering is to be comprehended,
the origin of suffering is to be abandoned,
the cessation of suffering is to be realised, and
the path to the cessation of suffering is to be developed.

That's the theory.
Is it correct that this process needs to be applied to different types of suffering separately, like explained below?
Imagine that on a given day I experienced and registered following phenomena:

Someone said something and I was upset for 15 minutes.
I was angry at the people around me in a crowded place and wanted punch them in the face.
Instead of doing something productive, I watched a movie I saw many times before.

All three are symptoms of suffering. In step 2 (origin of suffering is to be comprehended) I find out, what exactly it was that caused my suffering.

In the first example it may be my wish to be accepted by all people, and when someone reacted in an unexpected way, I interpreted it as if thy weren't liking/accepting me.
In the second example the cause of the suffering was my emotional (I just don't like it) and fact-based (among every 100 people, there are at least 5 rude idiots) aversion to crowded places.
In the third example the cause of the suffering was my thought that I'm too weak resisting the habit of watching movies I already saw.

Step 3 maybe the goal -- how do I want to behave in future, if I experience a similar situation? What could be a better response to it?
In the first example I could realize that the number of people, whose opinion really matters to me is very small, and the person I was upset about wasn't one of them.
In the second example I could decide to

avoid crowded spaces at all (e. g. by coming and going to work outside of the rush hours),
when I experience bad emotions I use them as motivators (emotional fuel) for work (say to myself "work hard now in order to never see those ... faces in the public transport").

In the third example I could decide to

allocate a quota of my weekly time for entertainment and then use it for that purpose without guilt,
define a healthy reward for not watching that movie (if I work instead of watching the movie today, I'll do something fun tomorrow),
during that work I'm supposed to do, regularly think about why (to what end) I do that work and artificially create a feeling of joy during work so that gradually it will become a reward in itself (more attractive than watching a movie).

The final and fourth step is to implement these solutions, i. e. develop a habit of reacting to old challenges in a new way. Then, other types of sufferings will appear, which I handle in an analogous way. Note that for every type of suffering I design a separate strategy.
Is this how the Dharma practice is supposed to work?

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

To answer your question, 'yes', dhamma practise is done in ways you described.
When it is comprehended our suffering arises from our self-centred desires & attachments towards things, we work to change those unhealthy desires, views & habitual reactions (which arise in many forms & are summarised as greed, hatred & delusion).
This is called 'Right Effort', which is the effort to prevent & give up unhealthly & unwise states of mind and the effort to develop & maintain healthy & wise states of mind.
This 'Right Effort', particularly in the social situations you described, often is about changing the way we think about & view things and often requires the creative & thoughtful efforts shown in your post. In Buddhism, this creative thinking for developing solutions is called 'wise reflection' ('yoniso manasikara'). The purpose of it is to change to a kind of thinking that does not produce greed, hatred, anger, confusion & suffering.
The Buddhist scriptures provide an example of this in the discourse on Two Sorts of Thinking

i think all strategies must be based on certain principles, which are also dhammic, and in fact grow out of them, so that a few strategies as possible would cover as much base as possible, because otherwise the practice becomes unnecessarily particular, unsystematic and caught up in strategies
in fact the method described in the suttas is very simple and straightforward: one analyzes whether or not their actions, speech and thoughts enhance the existing and engender the absent wholesome qualities  and whether or not they reduce the existing and prevent emergence of the absent unwholesome qualities, and so acts accordingly doing more of that which enhances and engenders wholesome qualities and less of that which enhances and engenders their opposites

It feels to me that all can be worked with discursive meditation.

In the first example I could realize that the number of people, whose opinion really matters to me is very small, and the person I was upset about wasn't one of them.

To me, this solution is still focused on craving/aversion. The reason why we feel upset is because "we crave" acceptance, which is one of the eight worldly preoccupations: the pursuit of praise. As long as we're holding to this "craving", there is not small enough set of people whose opinions will lead us to suffering.

In the second example I could decide to

avoid crowded spaces at all (e. g. by coming and going to work outside of the rush hours),

Again, for me, this solution is still focused on craving/aversion. In this case, the worldly preoccupation is the avoidance of discomfort. Discomfort is inevitable; what is not is our reaction to it. For example, one could deal with this specific problem by doing loving-kindness with all the crowd, or thinking that we're exposed to this crowd in order to do virtuous actions (such as work) which will lead to the ease of suffering for ourselves and others (i.e., "I'm carrying this suffering so other people won't have to", or "as many others have suffered for me, this is my time to suffer for others").

when I experience bad emotions I use them as motivators (emotional fuel) for work (say to myself "work hard now in order to never see those ... faces in the public transport").

Using our emotions as fuel for the pursuit of material acquisitions and the avoidance of their loss is even a greater pathway to suffering. Not only we're identifying with our emotions, but we are using them to increase our ignorance. There is nothing wrong with being with other people; there is nothing wrong with being other people. They, as us, are there trying to be happy, trying to make other people happy, and trying to avoid suffering. No amount of money or status in the world will prevent us from feeling or seeing ours and other peoples' suffering.

In the third example I could decide to

allocate a quota of my weekly time for entertainment and then use it for that purpose without guilt,
define a healthy reward for not watching that movie (if I work instead of watching the movie today, I'll do something fun tomorrow),
during that work I'm supposed to do, regularly think about why (to what end) I do that work and artificially create a feeling of joy during work so that gradually it will become a reward in itself (more attractive than watching a movie).

In this case, two preoccupations are arising: the pursuit of stimulus-driven pleasure and its counterpart, the avoidance of discomfort. As long as we crave for pleasure, we will suffer. Rewarding ourselves with stimulus for having gone through some suffering will only lead us to more craving, because we're coping with suffering by means of stimulus. There is nothing wrong with watching movies or to relax; what drives us to suffer from such activities is that we haven't done what's important today (this doesn't mean work): the acts that will lead us to a good death. One solution here is to meditate on our precious human life of leisure and opportunity, and on the inevitability of our death. If we don't act now, tomorrow will be too late; there is no time to loose today if we haven't worked on our spiritual practice, our tours, our work, our goals. If we have, today we can watch the movie without fear, as if we die this instant, we won't feel we have wasted our lives (and because watching this movie will help us tomorrow to act with virtue, i.e., a good motivation).

Remember: we are not among bullets and persecution; we are not working ourselves to exhaustion; we don't have mental or physical restrictions; we have this precious human life of leisure and opportunity to be happy, to make others happy, to meditate on the four noble truths and to release ourselves from ignorance and to ease the suffering of all sentient beings.
Our lives are finite, they can end right this moment; there is no time to waste. In order to have a good death we have to have a good life, not tomorrow... today. A good life is not a life full of pleasures or achievements, is a life full of love, compassion and truth for ourselves and others.

From my perspective, the answer to your question is "It Depends". Please forgive me as I go off on a ramble... :-)
There is essentially only one type of 'anguish' and that is "that which arises from craving". However, many buddhist monks have geeked out over the years in categorizing various "types" of things in order to create their own understanding in practice about their condition. It is useful, but it probably isn't "the underlying state" they are talking about, but mental forms.
You have spent a laudable amount of effort thinking about how to fulfill the various conditions to reach equanimity. That's a very good thing, and is important to raising of sensitivity to your condition that you need to develop.
However, The Practice is what is the most important thing. "Thinking" about Practice is second, even though it does tend to condition our Practice.
Also, although Theravada practice is a bit proscriptive for me (as mentioned above.. and if that works for you, then please go in that direction!) I don't believe there is much to gain from continuously questioning every action we take. Rather, being aware of conditions inside our own being that occur when things happen is much more important to our path.
Yes, being aware of those things which cause us and others suffering is important. However, how do you judge the particulars? What is "enough" fun, or relaxation? What is too much? Although we believe we know what "extremes" of these look like, as far as normal boundaries these tend to be arbitrary distinctions, codified into traditions by monks that grew tired of these questions and made up a simple formula that would work for anyone. They knew that if you practiced long enough you would see through this, and find the ground on which you stand.
In the end, the main thing that matters is letting go of Attachment and Craving. That's it. The Path(s) are ways to approach that goal, and The Noble Truths are the guideposts that show you which direction to go. The behavioral, moral and ethical boundaries you set along the way should be informed by your practice, and by compassion towards yourself and other sentient beings. Often, this is the hard part for people.. so they follow a set of guidelines set down by others, and that is perfectly great. But don't forget... these are not written on stone.. they are just starting points.
By the way, I'll paraphrase a number of masters when I say... please don't try to eliminate desire, for that would be as ridiculous as ridding yourself of your head if you wanted to stop thinking.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Finding the source of a sutta
How do you find out the source of a sutta? For example, MN 109, SN 56.11
begin

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One

How do we know who this author is? Is there general guidance on who to attribute the suttas to?

