text:
How to avoid adding concepts to our thinking
This question is mere practical: how a practitioner avoids that his mind wanders away into stories and dramas. There are moments that "noting" does not help.

related question: Overwhelming thoughts - Mindfulness and awareness

Hmm, I don't see any relation between the question of adding concepts (to thinking) and that concerning wandering thoughts while meditating. Could you explain a bit more what the focus of your question actually is?

The short answer is: by not adding concepts to the thinking, by not feeding it.

There are moments that "noting" does not help.

Sometimes the mind is more quiet, sometimes it is more uneasy. Don't expect that in meditation you will always progress, or that the progress will be steady. Don't create the expectation that the mind will always settle when meditating, because it can be unsatisfying. Don't fight your mind and don't force it to calm down, it can be frustrating.
Instead, when you notice your mind is wandering, bring your awareness back to the object of meditation. The practice of meditation is not to stop adding concepts to the thinking actively, or to learn to interrupt the process of thought. But it is more like weakening the impulse and momentum of thought. Thinking will never completely cease as it inherent to the human being. But with practice you get less overwhelmed and blinded by it, thinking becomes subtle and calm. Then, don't be anxious about being peaceful or settling the mind, because this anxiety defeats the purpose of meditation, it just would feed the eager to think.
You can also practice to perceive the thoughts in a distanced manner. When someone is wandering on the thoughts, it is like he/she is immersed on them, being carried away by them. Then instead of being in the flow of the thinking, try to watch the thinking from outside. Be aware of the process of thought, perceive how it moves and watch it go away by itself. Instead of trying to block the chain of thoughts, something that is usually ineffective, try to stop feeding it and let it go.
There is also shamata, a practice to improve the stability of awareness. Begin by keeping the focus on the breath as long as you can. It seems that shamata is commonly disregarded for its simplicity, but it is very important. How can you meditate on something if you your awareness isn't stable? If you are really into it, I suggest you to read the book "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" by Alan Wallace.
And last, vipassana can be helpful to perceive that it makes no sense to "feed the trains of thought". From one side, thinking usually tries to fight the impermanent and unfulfilling marks of existence, and asserts the identity (the concept of self). From other side, thinking itself is impermanent (it is mostly random in the long run), is unfulfilling (its desires and aversions are never completely met) and have no self (it is not absolute, nor apart from everything else). Although thought is produced, you don't need to get overwhelmed and blinded by it, you don't have to be driven by it.
EDIT:
Adding some more explanation on second paragraph after the quote, regarding interrupting the thought or stopping adding concepts to it.
And adding a bit more info to shamata and vipassana part.

What you have to do is the following:

Realise the mind has wondered away
Have a look at the object which it has wondered away to and the sensation it creates (if thoughts around the head)
Look at how you perceive this and the metal reaction that follows (if thoughts around the head)
These sensations trigger more thoughts and reactions in quick succession which in tern creates more sensations
Bring back your mind to your object of meditation

When you say "if thoughts around the head", do you mean, getting carried away by thoughts / daydreams?

Previous posters have provided some solid recommendations.  To them, I'd add the role of philosophy.
Our mind wanders to things to which we are attached; concepts, ideas, worries and so on.  This means if we work on adopting a philosophy of life designed to reduce these attachments, we should reduce the mind's tendency to wander.
You've heard of the saying "All Roads Lead to Rome"?  Well, we can paraphrase that to "All Attachments Lead to Self".  So work on the Self, and you work on the key player in your attachments.
This is where the path comes in.  Things like unconditional compassion, right speech and renunciation can help free the mind from the various scenarios that play out.  For instance, daydreaming about getting even or telling someone off is often done as a dry run for possible courses of action should those situations arise.  Yet if (a priori) I have discounted those possibilities by truly committing to right speech, how likely are they to arise, or to persist should they arise?

I like your paragraph 4: seeing the pointlessness of daydreaming about things we know we won't do. Paragraph 2: reducing attachment - this might be tough to do face-on, thus your advice to undermine attachments instead of trying to just stop them cold. Interesting to bring Philosophy in to a question of how to avoid adding concepts to thinking! I guess if it simplifies.

In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta several different ways are presented by the wise one, the first one (also recommended by Thich Nhat Hanh) is sometimes called "Changing the peg":

Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice might knock out, remove, and extract a coarse peg by means of a fine one, so too … when a bhikkhu gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome … his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.

© Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (Wisdom Publications, 2009)
Hope this helps you and others

Trying to find a good link to what is commonly rendered as The Four Mindful Establishments
There are details in the Sattipathana Sutra as well as in other sources.  Here is a useful passage from a pdf found via search:

This is the one-way path for the purification of beings, for the
  surmounting of sorrow and lamentations, for the passing away of pain
  and dejection, for the attainment of the true way, for the realization of
  Nibbana - namely, the four establishments of mindfulness.
  What are the four?
A person dwells contemplating the body in the body,
  ardent, clearly comprehending, and mindful, having subdued longing
  and dejection in regard to the world.
He or she dwells contemplating
  feelings in feelings, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having
  subdued longing and dejection in regard to the world.
He or she dwells contemplating mind in mind, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having subdued longing and dejection in regard to the world.
He or she dwells contemplating phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly
  comprehending, mindful, having subdued longing and dejection in
  regard to the world.

Keeping our practice from straying into the imaginal/conceptual is vital.
Thus, training ourselves to be present with and aware of our bodily sensations is really wonderful.
On top of that, the senses of touch, smell, taste, sight, and sound are all non-conceptual information, and concentrating on perceiving any one of those is a very skillful practice.

This question is mere practical: how a practitioner avoids that his mind wanders away into stories and dramas. There are moments that "noting" does not help.
I use discipline to not continue on with a story.I can't help my mind from wandering but as soon as i note it i find that i can use discipline to stay anchored in the present moment.Also if i really can't stop,i just bring mindfulness to experience whatever i am experiencing.Mindfulness has this, forgive me for saying this,this annoying sobering up quality that can snap you of anything.


text:
Is there a difference between sunatta and anatta
Is there a difference between sunatta and anatta? if so, which is the difference?

See also questions tagged [tag:sunyata].

I think sunyata is the void that you experience when you see through the impermanence in things (anitta). The reality is always vibrating. When you sit in vipassana and start observing, you will find that all your sensations are made up of these vibrations that constantly pulsate - they appear from nowhere and vanish instantly (anitta). Now, the emptiness or background in which the reality is vibrating is nothing but sunyata.
Even modern physics has proved that matter vibrates at the quantum level, but you as a vipassana practitioner can actually observe the phenomena first hand! You don't have to take their word for it.
Anatta on the other hand refers to the realization that I am not this conditioned self. Continuing on the vibration concept above, if you keep pressing with vipassana, you will ultimately learn (with lots and lots of practice) that all perceptions, thoughts, mental formations and even consciousness are ultimately reduced to these vibrations. After vibes corresponding to physical sensations, follow the mental formations, perception, consciousness and so on. The result is that an illusion called self is created by the vibe corresponding to consciousness impacted by the vibe corresponding to perception.