I don't know much about this but according to Wikipedia (here and here) it was Ananda who narrated the stories in the suttas.

A council of 500 Arahats was held at Rajgir (Sanskrit: Rājagaha) to agree the contents of the Dhamma and Vinaya. Ananda recited the Suttas, such that each begins: ‘Thus have I heard’.

aha, so Ananda is most likely going to be the author of those suttas. Also from accesstoinsight, the suttas were "...delivered by the Buddha and his close disciples...as well as many additional verses by other members of the Sangha. "

Most of the back stories are included in the commentaries. For English readers I recommend Mr. Piya Tan's translations and commentaries which are available at www.dharmafarer.org

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


text:
What enters the mind of an idle Buddha?
What enters the mind of a Buddha when left idle? Suppose a Buddha were confined to a hospital bed or prison cell. One cannot remain within the conditioned states of jhana indefinitely. If one is unconditionally content, even in states of pain, it would seem there is no need to reflect or contemplate anything. Can you cite specific examples from the Buddha's life?

From parinibbana suttha

16: The Gracious One’s Sickness

Then the Gracious One, after living near Ambapālī’s Wood for as long
  as he liked, addressed venerable Ānanda, saying: “Come Ānanda let us
  approach the little village of Beluva.”
“Very well, reverend Sir,” venerable Ānanda replied to the Gracious
  One. Then the Gracious One together with a great Community of monks
  arrived at the little village of Beluva. There the Gracious One lived
  near the little village of Beluva.
There the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Go, monks, and
  undertake the Rains Retreat in the vicinity of Vesālī living like
  friends, like companions, like comrades, and I will spend the Rains
  Retreat right here at the little village of Beluva.”
“Very well, reverend Sir,” and those monks, after replying to the
  Gracious One, undertook the Rains Retreat in the vicinity of Vesālī
  living like friends, like companions, like comrades. But the Gracious
  One spent the Rains Retreat right there at the little village of
  Beluva.
Then while dwelling for the Rains Retreat, a heavy affliction arose
  for the Gracious One, and continued with strong and death-like
  feelings. There the Gracious One dwelt mindfully, with full awareness,
  and without being troubled. Then this occurred to the Gracious One:
  “It is not suitable that I, without having addressed my attendants,
  without having given notice to the Community of monks, should attain
  Final Emancipation. Having energetically dismissed this affliction, I
  could live on after determining the lifespan.”
Then the Gracious One having energetically dismissed that affliction
  lived on after determining the lifespan. Then the Gracious One’s
  affliction abated. Then, the Gracious One, having risen from that
  sickness, not long after rising, departed from the Sick Room and sat
  down on the prepared seat in front of that Room.
Then venerable Ānanda approached the Gracious One, and after
  approaching and worshipping the Gracious One, he sat down on one side.
  While sitting on one side venerable Ānanda said this to the Gracious
  One:
“I have seen, reverend Sir, the Gracious One comfortable, I have seen,
  reverend Sir, the Gracious One bearing up while sick, and my body,
  reverend Sir, became faint as it were, and although I could not see
  straight, and things were not clear, it appeared to me, reverend Sir,
  that the Gracious One was sick, but it was some small comfort that the
  Gracious One would not attain Final Emancipation until the Gracious
  One had spoken regarding the Community of monks.”
“But what, Ānanda, does the Community of monks expect of me? The
  Teaching has been taught by me, Ānanda, without having made a
  distinction between esoteric and exoteric, for the Realised One there
  is nothing, Ānanda, of a closed teacher’s fist in regard to the
  Teaching.
To whoever, Ānanda, this thought occurs: ‘I will lead the Community of
  monks’ or ‘I am the instructer of the Community of monks’ let him
  speak, Ānanda, regarding the Community of monks. But to the Realised
  One, Ānanda, this thought does not occur: ‘I will lead the Community
  of monks’ or ‘I am the instructor of the Community of monks’. Then
  why, Ānanda, should the Realised One speak regarding the Community of
  monks?
I, Ānanda, at present, am old, elderly, of great age, far gone,
  advanced in years, I am eighty years old. It is like, Ānanda, an old
  cart, which only keeps going when shored up with bamboo, just so,
  Ānanda, I think the Realised One’s body only keeps going when shored
  up with bamboo.
When the Realised One doesn’t pay attention, Ānanda, to any of the
  signs, when all feelings have ceased, he lives having established the
  signless mind-concentration, and at that time, Ānanda, the Realised
  One’s body is most comfortable.
Therefore, Ānanda, live with yourself as an island, yourself as a
  refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the
  Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge. And how, Ānanda, does a
  monk live with himself as an island, himself as a refuge, with no
  other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a
  refuge, with no other refuge?
Here, Ānanda, a monk dwells contemplating the nature of the body in
  the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and
  sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of
  feelings in feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing
  avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the
  nature of the mind in the mind, ardent, fully aware, and mindful,
  after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells
  contemplating the nature of things in various things, ardent, fully
  aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the
  world.
Thus, Ānanda, a monk lives with himself as an island, himself as a
  refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the
  Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge. For whoever, Ānanda,
  whether at present or after my passing, lives with himself as an
  island, himself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching
  as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge, those
  monks of mine, Ānanda, will go from darkness to the highest—whoever
  likes the training.”
The Second Chapter for Recital is Finished.

http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta4/39-Moggalana-Samyutta/01-Moggallanasamyuttam-e.html

A Buddha would meditate or, as was posted, not reflect on or contemplate anything. The scriptures do report the Buddha often disappeared for periods of solitude (eg. SN 54.9).
Otherwise, a Buddha might use psychic powers to teach people (eg. AN 6.55).

From the Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1):

Then, while he (Buddha) was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose
  in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to
  see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation
  delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment.
  For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment,
  enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising
  are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of
  all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending
  of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach
  the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be
  tiresome for me, troublesome for me."
As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at
  ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.
Then Brahma Sahampati, having known with his own awareness the line of
  thinking in the Blessed One's awareness, thought: "The world is lost!
  The world is destroyed! The mind of the Tathagata, the Arahant, the
  Rightly Self-awakened One inclines to dwelling at ease, not to
  teaching the Dhamma!" Then, just as a strong man might extend his
  flexed arm or flex his extended arm, Brahma Sahampati disappeared from
  the Brahma-world and reappeared in front of the Blessed One. Arranging
  his upper robe over one shoulder, he knelt down with his right knee on
  the ground, saluted the Blessed One with his hands before his heart,
  and said to him: "Lord, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the
  One-Well-Gone teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in
  their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma.
  There will be those who will understand the Dhamma."