I've seen many interpretations, so I'll just give you the one I find most tenable/helpful.
Sunyata is the denial of any independent essence of a thing.  Therefore, anatta is a type of sunyata, in which that independent essence is me.
Another way of looking at sunyata (a consequence) is that everything is interdependent (hence the lack of independence).  This focuses on the independence aspect of the self that's denied.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If anatta is a reality, then how do you explain Volition or Will?
I'm just trying to understand the concept of anatta better here. Buddhism tells me there is the concept of no-self (anatta), and even the so called conditional self is actually an illusion that arises out of my ignorance (correct me if I'm wrong).
But psychology tells me on the other hand, that there exists something called Volition or Will. From Wikipedia:

Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.

So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak. As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker that made the decision of lifting the hand? You say there is no self?
Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not something I'm going to buy. How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I try. Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a reality?

see also the other topics tagged [tag:free-will]

...and also: what is the precise meaning of anatta

...and also, how permanent is an individual will/self after 20,40,60,80,... years of life?

@GottfriedHelms - An argument could be made that since rebirth is a truism under Buddhism, my will in this current birth, would be the same as my will in the next birth, because in both cases, it would be willing based on the same conditional self (though the conditions or aggregates themselves might change in the course of a rebirth).

However hard you try, except the Buddha's recommend path will not understand what anatta or willing is not belong to you.,

Hmm, try to see it one time the other way round: why is it, that from the ability of me human being, born, grown up, now to have a will to move my arm, and, l lo' and behold: it really moves ... why is it that from this comes the idea that there is something eternal in me? Some splitter of the omnipresent "Brahma" and I should call it "atman" which must be purified by many rebirths? - Just because -with my age of 60 about- I can decide to move my arm and can make this really happen? Well, what about the tail waving of the cow on the meadows around?...

Anatta means that there is no permanent self, not that there is no self at all. That would be just silly and contradict observation. Imagine the self as a car. Every day one part of the car is replaced with another. One day the right headlight, the other day the windscreen, the third day the rear left wheel. And so on. At some point, all the pieces of the car have changed, but can you say exactly when the first car changed into the second? You can't, but at the same time you can't claim that the car you end with is the same as the car you began with. Similarly, just think about yourself when you were five years old. Was it you, was it another version of you, or was it another person, with different tastes, making different choices?
The key point is that self and will are conditioned phenomena subject to change, to birth, to death. So the decision-maker and the will-maker are conditioned, constructed phenomena subject to change, birth, death. There is some uncanny science going on that shows that sometimes we make decisions before we are aware of having made them. Who is the will-maker now? The real illusion is not that there is a conditional self or not, but that we are in power.

"The key point is that self and will are conditioned phenomena subject to change, to birth, to death." Absolutely agreed, but I think calling conditioned self and consciousness an illusion is again contradicting observation, sounds like a loaded missile hurrying towards its destination is an illusion - at least call it a force, it hurts real humans no illusory humans!. Buddha compares all conditioned things to an illusion in SN 22.95?

See my edit. The illusion is believing that the ego is immutable, that it is unconditioned, and that it is in power. In SN 22.95 the Buddha was talking to Bhikkus, i.e. people looking for the ultimate reality of things, and explaining that conditioned phenomena are unreliable because they are ever-changing. But no one (apart from Derrida perhaps) denies that a brick is always a brick!

The illusion is believing that the ego is immutable, that it is unconditioned, and that it is in power. In that case I would like to ask you a question in turn: Suppose I (conditioned-self) decide to lift my hand right now. If the I is conditioned, then what was the decision to lift the arm right now conditioned or affected by? (Karma or just randomness or what?)

Mostly by the fact that you have an arm with muscles and nerves, that you are awake, and that your brain is not damaged, and by the fact that you want to show that you can. Were not these conditions in place, you wouldn't be able to move it. Moreover, if someone attached electrodes to your brain, they'd probably find that the impulse to move it came earlier than you were aware of it.

"I'm just trying to understand the concept of anatta better here. Buddhism tells me there is the concept of no-self (anatta) [...] (correct me if I'm wrong)."
I'll quote @suminda's sucint description of anatta here:

Saying there is no self is a bit of a mistranslation or abbreviated translation. A better translation would be "there is nothing you can take as me, mine or self, which is permanent, non changing and persistent;"

When the suttas (and, consequently, the Buddha) speak of anatta, often they understand atta/self to be:

a fixed/unchanging essence
an eternal essence
an essence that is never dukkha
an essence that is under your complete control

In summary, Buddha's doctrine teaches how to observe every single aspect of yourself raising and ceasing, and under which conditions they do so. At the end, one comes to the conclusion that every aspect of what constitutes "him/her self" is conditioned: raises and ceases under certain conditions. Therefore, in summary, one concludes nothing possessing all the features above can be found.
As illustration, Nagasena and King Milinda debate:

[...] "How then did you come on foot, or on a mount?"
"I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot."
"If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Is then the axle the chariot?" No.."Is it then the wheels, or the framework, of the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goad-stick?"..."Then is it the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the "chariot"?"... "Then, is this "chariot" outside the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins and goad?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot!
-- Milinda Panha

Above, Nagasena is alluding to an "essence of the chariot", and showing there isn't one, as an analogy. It's said "illusion" because it's easy to believe something inside is unchanging, etc. Naturally, we say "you" and "I" and "myself", as this is useful and understandable in the day-to-day. And I'm pretty sure I'm writing this right now (or, to be more precise, the experience of writing this text right now is been felt). This is no illusion.
"But psychology tells me on the other hand, that there exists something called Volition or Will."
Buddhism psychology also refers to volition, calling it cetanā. In general, it is grouped in the saṅkhāra-khandha.
"So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak."
It's not necessarily true that an individual (unchanging, etc) self needs to be. It is quite possible for a composition of ephemeral "things" (of which "volition" can be a part of, as well as a nervous system, and so on) connected to each other, to interact and, in this interaction, things happen -- and complex behavior appear. (Biologists and computer scientists are no strangers to systems "that have no core", composed by simple parts, but exhibit complex behavior).
[Edit] "As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly" In the comments: "what was the decision to lift the arm right now conditioned or caused by?"
I understand that our (unenlightened) volitions, individually (like writing this text), are caused by delusions, desires and aversions -- and perhaps "habits" which is also a placeholder for subtler or deeper kinds of desires and aversions. With the cessation of the specific desires/aversions (by their consummation or extinguished otherwise) there is the cessation of the specific volition. In the Buddha's words:

"Monks, these three are causes for the origination of actions. Which three? Greed is a cause for the origination of actions. Aversion is a cause for the origination of actions. Delusion is a cause for the origination of actions.
-- Nidana Sutta: Causes AN 3.33

The above actions are said to "generate kamma fruits". That is, they are seeds that are capable of germinate, to come to fruition.
"What about an Arahant?", you ask. As far as the texts go, an Arahant still possesses the 5 aggregates, and naturally still perform actions. Supposedly, these are directed by volitions. However, it is said such actions are not "tainted" and have a distinct quality due to the "cool down" of his deepest clinging and cravings. There is no desire for "having" or "becoming". In the same sutta above, the Buddha continues:

"Now, these three are [further] causes for the origination of actions. Which three? Non-greed is a cause for the origination of actions. Non-aversion is a cause for the origination of actions. Non-delusion is a cause for the origination of actions.
"Any action performed with non-greed — born of non-greed, caused by non-greed, originating from non-greed: When greed is gone, that action is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

Finally, in a higher perspective, the general form of the paṭiccasamuppāda formula has kamma volition (or, more specifically, saṅkhāra*) conditioned by ignorance -- that is, with the cessation of ignorance, there is the cessation of saṅkhāra. I understand this is not about a specific volition like raising an arm, but all volitions [whose kamma may come to fruition].
(*)Note this saṅkhāra is not considered to be the same as saṅkhāra-khanda mentioned above
"So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker? You say there is no self?"
One way of seeing it is that there is decision as a product of interacting processes. I guess one is free to call volition the decision-maker on his own. But, according to Buddhism, regarding that volition/"decision-maker" possessing the features in the list above is a faulty view, and under careful scrutiny, it should show it's true nature (perhaps just as atoms, under careful scrutiny, were shown to be not atomic at all).