From the Tapokammasutta (SN 4.1):

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Uruvela on the bank
  of the river Nerañjara at the foot of the Goatherd’s Banyan Tree just
  after he had become fully enlightened. Then, while the Blessed One
  was alone in seclusion, a reflection arose in his mind thus: “I am
  indeed freed from that gruelling asceticism! It is good indeed that I
  am freed from that useless gruelling asceticism! It is good that,
  steady and mindful, I have attained enlightenment!”
Then Mara the Evil One, having known with his own mind the reflection
  in the Blessed One’s mind, approached the Blessed One and addressed
  him in verse:
“Having deviated from the austere practice
  By which men purify themselves,
  Being impure, you think you’re pure:
  You have missed the path to purity.”
Then the Blessed One, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,”
  replied to him in verses:
“Having known as useless any austerity
  Aimed at the immortal state,
  That all such penances are futile
  Like oars and rudder on dry land,
By developing the path to enlightenment—
  Virtue, concentration, and wisdom—
  I have attained supreme purity:
  You’re defeated, End-maker!”
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, “The Blessed One knows me, the
  Fortunate One knows me,” sad and disappointed, disappeared right
  there.

Agree on this ...it has always been an aim of mine to be content  in any situation the term grounded in dharma also comes to mind .

after his enlightenment, the Buddha could have spent the rest of his life in idle non-doing but did not. He continued teaching the dhamma until its end when he was no longer given a choice. Why? Is non-doing alone not sufficient for sustainable contentment?

Buddha did Arahata Phala Samapatta (Extinguished, emptiness and neglecting any sankhara needed to be maintained, in brief Buddha was in the state of leaning Nirvana), in between his daily routines and his discourses on Dhamma.
When people are in aversion each other Buddha stayed with Metta, when people are in vain with debate/disagreement Buddha stayed with Upekkha. Buddha looked for people with sufferings to discourse Dhamma with Karuna Samapatta in every morning.

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


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

Refined now from the thoughts of very knowledgeable sources ..I am now leaning towards awareness as a way to be as it is ...it appears that at some point consciousness is complicating some things in my mind yet consciousness is needed for life ...also aware of self consciousness being a hindrance !

You have added the tag "Vipassana" to the question. Does that mean that you are looking for answers pertaining to a purely practical (insight meditational) perspective?

Also, are you looking for Sutta pitaka-answers or Abhidhamma-answers?

Insight meditation is all I have and learnd from temple ...I found profound clarity and light in a dark room so I took vippsaana to the forest ....became a recluse for many yrs and am slowly reengaging in society frm my understanding of reality.

Yes to Lanka and first question ...to me the right way to reach right view is vippassna as it once truly appreciated and refined can Pearce the vale of ignorance and illusions to see things as they truly are .

Your experience sounds like what Lisa Cairns talks about in her videos. There is a "Buddha at the Gas Pump" interview with her that you might be interested in. She mentions living in the forest for 3 years after her initial awakening (in Australia). "Sudden Awakening" is one of the ways that people get to nonduality. Usually takes years of refinement after, though. See also Byron Katie (TheWork.com), another sudden awakening situation.

In Pali Buddhism, 'consciousness' ('vinnana') is the sense awareness or cognition that operates through the six sense organs to facilite: (i) seeing; (ii) hearing; (iii) smelling; (iv) tasting; (v) touching &; (iv) knowing of the mind's internal feelings, perceptions, moods, thoughts, images, etc.
To use a rough analogy, 'consciousness' can be compared to the mere reflecting of an image by a mirror. Consciousness only 'reflects' sense objects, like a mirror, that is all. Consciousness does not 'think' or 'analyse', just like a mirror does not think or analyse.
To quote:

And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness
SN 12.2

~~~

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises.
Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
Dependent on intellect (mano) & ideas, intellect-consciousness (mano-vinnana) arises.
The meeting of the three is sense contact.
MN 18

In Pali Buddhism, the ability to rationalize, analyse & concentrate are other functions of other kinds of mentality (called 'mano', 'nama', 'sankhara khandha', etc).
Each of these mental functions, be they consciousness ('vinnana'), intellect ('mano') or mental intention ('sankhara khandha'), can operate without ego or self ('atta'). 'Ego' or 'self' is a natural instinctual yet ignorant idea the mind imputes upon conscious experience & mental activity. (If interested, read more here).
In Buddhism, what 'we' are is a product of the mind's accumulated & conditioned intentions & thinking (sankhara khandha) & thus 'what we are' is essentially unrelated to consciousness itself (even though what 'we' are are thoughts about what the mind is conscious of).
In short, we are what we 'think' we are. What we think we are is called 'bhava' ('becoming' or 'existence') in Buddhism. To quote:

The craving that makes for further becoming (bhava) — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving to be (bhava), craving not to be (vibhava):
  This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification
  described by the Blessed One.
MN 44

The 'view' or 'belief' ('ditthi') of 'what we are' is what the mind clings or attaches to (rather than what the mind is conscious of). To quote again:

There are these five clingings to the aggregates, friend Visakha: clinging to the form (body) aggregate, clinging to the feeling (vedana) aggregate, clinging to the perception (sanna) aggregate, clinging to the fabricating aggregate (sankhara khandha), clinging to the consciousness (vinnana) aggregate. These five clingings to the aggregates
  are the self-identification ('sakkhaya ditthi') described by the Blessed One."
MN 44

For example, a small baby, before its mind/brain is mature enough to develop ideas of "me" & "I", is continually conscious of an image, sound, smell, taste & touch of a certain woman. Then one day, when the mind/brain became mature enough, it started to categorise (label & solidify) those images, sounds, smells, tastes & touches as "my mother". This categorising of "my mother" was the beginning of developing the ideas that dictate what we are or what we think ourselves to be.
To continue the original quote from above so to incorporate the process of thinking:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies
MN 18

What "we" are, namely, "self-identification", is what the mind thinks & objectifies about.

Certainly an interesting and yes factual answer to my question..I guess at the point of contact with senses and mind is what we could call consciousness!

Also like to clarify that to my knowledge " consciousness " is more subjective. Than " awareness " which is not so much a sense driven vehical ,,!

Thanks. Science uses the term 'consciousness' is many ways but, in Buddhism, consciousness is something 'objective'. It is the various perceptions & mental categorizations that arise after consciousness which are 'subjective'. Essentially our 'eyes' each see an object the same but we each may judge or impute a different meaning onto that conscious experience, which is the subjectivity. Regards

Yes true again ...my humble layman's truth in Buddhism so far let's me know that this is an inward study into each of our minds ...the difference is the ego , and the hidden gems are in consciousness and awareness as I think we now safely say that each is dependent on individual perception ...ie two people looking at the same cloud in space might see it in a personal form or for what it is simply a cloud in space ,hence Buddhism is the latter,,

The Sutta MN38: Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta might be helpful:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns —
  a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Welcome ...this is very much of my like in more lesser words ...pls chk new comment ...the judging or identifying is where some of us miss the greater picture of which could simply be look ..feel ...think ..hear... smell don't attach just experience the moment for what it is a transient moment that's all it will ever be all else is clinging .

Consciousness is simply to know or awareness of contact.

Is it simply the ability to rationalize, analyze and most important concentrate? With or without ego?

What you describe there seems like thinking and pondering. Through thoughts ego arises and always associated with and unwholesome root. Also see: Tanhā Jālinī Sutta

Does consciousness dictate who we are?

Yes and no. Concies does not on its own does nothing to dictate who we are. We are formed due to past conditioning. This is decided by whether we react to the feelings arising from contact with craving, aversion and ignorance. E.g. you touch a soft fabric and think I want this. This creates fabrications and becoming.

Yes partially agree with the latter to my knowledge is concerned with I am looking ( eye ) = conscious of seeing soft fabric the ego will then say I want it  , all of the above will be under the management of awareness ie the imagery , thought ,emotion and observation will = awareness of what's going on .much appreciate all the answers.


text:
Can good and evil live in harmony?
Presently I found an old steel bangle belonging to the sheik faith ...and I started to think of circle and unity how pleasent it would be to flow freely, and then I had the ephifany that this is possible except for the friction caused by opposites that have put a stop to  my flow.
Is it me or are we as yet not free from this cosmic and earthly struggle between contradictions ie good and evil //heat //cool ..night //day there seems to be a checker board pattern emerging to me . the  sessation of suffering according to my knowledge of Buddhism is to recognise the hindrances.
And rectify them in order to escape from the karma wheel of cause and effect .  so again .. Conflict if opposing ideas or suggestions would be suffering to me as well as all sentient beings in this case I'm yet again asking like many before me can there exist harmony amongst chaos ? Or good amongst evil both subjectively and objectively ....good - a small Daisy flower evil - this very flower will kill a person allergic to it!!

I'm closing this question as both question title and content is unclear. Question can be reopened once rephrased in a clearer way. Please add relevant context to the question that reflects question title. Also specify what is meant by "good and evil" and "harmony". Also, you might consider adding the "ethics-tag" to your question.

Lanka you have appeared from the tear drop island and are causing a lot of pain ...it's a fair question

Edit: added line-spacing to increase readability. I still think question-content is unclear. We will give it a try and see what the community decides. Question reopened.

Ok good show ol chap!! Here's a very important question for you Lanka ..is your mind as you would know it belong to you or the great Lord Buddha? Very best in your responce...

(this is less Buddhism than a demonstration that actions within the empirical world do not suit Essential concepts like 'good' and 'evil'.. though to me this flows from the Buddha's analysis!)
Moral system 1: Killing = Evil (100%).
You wake up and find yourself faced with two option (you are placed in this position by a third actor).
Option A, kill 1 person.
Option B, 100 people are killed (by that third actor).
Knowing that 'Killing = Evil', you choose option B (within that 100%, the non-relational, there can be no justification for choosing A).. In that you do not personally pull the trigger, you are not the 'efficient cause'. You have done no wrong (within your moral system).
Moral system 2: No killing > less killing > more killing.
Logically, B is never reasonable.
An essential moral construct like 'good' or 'evil' will agree with a relational moral construct in all scenarios, other than the one where it is compared to itself. As such, it is simply inefficient. No need for opposites in their essential form!
"Treat this as this, not this as that or that as this" As the Buddha said. (in other words, not 'This=This'.. given evidence from empirical experience, the law of identity is flawed!)
Now how this fits in within the Buddhist world view, whether you can put it down to past karma for finding yourself in such a position.. how to square that you are damned either way is the more interesting question! :D

In buddhism you perceive everyhit experience in 2 opposites may it be hot or cold, long or short, good or evil, etc. as simply:

favorable or
unfavorable or
do not care

If you perceive something favorable you get a good feeling about it and get attached and if unfavorable you get a bad feeling about it and get averse.
What ever experience you should keep a balanced mind and use each experience to eradicate the unwholesome roots. See: Pahāna Sutta. The bipolar evaluation something as favorable and unfavorable always result in either craving or aversion hence result in misery. Also may result in Sensory Desire and Ill Will.
Moreover, if you are allergic to a flower and if hurts someone, this being good or bad is matter of perception hence resulting is pleasant and unpleasant sensation followed by craving and aversion followed by becoming. So if might be that the perception which may create more misery now and in the future than a person who is getting an allergic reaction. The allergic reaction maybe his Karma or negligence. When you harmonise your mind the notion of good (being favorable) and evil (unfavorable) will not be present but you will be equanimous.

Conditioned responce is what I think you referring too... My question however is between good and evil is there an underlying factor that is inhibiting harmony...ie we all need to be happy then deciding so and applying methods like Buddhism should work

There is no good and evil per say. It is just a perception. What comes close is skillful and unskillful.


text:
Did Lord Buddha gain enlightenment by inquiring into death?
I remember one just one of my treasured books 1955 copy of " the teachings of a compassionate Buddha" where I read that the Lord had a morbid fascination with death ..suffering etc and inquiring of death ( possibly a force //entity within)he gained insight into a possible way out of suffering ..rebirth etc pls let me know if this is true ?
For example there is reference made to countless past lives of the Buddha by him so I guess he was able to tap into his own death.

While living in the palace, Prince Gotama realised he would die (read Sukhamala Sutta), which resulted in him losing intoxication with the ordinary life of pursuing transient pleasures, which he also saw caused anguish & addiction in people and brought little happiness & much disappointment (read Magandiya Sutta).
In other words, Gotama did not directly or actively inquire into death to gain enlightenment because death was an established fact to him. The 'morbidity' referred to is 'suffering' & Gautama's inquiry was always into suffering.
Therefore, when inquiring into suffering, Gotama inquired into Dependent Origination (read Maha Sakyamuni Gotamo Sutta). Gotama asked: "Why do beings suffer?" and answered: "Beings suffer due to aging & death", i.e, "loss'. Then Gotama asked: "Why do beings suffer due to aging & death?". His answer was "birth". Why does birth occur? Due to becoming & attachment, etc.
As for his countless "past lives" and also the word "reborn" (in  SN 12.10, above), these are just mistranslations of the respective Pali words "pubbe nivāsa" and "uppajjati". For example, this translation of SN 22.79 correctly does not use the words "past lives". Instead, it uses "past abodes".
Everything above points to something called "birth" ("jati") as being the main problem the Buddha identified. After his enlightenment, the Buddha's 1st words were:

153. Through many a birth (jati) in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (gaha). Repeated birth is indeed
  suffering!
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving
Dhammapada

What "birth" ('jati') actually means will depend on your personal study, practise & realisation.
The Haliddakani Sutta may possibly provide some insight into what the Buddha meant by "abodes/homes/fixations" ('nivāsa'/nivesā) and "house/home" ('gaha').

Excellent work.. My opinion too only thing is if non of us had existence ie birth , we would have nothing to do ! Haha


text:
Life and why we (mankind ) exist
I'm stuck on this for now ...does the Buddha say anything about why we exist ( mankind ? I know how much he stated about reasons why we should not exist such as Nirvana being the highest goal to escape from the karma bond!! Just like to know for balance of reality.

this not an anwser but my point of view. let's say that happiness exist because suffering exist. and by observing the suffering we are bound to observe the happiness. it's a quest.

The main point of paṭiccasamuppāda pretty much comes down to: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". And so the reason to our existence, not just mankind but pretty much all conditioned phenomena is that the condition or the root cause for that existence still exists. So in our particular case, the reason we, mankind, still exists is because the conditions to our existence, the 3 unwholesome roots of greed, hatred, and ignorance, still exist. And as long as one has not completely uprooted them, s/he will continue to wander in Samsara's 6 realms of existence.

So in a coconut shell  if all the conditioned phenonminon were to uproot  negative stimulus ..greed ..anger so forth then we would cease to exist,  strange !!

31 realms. Not 6!

Sameasu, shouldn't be too strange. A car can only keep going if there's still fuel. A fire can only keep burning if there's still oxygen. A person can only keep getting reborn if there's still kamma driven by the 3 unwholesome roots.
SankhaKulathantille, 31 is not the only classification. Depends on how one wants to slice and dice the realms: could be 3 (sense-desire, form, and formless), or 6 (hell, affliced spirits, animal, human, asuras, deva), or 31...

'Existence' ('bhava') is a mental 'view' ('ditthi'). When the mind is free from 'self-view', 'existence' will cease. Instead, there will only be mental & physical 'elements' (dhatu) rather than 'existence'.

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one
  sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
  discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
  occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
  is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world
  does not occur to one.
Kaccayanagotta Sutta

~~~

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Vajira Sutta

In terms of 'physical life', this comes from the elements & from mother & father.