Excellent answer Thiago, Sir. Regarding decision as a product of interacting processes, I would like to ask you about the hand parable I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread: Suppose I (the conditioned-self) decided to lift my hand right now. If the I is conditioned, then what was the decision to lift the arm right now conditioned or caused by? (Karma or just randomness or what?).

As a corollary to my hand parable, suppose, instead of me, a hypothetical arahant decides to lift his hand right now. Since he has zero karma and nothing conditioned now, where would the decision come from? Or are you saying that he won't be able to lift the hand at all out of his free will?

You are hungry so you decide to eat. You ate chinese food yesterday, so you feel like eating something else today. You remember that you don't have much food left at home, so you go to a nearby restaurant. The decisions you made to lift yourself to the restaurant and eat, is dependent on your mental formations (thoughts, memories etc.). You think it's free will because nobody forced you to do it, but it was conditioned by past experiences.

@ShinuJacob I edited to incorporate some explanations for these questions.

@ShinuJacob btw, is not that an Arahant has "zero karma". If he is a living sentient being, he still carries the 5 aggregates, and he is well equipped with volition. His aggregates are said to be "his past karma" and these past karma still come to fruition as long as he does not reaches parinirvana. But his volition is not tainted, so his current actions (current karma) are said to not come to fruition in the future.

@ThiagoSilva Excellent analysis, sir. Regarding, "Biologists and computer scientists are no strangers to systems "that have no core", composed by simple parts, but exhibit complex behavior", I wholeheartedly agree. Being a Computer Programmer myself, I can even comprehend an extremely complex piece of AI software that is based on so many different parameters, acts randomly but based on certain rules, etc., and might even think that it has free will and it is the Programmer himself!

If decision making is a self, why do you regret certain decisions you have made? You should be able to  make all good decisions in life. Why is decision making affected by craving, aversion and ignorance? If it is a self, you should be able to disassociate it from the 3 roots of evil, at will. But you can't! That is something you need to practice and cultivate. If volition is a self, why can't you make it not cause Kamma Vipaka(consequences). Ultimately, a decision is a thought that falls under Sankhara. The 4th of the 5 aggregates. If that thought is a self, you should be able to stop it from vanishing. But you can't!

But psychology and Wikipedia tells me that there needs to be an individual or self    - paraphrasing

Maybe according to psychology and Wikipedia. But not according to Buddhism.
According to Buddhism there are 4 false views of self.

Owner
Dweller
Doer
Experiencer

Thinking that decision making is a self, belongs to the 'Doer' category. There is decision making, but there's no decision maker. It's similar with experiencing. There is experiencing, but there's no experiencer. The notions of decision maker and experiencer are caused due to not seeing the deciding as deciding or experiencing as experiencing and taking them as self. In other words, due to ignorance.

I don't recall seeing the 4 false views of self before - very nice.

Buddhism tells me there is the concept of no-self (anatta)
The Buddha never said there is NO SELF.He rejects annihilationism. When confronted with direct questions such as "Is there a Self?" The Buddha chooses to remain silent.It's not that there is no self but what we call "self" is not what we perceive it to be.
the so called conditional self is actually an illusion
No it is not.The conditioned self is not an illusion.It's the unconditioned self that is.When we think that we are not conditioned by anything.That "I" is permanent.This ego is permanent.This is the illusion.
Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak.
Yes you are right.Self created voalition.But what created self?Ignorance.Delusion.
The Self believes it is separate,solid and permanent self.And while maintaining this status it creates samsara.
As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker? You say there is no self?
The will maker is you.You are the Ego.
Use the ego.You.Me.I. to follow the Eight Noble Path.When you(the ego) have created the right conditions for insight to arise.Release will be experienced.Liberation.From what?From the ego.You see suffering will always be here.It's the person whose suffering that goes away.This is why Arahants,feel physical pain,get sick and die but whose bothered?
Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not something I'm going to buy.
Voalition IS conditioned.It was triggered by something else no matter how subtle.You get to see this when you practice meditation.
How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all.
A schizophrenic decides to jump of a building because he thought he was being chased by monsters.This is an illusion.But the jump is real.We don't even have to go this far.Just say you are suspicious of someone meaning you harm,have no concrete proof,and yet in your mind you imagine (illusitory) that they must be plotting something when in fact they are not,you churn this over and over in your head,when you meet them chances are your going to be guarded or harbour even subtle antagonism or may even "do" something unwholesome.This action is real.But it was driven by something that is not real.And has no basis in the truth.Our actions are not based on whether something is ultimately true or not.It's based on how we perceive things.
Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a reality?
You can't.Voalition can't be explained if anatta is a reality.So why are we still experiencing voalition?Because we have not experienced anatta as a reality.We understand it theoretically.The problem is we haven't realised it.As long as we haven't realised it voalition will always be around.

First, does Buddhism teach free will?  If not (and I've seen enough to suggest that this is a tenable interpretation), then there's no problem.
However, if Buddhism teaches free will, then what does it mean by anatta?
If by anatta it means to let go of the self (with no ontological commitments made to it one way or another), then there is no problem.
However, if by anatta it means no self, then what is it denying?  The existence of a permanent, independent self.
Denying a permanent self has no implications on free will.
Denying an independent self has implications on free will, but no more than the implications we accept when we acknowledge that external circumstances can influence our decisions.
Hope this helps :)

I love this if - then format.

@nocomprende thanks!  I had to adopt this format because there were so many ifs and or buts that I couldn't give a linear answer :)

Divide and conquer. Cut the Gordian knot.

Any perception of notion of self will not match reality 100% hence will be unsatisfactory. Through meditation you should get rid of this perception of self as this is the source of misery. If you keep pondering of self or non self at an intellectual or philosophical level you still dealing with concepts and perceptions, so this is not something you should ponder on as it feeds into a particular perception or notion which results in misery.
If you react with craving and attachment towards any sensation volitional formation will follow (Saṅkhāra). E.g. you have a perception of self and you hear a sound. You can perceive that some one is scolding me. To this you can react with anger and create volitional formation / Karma. If your perception of self is completely removed then you do not need to react through you know that some one is verbally abusing you but you do not take it personally.
Any perception will give you a yard stick to measure the disparity from reality since the 3 universal characteristics means any perception will never be right 100%.
In you mind's eye there should be no will maker or notion of self as this will not enable you to look at the world in a detached way without taking things personally.
Just my brief 2C to complement couple of already very good answers.