...this body composed of the four elements, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge...
Ganda Sutta


text:
Where did the hindrances originate from?
So far I have been exposed to some frontier thinking (thanks for those who truly are helping).
Where did the "hindrances" originate from?
The question is, who or what transpired for us to have these negative  conditions?
For example, the Bible talks in mystery about "sin", which is a transgression of "divine law".
So in Buddhism, somewhere in the universe of mind, is the origin of the hindrances something like craving/desire that gave birth to suffering? From what was that born out off, and for what reason if any?

A new born child is born (refer to MN 64) with the underlying tendencies (refer to AN 7.11) to the five hindrances. The child is born that way.

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
  underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
  infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
  could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
  tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
  does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
  and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
  rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
  prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could
  sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
  lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
  have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise
  in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.
MN 64

The hindrances (sensual desire, ill-will, restlessness & remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt) are just more elements ('dhatu'). To quote MN 115:

There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the sensual desire element, the renunciation element, the ill will element, the non-ill will
  element, the cruelty element, and the non-cruelty element. When he
  knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in
  the elements.”

The hindrances come from ignorance & are sustained by the three types of bad karma.

"Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."
Avijja Sutta

~~~

the five hindrances, too, have their nutriment ('food'), monks; they are not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of the five
  hindrances? 'The three ways of wrong conduct,' should be the answer.
AN 10.61

In Pali Buddhism, ignorance is the 1st cause for the creation of the 'worlds' (of mental sufferings).

And what is the origination of the world? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....from becoming as a requisite
  condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
  & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into
  play. This is the origination of the world.
SN 12.44

What primitive religions such as Judaism call 'God', Buddhism calls 'ignorance'. For example, Genesis 6:5 describes how God regretted his creation, which shows how God has ignorance. Since 'regret/remorse' is one of the five hindrances, God also has hindrances. God also loves the smell of the the fatty parts of the meat (Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 3; etc), which shows God also has the hindrance of sensual desire.
More modern religions, such as Christianity, teach 'God is love' (1 John 4:8). In Christianity, God has no hindrances because it is said: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).
If the old Jewish God is the same as the new Christian God, maybe this God learned how to be free from the five hindrances from the Buddha, who is the "Teacher of Gods & men" (sattha devamanussanam).

I often used to think God of being lonely so for want ( desire ) of more company creation was born !! That was a while before now ignorance ?? Do you just mean lack of truth or a choice and yes agree the holy bible has a very human like God  my favorite frm scripture in the old testimony is Ecclesiastes very much on the topic of Buddhism ...all is futile a chase after the wind "" . so through ignorance began all this worldly suffering..

Yes after further study ...I agree that ignorances are the root causes ..

Ecclesiastes like Proverbs, Job, etc, are post-exilic writings, meaning they were composed after the Jewish exile in Babylon. The creation story is probably also post-exilic since it includes the 'Tree of Life', which is only found in Proverbs & the New Testament. In other words, they were probably influenced by the new Buddhism. After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah. Ecclesiastes. The presence of Persian loan-words and Aramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE (Wikipedia)

Right now I think there was a wave of thinking around 500bc that was different to the usual normality ...Buddhism along with Ecclesiastes are correct views expressed in word and when one inquired about the teaching we can asuredly say it's true within the experience we term as life . also like the Buddha , Ecclesiastes stands out in its form as the bible is structured to save mankind however in this book we learn how things are futility and very difficult to understand let achieve realisation .


text:
When the obstacles are abandoned does one experience dharma everywhere?
When I first started to think of encouraging myself on the path I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see and experience dharma in an all pervading way " omniscient " is this true or false ...to sum it up once reaching enlightenment there should be a connection made with some sort of unified reality.

I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see
  and experience dharma in an all pervading way

Wrong! There's no seeing at the moment of cessation. All experiences cease. There is no arising.
Only the Buddhas attain omniscience with enlightenment. Others do not!

Connection made with some sort of unified reality.

There's no such thing called a "unified reality". But just before cessation, you will come to the understanding that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, unsatisfactory & uncontrollable.
Read the answer given by ven.Yuttadhammo to the following question:
How does stream entry occur?

Yuttadhammo's answer that: "This release leads to an experience of cessation, where there is no arising of sense experience (including mental sense experience)" does not conform with the Pali suttas. This may be because Yuttadhammo does not quote the Pali suttas but other ideas such as the Visuddhimagga. The only "cessation" without the arising of sense experience is the "cessation of perception & feeling", which is only a concentration state and not the goal of the Buddhist noble path.

Venerable Yuttadhammo talks about the moment of attaining Nibbana. Not how an Arahant would experience life after attaining Nibbana. There's no conflict with the Suttas.

The moment of attaining Nibbana is the destruction of craving & clinging. Yuttadhammo would have to quote the Pali suttas to support his questionable claims. Regards.

He has quoted Visuddhimagga, which is the most recognized treatise in Theradvada Buddhism. If you think that it contradicts with any sutta, you have to be more specific than that. I see no contradiction with the sutta quotes you have given in your answer.

Just wanted to say that the aim of everyone which practices this path buddhism should have aims varied they might be but unified in the sense we want to abandon suffering and ultimate aim is for enlightenment . .if it was for only the Buddha then why have followers on his path . ?

@Sameasu The noble eight fold path leads to only 1 destination. i.e. Nibbana(end of suffering). The Buddha's Nibbana comes with omniscience as a bonus. But you need not become omniscient to attain Nibbana. A being who attains Nibbana without omniscience is called an Arahant except in the case of Pacceka Buddhas. You can aspire to be a Buddha too, but it's extremely difficult and takes eons of cultivating the mind. You dont need to be a Buddha to end suffering.

At point of cessation what you understand is Dependent Arising in some form of the other. The main systematised whay this is described is:

Four Noble Truths
Dependent Origination
Conditional Relations

Also see Dependent Arising by Piya Tan and The Conditionality of Life by Nina van Gorkom.
Some teachers emphasise on the three marks of existence though from my learning these are necessary but not sufficient realisations, i.e., if you have seen the 1st glimpse of Nirvana you have also seen the three marks of existence but having seen it does not necessarily mean you have seen Nirvana. Necessary and sufficient condition being understanding of 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Arising or / and Conditional Relations at the experiential level through at this point you will have the knowledge of the three marks of existence also. [1] and also Goenka's instruction in 20 day course mentions the 1st grilms is when you see the links of depedent origination break and reform.

[1]

In the Visuddhimagga there are nine insight knowledges. In the sub-commentary written by Mahasi Sayadaw, there are 16 knowledges. And supposedly you are supposed to be able to attain nibbana by seeing anicca, dukkha, or anatta. After you get to what to what they call Sankharu – pekkha; that means “equanimity to formations.” That is the 11th insight knowledge. When you go through this knowledge - far enough - you get to a place where you will see anicca arise 4 or 5 times very, very quickly. Or dukkha arise 4 or 5 times very, quickly. Or anatta arise 4 or 5 times very, quickly. And then you have a black-out. When you come back you will see all the insight knowledges you have gone through; it will happen automatically and you have them in the right order. That’s what they call nibbana. I understand these insight knowledges all the way up to 16. That is not nibbana.

Source: Bhante Vimalaramsi turns the whole history of Buddhism upside down

The word "cessation" ("nirodha") as a Noble Truth means the cessation of craving & suffering (rather than the cessation of sense experience or life). To quote:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same
  craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it,
  nonreliance on it.
SN 56.11

~~~

Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
  released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
  remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element
Iti 44

'Cessation' is part of both the beginning & end of the noble path. For example, the Anapanasati Sutta states the mindfulness that leads in insight ('investigation-of-dhammas') is supported by 'cessation' and also has the final result of (final) 'cessation' (of suffering). To quote:

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation,
  and ripens in relinquishment. He develops the investigation-of-states
  enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion, and
  cessation, and ripens in relinquishment.
A bhikkhu trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating
  impermanence’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating fading
  away’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating fading away’;
  trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating cessation’; trains
  thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating cessation’; trains thus: ‘I
  shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment’; trains thus: ‘I shall
  breathe out contemplating relinquishment’— on that occasion a bhikkhu
  abides contemplating Dhamma as Dhamma, ardent, fully aware and
  mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. Having
  seen with wisdom the abandoning of covetousness and grief, he closely
  looks on with equanimity.

The reason why cessation also is required at the beginning of the noble path is because if a person cannot abandon the basic forms of craving, they will struggle to progress very far.
At the point of final cessation, dependent origination actually ceases (rather than is understood). Understanding dependent origination is required to achieve cessation rather than is the result of cessation. To quote how dependent origination ends when the mind is established in cessation:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering.
On hearing a sound with the ear…On smelling an odour with the nose…On tasting a flavour with the tongue…On touching a tangible with the
  body…On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, he does not lust after
  it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing…With
  the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
  cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
  being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
  death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
  the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving

If final cessation occurs, the living & present mind will always be unified with seeing the true nature of conditioned reality (i.e., impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) & also always be unified with the permanent, satisfactory, not-self & unconditioned Nibbana (perfect peace).
As the Dhammapada states:

21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. The heedful die not.
22. Clearly understanding this excellence of heedfulness, the wise exult therein and enjoy the resort of the Noble Ones.
23. The wise ones, ever meditative and steadfastly persevering, alone experience Nibbana, the incomparable freedom from bondage.
2. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

There are three characteristics: things are (everything is) impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self.
I think it's said that a person's first glimpse of nirvana is clearly seeing at least one of these: for example, "everything is impermanent" or "everything is unsatisfactory". Clearly seeing one of these leads to detachment etc.
It's not "omniscient" (i.e. "knowing everything"): but it is what you said in the title (i.e. "experience dharma everywhere"), in that it is seeing these (dharmic) characteristics in everything.

A related term is Vicikitsa (which means "doubt"): this is one of the so-called "10 fetters", and is one of the first 3 fetters abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment.

Some kind of supernatural knowledge (e.g. Abhijñā) is also mentioned in the Buddhist tradition; however the psychic powers are not synonymous with enlightenment (people might be enlightened without have such power, and vice versa).

to sum it up once reaching enlightenment there should be a connection made with some sort of unified reality

I don't know: that "unified reality" might be "dhamma"; i.e. if it's true that there is "a connection made with some sort of unified reality", I think that what that means is it's your seeing that the dhamma applies to everything, is an accurate description of everything.

Unified to abandon suffering strive to achieve liberation and enlightenment sounds like what is a unified reality or community that had the same views of faith etc what I asked is for a better explanation once elightend is my experience subjective or is it going to  be the same as those already enlightend??


text:
do all beings have past lives?
Is it a truth in Buddhism that all beings have past lives? How does Buddhism explain new life? For example, would the increasing amount of population be explained by some us having shared past lives?

yes I'm pretty sure that all beings have past lives . there was an old saying from Buddhist litriture where if you cut short the life of any living creature (intetially killing) then you are forcing that being to be born again to go through the process of life again .also the Buddha said that some have had a birth of another species and through good karma became human etc the same is true for humans going back to another lower realm ie animal if bad karma prevails...as to the rest of your questions I hope someone else will jump in ..edit : in reference to your last question about population ...yes there is a possibility as I've mentioned. Humans are born again again this is samasra ...


text:
In Buddhism can all we percieve / experience b used as teachers?
...I have been working on this one question for a while so can everything we experience in life internally and externally be used as our teachers from a Buddhist point of view?examples..
Anger = powerful emotion active in a person when one is threatened or insulted ,,an injustice over a issue etc also known to protect the persons personality ( possible to say anger is a friend then ! ) anger is an emotion that is automatically generated ,defense mechanism. It is repetitive and has been for x million yrs within the human psyche.  We could also say it  exists in lower beings birds ,goats , dogs etc so anger could be an important link to other forms of life by now I think you'll get some idea about just one state of mind that's revealed so much ...

After specific words from Buddha's teachings that clarify weather everything we exp...can be our teachers

The Buddha told us the three marks of existence, all things which exist in the mind have these properties:

Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All conditioned things are impermanent, All conditioned things are suffering, All things are without a self.

This means that everything has the potential to teach us. We can learn about impermanence, dukkha, and not-self from anything which arises in the mind.

Yes that's what I figured but who is the dicerner as to what's factual and not ? For example if I was blind how does one explain. The sensation of a colored sky.

The Buddha as a teacher gave us the dhamma which we must see for ourselves. We have to be our own teachers to learn from our experience and see the dhamma. Your analogy with blindness isn't relevant here, you can see when things are impermanent and from that you develop an understanding of the truth.

Yes ,,to some of your response except for termerlogy like see for your self !! Though the Buddha stated some similar discourse in my question is it fair to say that the self is judge when really there is no permanent self ie it is illusion... A person blind has lost the ability to judge what a sky is like !?

'The mind' is the 'discerner' (rather the 'self'). Is there anything you as a 'self' consider your self to be that has not been first discerned by the mind? For example, if you consider yourself to be 'Australian', was your self-belief of 'Australian' something internally born into your mind at childbirth or was it something learned/discerned externally from a sense experience?

True the mind is the discerner.. As to being Australian I assume the answer is just terminology ...a word construct from society I feel human not Australian even though the Australian society would influence other wise the judgement is flawed..

Anger certainly exists in lower beings such birds, goats, dogs, etc. That is why, in Buddhism, anger does not represent the 'human state' ('manussa-dhamma'). Instead, in represents 'birth' ('jati') in the 'animal world' (tiracchānayoni).

Sensual desire... ill-will (anger)... sloth & drowsiness... restlessness & anxiety... uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms
the mind and weakens wisdom... when a
monk has not abandoned these five obstacles... for him to understand what is for his
own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to
understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior
human (manussa) state (dhammā), a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is
impossible.
Avarana Sutta

Although anger is certainly a pre-programmed instinctual survival mechanism, does anger teach us it is the ideal way to respond to perceived threats? Or is there a more 'human' ('reflective/wise') way to respond to perceived threats?
Buddhism explains everything can be a teacher, it that everything has:
(i) a cause/reason for its arising (samudaya);
(ii) a condition for its passing (atthaṅgama);
(iii) an attractive, alluring or stimulating quality (assāda);
(iv) a danger or drawback (ādīnava);
(v) a method to escape from the danger (nissaraṇa).
When people confessed their sins (moral transgressions) to the Buddha, he generally responded their sins were a 'teacher' for their growth & development. For example:

Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — a
righteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership.
But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.
DN 2

In defence of emotional structure and learning from them..the Buddha taught some great ideas but sometimes it's very easy to overlook the minor details or have deslike to negative emotion such as anger ! Who just maybe the only teachers we have as the mind in each person most likely is great at being a trickster as well as teacher. Just for thought a great wise man told me ..in regards to fear ..good snake

The Buddha found the emotion of anger is suffering; in that it burns the mind internally like a fire. The Buddha found anger endangers the life of oneself & others. The criticism of anger is not related to "dislike" but related to wisdom. From a Buddhist perspective, anger ultimately teaches you that you are not yet complete in wisdom. It is true anger shows their is a threat or social injustice. But anger is generally not the best way to resolve that threat or social injustice. If anger is used to resolve social injustice, generally, the result is a cycle of revenge. Regards.

A trite answer might be "Yes, everything is a learning experience! You can learn from anything".
A better answer might be "No: maybe not".

To start with, saying for example that "a turnip can be used as a teacher" maybe does a disservice to actual/genuine teachers (including the Buddha himself).