Excellent answer, sir. If you react with craving and attachment towards any sensation volitional formation will follow: I now understand what the purpose of denying a permanent self was in Buddhism - the disillusionment of these incorrect volition formations. After all, all social ills and violence today are ultimately the results of these incorrect volition formations! Just think how much better will this place be, if all incorrect volition formations stop happening!

Good that you liked it!

Also Self-compassion might be of interest. Also follow the references in the foot note.

As I was told by my teacher:

To see in 3D you have to look from two places at once.

From one perspective, "I" make choices, "I" act, and "I" experience results. This is a flat view.
From another perspective, there is no free-will and the universe is deterministic. Therefore, we need to surrender to things as they are. This is a flat view.
The 3D view is not like the two flat views overlapped on each other, it's not like either of them, but it's not different from them either. It is 3D!
Once you have attained this 3D view you can make all sorts of flat projections of it. (Note: this 3D view is not Enlightenment, only right view)
Exactly because the universe is deterministic, our future depends on choices we make now. It is important to make good choices.
In practical sense, in real life, we always have choice! One stuck in habitual victim role denies having the choice and resorts to blaming the circumstances. Enlightened master exercises the choice for the benefit of all.
At the very least, even if our freedom is very constricted, we always have the choice of perspective. Because our subjective experience depends on our perspective, we can control the experience.
The way this usually goes in Buddhism is:

Stage one. Mountains are mountains & rivers are rivers. We are contained by the flat view of "I" vs. "world". We learn to control our mind by practicing the five precepts and the four right efforts. We practice shamatha-style meditation. We overcome attraction.
Stage two. Mountains are not mountains, rivers are not rivers. We disconnect from the unwholesome flat view and adopt the Buddhism's wholesome (but provisional) flat view: anatta, skandhas, shunyata. We deconstruct our ego and practice shikantaza. We overcome aversion.
Stage three. Mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers. We transcend the two views and attain the 3D view - freedom from any single perspective based on vision of things as they are. We overcome ignorance.

To reuse my other answer to another question.
Buddha's teaching is that there is a non-permanent self that "emerges", as a result of the dependency on the inter-working of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Each of these five aggregates also have dependencies. This is what is meant by the Buddha's statement, "all conditioned things are impermanent", in other words, all these things that have dependencies are not permanent.
However, there is no single self that is the charioteer or agent of the five aggregates. Imagine you hurt your hand and say "I hurt myself". But if your hand is chopped off, does your self disappear? No. So, applying this one by one, you realize that your self is neither form, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness. But beyond this, there is nothing more to yourself. That is what is meant by the Buddha's statement, "all phenomena is not self". Anatta refers to "not self" not "no self".
This is just an overly-generalized summary. More info can be found on the topic of dependent origination.
Now about free will:
You are hungry so you decide to eat. You ate chinese food yesterday, so you feel like eating something else today. You remember that you don't have much food left at home, so you go to a nearby restaurant. You haven't visited a particular restaurant for some time, so you decide to visit it. The decisions you made to lift yourself from the couch to go to the restaurant and eat, is dependent on your mental formations (thoughts, memories etc.). You think it's free will because nobody forced you to do it and you decided yourself, but it was actually conditioned by past experiences.

So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak. As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker that made the decision of lifting the hand? You say there is no self?

Self arose within you and moved your hand.

Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not something I'm going to buy. How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I try. Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a reality?

When self arose within you, the world arose outside you.
Your self arose within you, because your will to arise the self arose within you first.
Who or what wanted to arise the will to arise the self within you? This cannot be answered with our minds. It can only be experienced:
When you completely stop wanting, nothing arises. When nothing arises perception of non-perception is perceived. When you stop wanting even that perception of non-perception, perception stops. When perception stops, you will experience "who or what" is the one wanting to arise the self within you.
When you experience "who or what" is the one wanting to arise the self within you, you will experience the same "who or what" arising the world outside you. You will see why you become into this world, why you become what you become. You will see how you invented birth, happiness, suffering, death. You will see. You will know. Suffering will end and your purpose will be done.

If anatta is a reality, then how do you explain Volition or Will?

The doctrine of Anatta is very deep and cannot be fully understood by the intellect.
If you like to understand what this is about, you would have to do insight meditation. When observing mental and physical phenomena as they arise and pass away in the mind and body, Anatta will eventually be realized, i.e. if one practices correctly and diligently.
Intellectually one can understand Anatta as being the uncontrollable and ungovernable nature of conditioned phenomena. One does not have any control over phenomena. Pleasant feelings or formations will not stay, just because one wants them to stay. Likewise, unpleasant feelings or formations will not go away, just because one wants them to go away.
The idea of an experiencing entity, a Self or an inner core, is nothing but a mental formation itself.
There is no thinker behind the thought.
This will as mentioned before, only become clear when practicing insight meditation. We can use a simile of the ocean. Let's go to a place where the ocean is many kilometers deep. Anatta is on the bottom of the ocean. Intellectually one can only swim (understand) a few meters down but experientially one can swim all the way down to the bottom. The experiental knowledge (Paññā) is gained in insight meditation.
There is a mental and a physical stream. Volition is part of the mental stream, namely the Mind or the 4th aggregate, i.e. the aggregate of mental formations.
Ultimately, there are volitions but there is no person or self doing them. There is nobody home. The house is empty.
For reading material, I would recommend "A Discourse on the
Anattalakkhana Sutta", by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw. He explains very well the different aspects of Anatta and he incorporates insight meditation into the discourse, meaning that the way to read this discourse, is to read a bit, then meditate, then read, then meditate.

Volition although is general interpreted as intention. In Buddhist context, volition however includes both conscious and unconscious will. Volition itself is dependent on various conditions and factors, like the phenomenal appearance (material forms visible or non visible to naked eyes; contact-feelings (sensory receptors); perceptions (imagery/non imagery thoughts); volition formation (Conscious (willed intent) or unconscious (residual habits); and cognitive faculty (Identification, discrimination, registering, conceptual, belief systems). The major factor of the formation of volition is ignorance  (oblivious to the nature s law of impermanence, the truth of non-substantial essence or individuality (ego) in all thingy. Ignorance gave rise to a deep longing (dukkha), expresses in the craving or aversion of continuing existence or non existence.  Volition that arises without mindfulness is propelled by  ignorance is (Sankhara/habitual pattern). With awareness, the Karmic chain causes of volition is therefore broken; does not arise and even if it does due to residual past conditioning, it is seen as such without attachment, therefore liberation is possible.Those disciples of the Buddha who attained liberation all comes to this noble realization "The doing mode (Spiritual searching) is done with, the purification process has been established, there is no longer volition cause for future birthing" (birthing refers to the birthing of ego).

How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I try.

I don't see why an illusion can't be in control of things. Please allow me to quote William James, a highly regarded psychologist from past century:

We perceive, for instance, that the door is open, and we rise and shut it; we perceive some raisins in a dish before us, and extend our hand and carry one of them to our mouth without interrupting the conversation; or, when lying in bed, we suddenly think that we shall be late for breakfast, and instantly we get up with no particular exertion or resolve. All the ingrained procedures by which life is carried on—the manners and customs, dressing and undressing, acts of salutation, etc.— are executed in this semi-automatic way unhesitatingly and efficiently, the very outermost margin of consciousness seeming to be concerned in them, while the focus may be occupied with widely different things. -The Will, William James

If all the actions that involve volition can happen without volition as well, can volition be assumed to exist and be only under the control of a self ? This is in reference to your question:

So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak. As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker that made the decision of lifting the hand? You say there is no self?

I'm going to quote William James again... Its an excellent analysis, my advice is to read the whole piece for (non-buddhist) commentary on volition and self.

One object, by its presence, makes us act: another object checks our action. Feelings aroused and ideas suggested by objects sway us one way and another: emotions complicate the game by their mutual inhibitive effects, the higher abolishing the lower or perhaps being itself swept away. The life in all this becomes prudential and moral; but the psychologic agents in the drama may be described, you see, as nothing but the 'ideas' themselves,—ideas for the whole system of which what we call the 'soul' or 'character' or 'will' of the person is nothing but a collective name. As Hume said, the ideas are themselves the actors, the stage, the theatre, the spectators, and the play. -The Will, William James

I will try to prove that volitional formations are no proof of Self.
Volition is one of the few things conditional Self is made up of.
Is Volitional formations permanent or impermanent ?
It is impermanent. You can show free will now but you will be thrown into situations where you will have no free will. There will be times when things will not happen according to your will. When you have free will you will say " I have found myself" and when you will have no free will you will say " I have lost myself".Clearly presence of free will is no sign of self because you can exist even without the presence of free will.
Is what is impermanent cause of suffering?
Yes it is cause of suffering.
Is what is  impermanent ,cause of suffering and changeable fit to be regarded as
'Me, mine or myself'?
No.
Therefore any kind of volitional formation whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all volitional formations should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not
  something I'm going to buy. How can anything as lowly as an illusion,
  decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real
  world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable
  to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I
  try. Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a
  reality?

You will have to admit that the conditional self made the decision when it can.
Illusion is not lowly. And the world is not as real as you think. I will explain below.
As far my understanding goes all phenomenon are transitory.
World is a phenomenon.Whatever had a beginning must have an end. The world had a beginning and therefore it must have an end.Therefore world is an illusion too because eventually it will pass away like an error or illusion or like a dream.
World is also the cause of suffering.
World is also nonself.
Therefore saying that a "lowly" illusion of Self is causing an impact on "real" world is wrong.

decision-maker or will-maker are words, that is not what is actually happening but if you think words describe ultimate reality you get into this trap "decision is made therefore there is a maker, logic". It is logical but the word " Decision" would not be useful if trying to describe the position and properties of every particle in the universe, that would be a more accurate description of what is happening. In example "2+2=4" logical, try mix 2 ml alcohol + 2ml alcohol and it you wont get 4ml alcohol, some will evaporate. Words are useful but only conventionally, next thing you will think that because universe seems to be created there must be a creator. It is a misunderstanding of what words are and communication in general.

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


text:
Apocarteresis in Buddhism
Apocarteresis is a form of suicide where a person stops taking food and/or water.
Now, I want to make it very clear that I have no intention of committing suicide anytime soon.
However, as the Buddha taught, old age, illness and death are part of life.
I believe that the most dreadful thing is not the disease itself or even death, it is my experience that in some countries (for legal reasons) doctors will insist in keeping patients alive when it would be compassionate to let the disease take its own course.
I am relatively young now, and healthy. Again, I have no desire to die soon.
However, having witnessed my grandfather's unnecessarily protracted death, I would rather not leave my life in the hands of overzealous doctors come the time. On the other hand, I would want to avoid causing suffering and accumulating kamma with an unskillful act of death.
How is apocartheresis as a form of euthanasia viewed within Buddhism in cases of terminal illness?

See also Life testament, illness and Buddhism

Yes and no. Vakkali and Channa were Bhikkus well on the way to Arahantship when they committed suicide. Can I say the same about myself with any confidence?

Your calling it "suicide" (i.e. intentionally killing yourself) and "committing" (a crime) suggest that the action/intention/view you have in mind are not appropriate.

The following paragraphs from pages 82 and 83 of this Vinaya commentary,
The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu suggest that the doctors would not be "killing" is they withhold treatment:

Inaction. Given the Vibhanga’s definition of taking life, we can infer that
  inaction does not fulfill the factor of effort here, for it does not cut off the life
  faculty. Thus if a bhikkhu sits idly when seeing a flood sweep a person
  downstream, he commits no offense—regardless of his feelings about the
  person’s death—even if the person then drowns. Recommending that another
  person sit idly as well would also not fulfill the factor of effort here, because the
  category of command covers only the act of inciting the listener to do any of the
  four actions that would fulfill the factor of effort under this rule.
Medical care and life-support. The same holds true if a bhikkhu decides not to
  give a patient a treatment—or to discontinue treatment—that might conceivably
  extend the patient’s life: It does not fulfill the factor of effort, for such acts do not
  cut off the life faculty. At most they simply allow it to end on its own. The Canon
  supports this inference by treating such actions not under this rule but under
  Mv.VIII.26.3-4, where it imposes only a dukka˛a on the act of refusing to give 83
  any treatment at all to an ill bhikkhu, or of discontinuing all care for an ill
  bhikkhu prior to his recovery or death. This shows that the compilers of the
  Canon did not regard these acts as cutting off the life faculty. (Mv.VIII.26.8 lists
  the ideal characteristics of a bhikkhu who tends to the sick, but does not impose
  a penalty on a bhikkhu who cares for the sick but lacks the ideal qualities; at no
  point does the Canon impose a required level of care for the sick. The compilers’
  refusal to mandate a level of care is wise. If there were a case in which the
  bhikkhus did not feel that that level of care was appropriate for their patient,
  they would have only one option: to abandon the patient, so as to incur only a
  dukka˛a and not the potentially higher penalty for not measuring up to the
  mandated care. Thus, instead of protecting the patient, a higher level of
  mandated care would expose the patient to abandonment.) For this reason,
  deciding to withhold or discontinue a particular treatment—while still continuing
  otherwise to care for the patient—would not be grounds for an offense

Beware of the way in which you talk about this subject with others. It is wrong to encourage/counsel suicide.

c) Describing the advantages of dying. This, the third type of act covered by this
  rule, can include berating a sick person (“Why do you keep hanging on to life
  like this? Don’t you realize what a burden you are to others?”) or simply telling a
  person of the miseries of life or the bliss of dying and going to heaven in such a
  way that he/she might feel inspired to commit suicide or simply pine away to
  death. The Vinita-vatthu also includes under this type of act any statements that
  a nurse might make out of compassion to shorten the miseries of an illness by
  encouraging a patient to let go of life so as not to dawdle in the face of death.
  Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should be
  very circumspect in how he chooses his words, focusing not on how to speed up
  the dying process but on how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:
  “The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
  virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
  dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Saºgha, or the
  body, you should be heedful in your attention.” The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
  contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
  encourage patients facing death. See, for example, MN 143, SN 36.7, and AN 6.16.
  In all of these cases, the advice is aimed not at precipitating death but at inspiring
  calm and insight.
The Vibhanga notes that a statement describing the advantages of dying
  would fulfill the factor of effort regardless of whether delivered by gesture, by
  voice, by writing, or by means of a messenger. The same holds true for any
  statements under the next type of act.
d) Inciting a person to die, the fourth type of act, covers:
  —Recommending suicide. This includes not only telling a person to commit
  suicide but also giving advice—whether requested or not—on the best ways to
  commit the act.