The Bhikkhuni Sutta suggests that various things like food, and even craving and conceit, can be helpful or instrumental. But not sexual intercourse, it says. It doesn't explain why, but perhaps we might infer that sexual intercourse cannot be "used as our teacher".
Although I note that perhaps some forms of Buddhism do teach that, in some circumstances and for some people, there is something to be learned from sexual intercourse.

I suspect that maybe negative emotions, such as anger or jealousy, maybe can't be used as a teacher. Maybe they teach remorse ... however the lesson you ought to be learning instead of that is "skillful virtues" and "freedom from remorse".
You say that anger "protects the person's personality, so it's possible to say anger is a friend then". I suspect however that if you practice anger, then that does nothing but teach you how to be angry (which maybe isn't a lesson worth learning, nor a "personality" you want to preserve).


text:
Does contemplation activity, before hand, give rise to the mental image?
In deep trance / Samadhi meditation does contemplating on the subject, before hand, give rise the mental image or Nimitta, or does it arise while contemplating? Put it in another way, do you have to stop the contemplation for the Nimitta to arise or does it arise while contemplating?

Does  thought  ID the dream = possibility or dream ID the thought = possibility #2

Also awareness is the  best at observing this question..

To make things clear ..in the great primordial abyss what transpired first ...a thought or a dream it may even b thought and dream together or an anomaly. What do Buddhist say about this .. Prefr a quote from teachings

The mental image (Nimitta) as per some teachers appear as a bright radiant light. You have to bring your attention to a particular stimuli and retain the attention on the chosen stimuli by continuously bringing your mind to the chosen stimuli. At some point you might get the Nimitta. This does not happen for everyone and every time. You should do active thinking about the subject of concetration followed by letting go of it altogether to progress futher before the Nimitta apears.
If you are doing the above as Vipassana you have to look at sensation (or phenomena that is know and felt) and continuously keeping your mind on it. Then you will see the arising and passing of sensations, which perhaps you can consider the Nimitta.
Also see: Nimitta: The radiant and blissful sign [How to enjoy and benefit from your meditation] and Nimitta and Anuvyañjana: Signs and Details [Sense-restraint & wise attention: how to master the senses] by Piya Tan

That's what I needed to know ...and may all beings find refuge in the dharma!


text:
Emotional Release: Images Versus Dry Body Awareness
I am posting because I have had for the past years, despite my attempts at resolving this, trouble feeling my emotions and sensations. You could almost say I'm numb. To remedy this problem, I've thought of engaging in two practices.
First, I thought of sensing the basic aspects of the body, in my whole body, e.g. tingling, warmth/cold, numbness, etc. This has not let to gains so far because I seemingly cannot engage in discursive or associative thought while doing this, so I just feel my sensations mindfully period.
Second, I thought of visualizing images that I free-associate with, and in this situation lust in the form of images, anger in the form of images, and memories in the form of images arise. However, I'm worried that this might involve elaboration that doesn't exist, i.e. fantasy elements. However, if this is not undoing repression, I am not sure how else to undo my emotional repression.
Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

Lack of sensitivity can occur due to using meditation techniques. Whenever a technique is used, such as watching breathing at abdomen or nose-tip, body scanning or the two methods proposed in the question, there will be a deliberate, fixed & gross intention operating in the mind to exert the mind. This 'intention'  & 'exertion' is a thought and it is this thought intention that hinders sensitivity.
To feel the body, breathing & associated feelings & emotions sensitively, the ideal practise is to simply 'let go' of all wanting & all intention. The mind must be quiet however the effort used must be a little as possible. Just sit, but very quietly.

Your metal experiences (thoughts, memories, emotions, etc) create sensations. You should use it to reduce your unwholesome roots. Even visualisation is a function of the mind.

...
Latent tendencies
LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE MIND. Bhikshus, dependent on mind and mind-objects, eye-consciousness arises.
When the three meet, there is contact. Dependent on contact, there is what is
  felt as pleasant, or as painful, or as neither pleasant nor painful.
When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, one delights in it, welcomes it, remains attached to it. Thus one’s latent tendency of lust (rāgânusaya)
  lies latent.
When one is touched by a painful feeling, one sorrows, grieves, laments, beats one’s breast and falls into confusion. Thus one’s latent tendency of aversion (paṭighânusaya) lies latent.
When one is touched by a feeling that is neither pleasant nor painful, one does not understand it as it really is, the arising, the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape with regards to that feeling. Thus one’s latent tendency of ignorance (avijjā’nusaya) lies latent.
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now, without abandoning lust for pleasurable feelings, without removing aversion towards painful feelings,
  without uprooting ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is impossible.
...
Abandoning the latent tendencies
ABANDONING LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE MIND.
...
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now,
  having abandoned lust for pleasurable feelings,
  having removed aversion towards painful feelings,
  having uprooted ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is possible.
...

Cha Chakka Sutta
When you are mindful about the body you experience the Mahābhūta through these have an impact on if it is pleasurable or not. Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta and other similar suttas analyse this aspect in the section about the 6 elements (bodily aspect) as well as the mental aspect under the section on 18 mental examination (metal aspect - including visualisation).

According to the Law of Action and Reaction ,Every action of the Individual will be Neutralized by a Reaction from Nature. If you want Body Consciousness ,then you must think of Universal Consciousness. If you are concentrating or observing or being conscious  of your Breathing Process (Pranayama) ,then think that the Air that you Breathe ,fills the Universe and Infinite Space as Ether . The Air becomes less and less dense ,as we move away from the Earth ,but it never-the-less exists as Ether (Sunya or Brahma ) . This thought will create an Universal Consciousness . Body Consciousness will come as a Reaction to this thought .  An alternative , is to study some popular books on  Cosmology.


text:
Is the term " mind " another way of describing awareness?
Ok for starters allot of talk is about the mind in Buddhism... So the question I'm posting is there only really (truthfully ) awareness ? For example thinking has awareness.. Feeling has awareness... Seeking ..studying all have awareness as the common factor ...if there was no awareness non of the above is possible so is it really awareness in a conclusive form that is there and mind is just a term for it?

Consider the Nonduality Tag. There are said to be 3 ways of defining nonduality, and this refers to one of them.

"Awareness" is a very poor or inaccurate word to use in relation to Buddhism, despite the fact that so many Buddhists use it. This is because, in English, "awareness" has many meanings, such as:
(i) mere sense awareness; e.g. He was aware of the sight of the plane in the sky
(ii) knowledge; e.g. He is aware that drugs are dangerous.

1. Having knowledge or discernment of something: was aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware that the music had
stopped.
2. Attentive and well informed: "Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people" (Armand Marie Leroi).
3. Archaic Vigilant; watchful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/awareness

In Buddhism, there are different words for the different types of mentality (nama), such as:

consciousness ('vinnana'); that which 'experiences' sense objects via the sense organs

'citta' ('mind-heart'); that which generates emotions (greed, anger, love, etc) & thoughts

'mano' ('intellect'); that which makes decisions, generates intentions, develops wisdom

Therefore, to answer the original question, feeling, thinking, studying, etc, have consciousness ('vinnana') as the common factor.
Buddhism defines the composition of a human life into five aggregates, namely:
(i) body;
(ii) feelings (pleasant & unpleasant sensations);
(iii) perceptions (labels);
(iv) mental forming (emotions, thoughts, images, etc) &
(v) consciousness.
It is consciousness that allows each aggregate, including consciousness itself, to be experienced or known. Thus the common factor, in terms of 'experience', is consciousness.
However, if we take a scientific approach, in terms of how these different mental functions exist, we would say the common factor is the brain or neurology.

Shall we say intelligent energy then?

No. refer to my amended post

Still sounds like awareness divided into subcategories... Much like the disection of mind ...