There's a paragraph on page 85 which may answer your question directly:

The Commentary extrapolates from this case to apply the dukkata to all
  attempts at suicide, including even the decision not to take food when motivated
  by a desire to die. However, it then runs into the question of how far this penalty
  applies to a bhikkhu who is ill. Its verdict: As long as medicine and attendants are
  available to him, the penalty would still apply. But then it lists two cases where
  the penalty would not apply: (a) A bhikkhu is suffering from a long and serious
  illness, and the attendant bhikkhus are fed up with caring for him, thinking,
  “When will we be free of this sick one?” If the bhikkhu reflects that, even with
  medical care, his body won’t last and that the bhikkhus are being put to
  difficulties, he incurs no penalty in refusing food and medicine. (b) A bhikkhu—
  reflecting that his illness is harsh, the forces of life are running out, and yet the
  noble attainments appear to be within his reach—may refuse food and medicine
  without penalty.
The Commentary’s deliberations here show how difficult it is to legislate in
  this area, and there are reasons to question the way it applies the Great
  Standards here.

And page 86,

As for ways of attempting suicide that do not endanger others, it seems
  better to follow the Buddha’s wisdom in not legislating about this issue at all, and
  to treat it as a matter of Dhamma rather than Vinaya. In other words, one
  should keep in mind his comment in SN 35.87 that the only blameless death is an
  arahant’s. If, lacking that attainment, one chooses to refuse food when ill to
  speed up one’s death, one should be heedful of the risks that death and rebirth
  can involve.

You might like to read those several pages from the Vinaya commentary in their entirety (instead of only the quotes above).
Someone also wrote a commantary on the commentary, here: Vinaya Parajika 3 do not kill – accesstoinsight detailed commentary


text:
Where does the Buddha mention a craving for non-existence?
In which pali canon texts does the Buddha mention a craving for nonexistence? I'm just curious to see what it means in its wider context. I suspect its mentioned in a number of different places but any reference will be good.

The Buddha mentions the 'craving' in his first sermon, which is/was the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, in which he describes the 'four noble truths'.

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

See also Vibhava-tanha (craving not to be).
Note that this commentary equates that with what's called annihilation-ism, a.k.a. materialism (ucchedavaada):

99 Kāma-taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to pleasures of the senses. Bhava- taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to continued existence, either the current sensual existence or a better and higher existence in the rūpa (fine material) or arūpa (non-material) brahmā realms, or becoming attached to the rūpa and arūpa jhānas. Vibhava- taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to the idea that there is no kamma for rebirth, and hence no future existence.

Wikipedia says,

Pali discourses that use this three-fold typology include DN 15, DN 22, MN 44, SN 22.22, SN 22.103, SN 22.104, SN 22.105, SN 38.10, SN 39.10, SN 45.170, SN 56.11, SN 56.13 and SN 56.14.

For example, DN 15 says e.g.,

[...] craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming [...]

... and the same in MN 44 and SN 22.22, etc.

How can samsaric being could desire 'no future existence' if it can not even properly comprehend this idea (because of not being enlightened, nor experienced nirvana). Only thing it can correctly desire is to abandon this existence. This is also OK combines with idea of dissociation with what is stressful.


text:
I want to understand the technicality of rebirth and what happens to conditioned self
Correct me if I'm wrong about my current understanding of Buddhism: There is no eternal self or essence in me, but I am just a conditioned-self, an illusion created by the interaction of the five aggregates. Each time I do something, or will something, its this distorted conditioned-self in play, right?
Now, I want to understand what happens to this conditioned self when we die. You say its just an illusion, but lets take a practical example: A person dies in New York, and then is being reborn in Washington D.C the next moment. So here, you want to say the conditioned-self (illusion) travelled all the way from New York to D.C. to affect his/her next birth?
As a corollary to this question, I would also like to understand the technicality of kamma. Say a person violates the precept of non-killing in New York in his/her present birth. How does the kamma know whom to punish 50 years later when that same person is reborn in D.C.? (You may say here that there is no external law-maker, but kamma is just in our minds. But that's still begging the question - How does it know whom to punish 50 years later?)

The question of how karma works in light of the concept of non-self has been answered several times on this site (see "Related" in the sidebar). That being said, you raise a couple of interesting objections, namely the seemingly impossible jump through time and space.
First, let's be clear. The Buddha never said "there is no self". What he did say is that all things are non-self and that he didn't see any view of self that wouldn't lead to suffering for someone who held it.  This may sound like splitting hairs, but it is important in helping understand the nature of reality, as well as karma and rebirth.
Reality, according to the Buddha, is experience-based; this means that, to some extent, even time and space are dependent on the mind.  This is why body and mind (naama-ruupa) are said to be dependent on consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). Experience doesn't admit of things like "self" or "soul", or "cat" or "dog", for that matter. But it also doesn't admit of existential questions like "is there a self?" The question itself doesn't work in an experiential paradigm, since there is no impersonal spatio-temporal framework in which to place the object in question. "Is there a cat in the room?" requires the existence of a room to make sense.
In fact, experience doesn't admit of continuity, either, which is perhaps more pertinent to your question. The mind only lasts for a moment, being defined as the awareness of a single experience, arising and ceasing with the object of experience. Hearing this, it is common to question how rebirth and karma can therefore have any effect over space-time. Given, however, the premise that reality is based on experience, such questions are a matter of a conflation of paradigms.
Simply put, the mind doesn't move from one place to another, or last from one moment (or life) to another, "place" and "time" are considered a product of experience. An experience of seeing is "real" whether it occurs with eyes opened or closed. The idea that "I am in this room" is only valid in the context of the experiences that give rise to it.
I recently had an opportunity to watch a demo on Occulus Rift, my first experience of virtual reality. It's amazing how easily the mind is completely tricked into thinking that what it sees is "real". But that is the point; it is real, from within an experiential paradigm.
Scientists have done studies wherein they tricked a subject into thinking they were behind themselves, and the subject felt like they were outside their bodies. When sleeping, it is common for people to have out-of-body experiences. Near death, it is common to have OOBEs or or even visions of other worlds or deceased individuals. Some people claim to be visited by people who have recently died, or are on their death bed in far away cities. All of this is anecdotal, but it lends credence to the idea that the mind is at least somewhat independent of space, which from a Buddhist point of view is empirically true.
So, to actually answering your question, how does it work? The mind doesn't travel through space or time, space and time are a product of matter, which in turn is at least somewhat dependent on the mind ("Interdependent with" might be a better description). During life, body and mind work together to create the illusion of an impersonal spatio-temporal reality that is, in reality, made up of a causal framework (i.e. based on cause and effect) of momentary experiences that affect each other and direct one's life according to one's past deeds.
At the moment of death, something weird happens, but not categorically different. "The mind" has been habitually focussed on "the body", meaning that there is a habit for most experiences to occur in a specific locale, dependent on specific stimuli. The body, for all intents and purposes, is more like a prison than a progenitor for the mind. This is why OOBEs are uncommon and NDEs are actually fairly common (~20% by one doctor's estimation). Even still, the mind is capable of procuring visions of far away places and long-lost memories, especially when the body is dormant (i.e. dreaming when asleep).
At the moment of death, however, there is no pull of attraction to the body, so the mind is (mostly) free to wander. Strange things apparently happen after physical death, but eventually the mind states coalesce and decide upon a new object of attachment, usually based on old, engrained habits (humans become humans, etc.). As a result, and based on various karmic qualities, a new path is chosen and set out upon, giving rise to rebirth. This may lead the mind to appear to "travel" thousands or even millions or billions of kilometres in a moment, but what is really happening is that the new physical phenomena are being created by the mind, wherever the mind happens to incline. I.e., the newborn foetus's mind is affected by the prior mind of the being to be born, regardless of "where" that mind occurred.
This concept of "movement" of the mind from one location to another actually occurs all the time; in human life, however, it is loosely limited to the confines of this six-foot frame. The point is, space-time is dependent on matter, not the other way around, and the mind is not entirely dependent on either (being able to remember past (and present) lives and even have visions of the future). This doesn't mean that the mind is entirely free to do as it chooses, it just means that it is confined to a different set of laws, ones that don't preclude the potential for it to arise in conjunction with physical phenomena in diverse reaches of the physical universe.
Interestingly, there are stories in the texts of rebirth-preparatory matter arising before one's mental relocation; mansions arising spontaneously in heaven to await their master who is busy doing good deeds on Earth, for example. This only presents difficulty if we are stuck in a spatio-temporal, impersonal paradigm for reality, which from a Buddhist point of view is absolutely false.
Karma is far more complex, but not difficult to understand in principle. The interactions between streams of conscious experience is causal as well, and leads beings to be reborn in connection with other beings who share their karmic histories, simply based on the energy of their past interactions, similar to the complex attractions and repulsions between physical particles. So, fifty years later, something you did in a past life might come back to kick you in the pants, just like a rock you throw away from the Earth can come back to hit you on the head. More importantly, everything we do at every moment has the potential to affect the immediate direction of the individual, meaning karma is very much about momentary causality, rather than future incidental results.
Sorry for the length, but I think this is actually a very important issue; what seems like a bit of tangential dilemma from a practical meditative point of view turns out to be a crucial sticking point towards proper understanding of reality and giving up views of self. Ultimately, however, you can only really understand these concepts by meditation on experiential reality; be reassured, however, that that is all it takes - no abstract ratiocination required :)

Thank you for this detailed answer. It's actually helpful in answering something I had asked about here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/7308/a-buddhist-point-of-view-of-virtual-reality :)

What do you mean when you write "mind"? Is it nāma, the four aggregates other than rūpa?

@michau yes, that is what I mean.

Check out my answer to a different question which answers your question about what happens to this "self" when it dies.
That answer I made is the product of 10 years of passionate research into Buddhism and is delicately interwoven with many different topics in Buddhism.  I am assuming you will need to heavily research the topics as well.
How does it [karma] know whom to punish 50 years later?

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
  poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
  him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
  removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
  warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
  have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
  man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
  short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or
  golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city...
  until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow
  or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was
  wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I
  know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or
  cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with
  which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a
  peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which
  I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a
  langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed
  until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
  common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
  arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
  to him.
—Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya" (MN
  63), Majjhima Nikaya

Although there are plenty of suttas, particularly the Surangama Sutra, where the Buddha analyzes karmic causes, in Buddhism it is emphasized that the precise mechanisms of karma is not important to fully understand basically because it is a waste of life to watch and write about every domino that hits another domino when we have the antidote (The Four Noble Truths) right under our nose!
Karma is mind-made made as you have said and analyzing the contents of the mind is not always beneficial. In Buddhism, oftentimes, the solution to issues is to not be stuck in analyzing, but to learn to just be. To learn to just be there and be aware and calm without trying. Can you do this? It's hard isn't it? Nonetheless, it is a big part of Buddhist training.
All you need to know is that there are beneficial results from doing beneficial things (whether to oneself or to others) and harmful results from doing harmful things (to oneself and others).
The reason for this is because we are not self, we are all actually One Thing aka The Universe.
There is no self.
Hurting others is hurting oneself. Hurting oneself is hurting others.
Knowing this much one should make sure to avoid all errors and strive to follow the 4 Noble Truths exactly first and cut off all wandering thoughts because the opportunity we have in this life is rare! In this way, following the precepts is a child's game!
Now... to answer your question:
because the 8th consciousness (alaya) stores all the seeds of all actions and reactions until the right time and conditions come for the reward/retribution to come forth, creating even more seeds... This part of your consciousness is like a massive calculator and storehouse combined into one, it's really messy and ugly and mean because all those seeds will fruition just when the right causes come. The collective storehouse is the same for the person reincarnation 50 years later. The karmic act of evil (the seed) may need time to grow and ferment sometimes many lives because there are four types of karma.
Anyway, not that important to understand especially because when you achieve dhyana, you will be able to see all your karma and answer all these (seemingly relevant but Actually irrelevant) questions on your own with direct true knowing aka prajna insight.

"[...]lets take a practical example: A person dies in New York, and then is being reborn in Washington D.C the next moment. So here, you want to say the conditioned-self (illusion) travelled all the way from New York to D.C. to affect his/her next birth?"
In the suttas, we read:

[...] some beings here, with the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in the plane of [...]

In the canon there is little more than that about that intermediary stage. So, grossly speaking, the example is assuming that:

after death, there is, momentarily, a conditioned self (4 aggregates?)
these four aggregates travel through space
they do so to affect the next birth

Naturally, one could not state the above solely based on that single line; most of what was recorded about rebirth says "... upon death, the being reappears at ...".
However, other things are said in the suttas. It is asserted that the D.C person becoming is conditioned by the NY person. The later "inherits" the former's kamma, and is somewhat of a product of that kamma.
Furthermore, it's implied that the D.C person is "the same" as the NY person when the suttas say "he died and reappeared at ...", otherwise it would just be said "people appears" -- but that would be in synch with annihilationism. However, it is also implied he is "not the same" as the NY person. Thus, the popular punch line: "he is not the same nor he is another".
Now, as far as physics goes, traveling might not be necessary. Nor "affect". Simply "appearing" could suffice. But this as far as I'll go on the speculation route.
"Say a person violates the precept of non-killing in New York in his/her present birth. How does the kamma know whom to punish 50 years later when that same person is reborn in D.C.?"
Well, of course, kamma doesn't really "knows" or "punishes". It's as punishing as the redness on the skin after scratching it.
Things happen, reactions are manifested. And everything, being the product of the entire past, carries finger prints of the entire past. And these finger prints find their way to expressing themselves when the environment favors it (be it in the next moment, 50 years, or aeons later).
"[...]But that's still begging the question - How does it know whom to punish 50 years later?"
I don't know. Nobody is believed to know the exact mechanics of kamma.