Mind or awareness upon reflection is not very physical to me .. As if we were to open the head space there is no mind ..or awareness however one could say there was some kind of energy there..awareness to me seems = to b energy € =MC °2

No. Forget about "awarenness". You are stuck on it. You can use the word "mentality" ("nama"; "arupa") as an umbrella term. Otherwise, you just create work for others. When discussing Buddhism, just like when using the English language, we need to agree on & conform to the meaning of various words. "Awareness" just creates confusions for students.

On the contrary I'm totally free with awareness ...the mind is full of defilements and hindrances that over complicate matters th at can be simple in origin

I gave my answer to your question. The best umbrella term, imo, is 'nama', which means 'mentality'. The scriptures define 'nama' as 'feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention' and also include 'mindfulness, zeal, energy, decision', etc. The best umbrella or basket word, imo, is 'mentality'. Regards.

Much appreciated!!

If you take Namarupa according to the Skandha classification the following falls under Nama (mind)

feelings
perceptions
mental formations
consciousness.

You know or are aware due to consciousness but there other 3 items which form the mind. Also awareness is the function of consciousness and not consciousness itself. So awareness in itself is not mind. You are aware since partly due to conciousness, as you have to have an external stimuli, organ, and attention, Cha Chakka Sutta may help shed some light.

Still waiting... But I don't think you are saying what you mean as my question is see above again please ! I'm saying awareness is pervading all mental / physical experience.. That is say for example nature is aware etc but does it have mind ??

@Sameasu, the answer to your query, lies in what Suminda said above, only if you look further into that line of thinking found in the Dhamma. Only in the Buddha Dhamma you will find the answer. If you look any other way, you will only go round in circles. In Dhamma, you will learn how when three elements come together awareness arises, and that consciousness is central to it. Also that consciousness cannot ever exist independent of the five aggregates of clinging - be it in humans, or others - I mean the animate, and not the inanimate things in the world that are void of any awareness.

from what I know, you are absolutely correct.  Awareness is an entity you can not isolate it by itself.  It has to aware of something to be there.  In other word, there cant be know without the known.

Buddha said, vinnana ends when name-form ends, and name-form ends when
  vinnana ends/

so I agree with you when you said

if there was no awareness non of the above is possible

I agree. Nonduality says that there is only awareness. As far as we know, every elementary particle (such as a photon) responds to its environment (as in the 2 slit experiment) and makes 'choices', so every thing possesses some degree of 'awareness', or, if you prefer: awareness is the only thing that exists. We could continue to discuss this, but it would amount to defining words. Use words that work and take what comes. Words are not truth though.

Buddhism does not teach there is only awareness (consciousness) or only one khandha. If there was only awareness then what is sensed would be subjective to each person. Therefore, for example, discrete things like Mt Everest would not exist, since each individual person would create their own sense objects. In Pali Buddhism, it is said: "consciousness depends on sense organs & sense objects" (rather than sense objects depend on consciousness). "Non-duality" ("advaita") is a word that can mean "one god". To believe there is only consciousness is the same as believing "God" creates everything.

@Dhammadhatu If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

yes, it makes a sound, just as the earth has spun around the sun for longer than human existence. it is the Law of Nature than falling objects make sounds. in AN 3.138 or AN 3.139, it is explained conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self even if there is no human being that comprehends this Law of Nature. in short, Buddhist disagrees with the western philosophy of "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It makes a sound based on the laws of physics


text:
sutta reference: forbidding to call the Buddha by name
I've heard that there are suttas where the Buddha forbade people to call him by his given name. Which suttas are these?

This first occurred when he met the five ascetics after the enlightenment when they started calling him by his name Gotama before teaching his earliest discourse, Dhammacakkapavattana sutta.

Bhikkus, do not address me by the name Gotama nor as a friend. I have
  become a Perfect One, worthy of the great reverence.

Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/damachak.pdf page 56

This is found in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, the Bodhikumāra Sutta and any other suttas that describe the Buddha's search for awakening.

Then, wandering by stages, I arrived at Varanasi, at the Deer Park in Isipatana, to where the group of five monks were staying. From afar
  they saw me coming and, on seeing me, made a pact with one another,
  (saying,) 'Friends, here comes Gotama the contemplative: living
  luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance.
  He doesn't deserve to be bowed down to, to be greeted by standing up,
  or to have his robe & bowl received. Still, a seat should be set out;
  if he wants to, he can sit down.' But as I approached, they were
  unable to keep to their pact. One, standing up to greet me, received
  my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for
  washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend."


text:
Incoherent Meditations
Seemingly, despite my questions, I still am encountering great difficulties. I've been meditating for perhaps 1-2 years in a haphazard fashion, on the metro, walking places, while doing things. Perhaps the word "meditation" is inappropriate, it was more like a mindfulness or perhaps a mixture of different types of reasoning, contemplation and attempts at realizing certain facts. Overall, I feel like I've accomplished absolutely nothing in these two years, and that I've wasted much time.
I would say the only thing I want now is to be able to stop all this, whether to meditate properly, or even to understand how to reverse the conditioning that I unwittingly imposed upon myself. I'm asking if anyone knows or conjectures a means by which I could achieve this, and perhaps some tips on what I should avoid doing to create this massive incoherence in my mind.

I am sorry but I don't understand what you're saying about reversing the conditioning. Just let your thoughts go. They are not important.

Don't just create a problem when there is none. This happened with me.

I also experienced similar situation where progress stalled through there was some initial progress where I tried out different traditions and techniques until I fell into the right track.
What could be happening in your practice is:

the wrong technique as meditation
a technique not suitable for you
the technique the wrong way

You have to figure out what went wrong.
A formal meditation supposed to strengthen your practice while engaging in daily activity. Mindfulness should be present throughout your daily activities. This is not what is going wrong.
Scrutinise the instructions and read to validate your understanding. In case you practice what is unsuitable for you a wrong technique. Best starting point is to look into the Suttas which highlights the practice which might work for the majority. You will need a bit of trial and error to figure out what works.
Basic outline of what needs to be done is the you should be aware of:

arising and passing
of sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) that is felt.

You can analyse this at the level of sensations from corporeal body as Mahabhuta.

vedana can certainly be connected with three of the four mahabhuta (elements), which are collectively known as rupa. These three are pathavi (earth element), tejo (fire element) and vayo (air element). Apo (water element) is too subtle to touch, or is so subtle that one finds difficulty in feeling it. Now, to illustrate the connection between vedana and the three bhuta, when you have a cramp, which is the tightening of the muscles, it is pathavi; when you feel temperature of the body it is tejo; when you suffer from pain in the stomach, it may be something to do with vayo, for when the air in your stomach is stuck and finds no vent to get out, you have that experience of unpleasant feeling called pain. The connection of vedana with these mahabhuta makes it all the more manifest and helps one realize its true nature.

Source: Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice by U Tin Lwin
Similarly any of the 4 Satipatthana. More details and references can be found here and here.
Also look at the links between the 4 Noble Truths and what is felt. For details see Vedana and the Four Noble Truths by VRI.
Also the link between Dependent Origination and what is felt. For details see: Vedana in Paticcasamuppada
Understand the relationship with what is felt (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) with hindrances. See answer here for more details.

It sounds like you are experiencing runaway mindfulness.  At the very least, you're falling into discursive thought (as you say "reasoning" and attempts at "realizing certain facts").  Neither of those is really Buddhist in practice.  They're also not going to get you any closer to true realization.  I really think you need to slow things down.  A little samatha might go a long way in settling your mind and help keep it a bit more collected.  Once you've established some degree of calm, you might have more success with a mindfulness practice.
And like Suminda says, make sure you learn correct technique before you have at it again!

Anapanasati( mindfulness of breathing, breathe in, know it, breathe out, know it), sit in a quiet place and try to keep on any time you have. One may think it is the beginning of meditation(or just to concentrate, because it is so simple) but later surely will know: it is the very beginning, middle and the end i.e. you will see the Nibbana, no other way, the ONLY way and never missed.