Let me try to give "non-canonical" answers today. Please excuse any pun or humour.

I am just a conditioned-self, an illusion created by the interaction
  of the five aggregates. Each time I do something, or will something,
  its this distorted conditioned-self in play, right?

It's just like on your Windows PC, you have many programs or applications or windows like Microsoft Word, Firefox, Notepad, Skype etc. Each are different windows you can open, close, minimize, maximize etc. You can do productive stuff on them. They are real. You can use them. But in reality, it is caused by the interactions of machine code in the processor and memories, which itself is caused by the controlled movement of electrons (aka electronics). The windows are real, but they are not permanent and they arise out of the interactions of the various processes.
So, you can say, "all software is not permanent" and "all phenomena is not program". Or there is no permanent "program" (self) behind Firefox that is responsible to decide all that it does. But it does appear like that, doesn't it? Actually, it's the inter-working between various processes and components.

A person dies in New York, and then is being reborn in Washington D.C
  the next moment. So here, you want to say the conditioned-self
  (illusion) travelled all the way from New York to D.C. to affect
  his/her next birth?

It's not something physical that is transferred. It's information. You don't have to take out the harddisk from one computer and place it in another to use Skype there. You just need to copy the Skype software and your previous history onto it. The new physical computer is completely different from the old one. But it's only the software that gets transferred. When you start it, the Skype appears as real as the previous one, and with the previous state too. But it's still not permanent, and is the result of the interaction between many processes.
The idea that thinking about New York takes about as much time as thinking about Singapore or heavan, is found in Milindapanha 3.7.4.

How does the kamma
  know whom to punish 50 years later when that same person is reborn in
  D.C.? (You may say here that there is no external law-maker, but kamma
  is just in our minds. But that's still begging the question - How does
  it know whom to punish 50 years later?)

From Wikipedia, you can read the story of Joseph Ratzinger. As a five year old boy, he was awe-struck by the distinctive robes of the visiting Cardinal Archbishop of Munich and the ceremonies to grandly welcome him. Little Ratzinger announced that very day that he too would one day become a cardinal.
He became Pope Benedict XVI 73 years later. During his papacy, he reintroduced the traditional red papal shoes, the traditional red papal camel skin hat (camauro) and the traditional red wide-brimmed hat (capello romano). He also reintroduced an old version of the pallium and also the papal fanon. All of these grand papal vestments were not in use for many papacies but were revived again by Pope Benedict XVI. However, I think Pope Francis has dropped most of these for simpler garb.
So, my point is that karma is not a system of justice and retribution, but rather, cause and effect. The seed of thought that appeared in the mind of a 5-year old boy with regards to the grand attire of a cardinal, drove him towards becoming a pope 73 years later, who had a personal interest in reviving the use of old grand vestments.
(By the way, I'm not ridiculing the good pope. He was certainly very qualified for the role, and was not too attached to it, that he voluntarily gave it up when he felt that he was no longer physically fit to fulfil it. He now wears simple papal robes and does not interfere with or criticize the decisions made by his successor)
Similarly, our thoughts and actions (karma) shape our inclinations and our future. By some mechanism that I don't understand, our karma also shapes our future (next life) physical forms, families that we are born in and, the fortunes or misfortunes that we experience. They were not meted out by a judge, but they were manifested as effects due to past causes.

I'm happy to read your non-canonical answer and explanation. It was refreshingly original. The example of  the Pope -- not typical on this site -- is also much appreciate.

I once listened to a talk by a monk who gave a good metaphor on this. He said that one should think of rebirth as a mango tree. Lets say you have a mango tree in your garden. Some day that mango tree will blossom if the right conditions are made.
If the right conditions are there mango fruits will appear on the tree. At some point a mango fruit will fall from the tree and land on the earth. After a while the seed of that mango fruit will become a new mango tree if the right conditions are met.
In that way there is a continuation of the mango tree. Its not the same one as the prior tree but at the same time its not completely different.
Another example could be a candlelight with a flame. Let say you have a candlelight and you then use that candlelight to ignite a new candlelight. Is that then the same flame? No but its not entirely different either.
Regarding your question about kamma.
This is actually one of The Four Imponderables - Acinteyya (AN: 4.77 - Acintita Sutta). These are questions that the Buddha said one should not think about.
Why?
Because they will only leave the mind distressed and agitated. The interplay between objects are so complex that one can never fully understand it. Unless one is a Buddha one should not bother with these questions.


text:
Questions regarding meditation posture and movement
I was trying sitting cross legged and back straight during Anapanasati meditation.
I have looked at this question -> A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness
I would like to know what are the possible bad practices learned during meditation and in the posture and I would not want to make those mistakes.
I am not sitting purely cross legged. The feet are under the shins or calf. I am unable to sit perfectly straight noticing that I am leaning forward. Should I at this juncture, straighten up again? What if a mosquito bites you at that moment, like it is biting me right now? Should I move to scratch an itch?
Is it important to simply acknowledge and not react to anything at all? (Reaction in the sense move a little...)
What is right mindfulness? Not reacting and simply acknowledging? What if it adversely affects my legs by not moving and possibly getting bitten by the mosquito?

A recent, marvelous book (especially written for Westerners) is from Larry Rosenberg (2012): Breath by Breath. The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation.
In this book you'll find—in plain English—the essence of Anapanasati practice. It's the essence: from the first step to enlightenment. What do you want more?

Will read it. Thank you for the information.

I was being told that we don't practice to become experts on sitting. So if you  have intense pain, go the middle way. Acknowledge pain, acknowledge that you want to move, try to overcome the pain a bit, acknowledge unbearable, and after a few moments, if necessary, move the body mindfully (not automatically, in reaction), and carry on particing, again in still.
It is important to simply acknowledge, and even if you have to react to unbearable pain, acknowledge first, and react as if in slow motion. If you have pain and then worries about your legs, acknowledge fear (and let it go and go back to breath), if you fear mosquito, acknowledge fear etc.
If you become aware of an automatic reaction (movement) which has already taken place, acknowledge that awareness, acknowledge your thoughts about it (self-judgement, or whatever else arises) and go back to breath.
Middle way. If your meditation hall is on fire, acknowledge smelling, seeing, fear, then get up mindfully and take care of survival of yours and your fellow meditators.
I find the question you linked to be a very good explanation.


text:
Does sutta recitation actually entail understanding of the text?
I'm particularly interested in

Chinese morning and evening service
Tibetan sadhanas that a monk recites every day
Theravada Pali suttas and chants

Are these read in modern times by and to an audience that understands the language? I obviously believe some one knows medieval Chinese and Pali or there wouldn't be translations. But is a lengthy period of language study part of becoming a monk, and if it isn't, doesn't that mean that the monks and more so the laity have no idea what is being said?
I have the luxury of reading all the sutras in English translation. It is only dawning on me that possibly for some or most of the time, sutras are akin to a very long dhāraṇī.
This question was prompted by this quote from a Nichiren/SGI book

Even though you may not understand what you are saying, your voice
  definitely reaches the Gohonzon, all Buddhists dieties, and all
  Buddhas and bodhisattvas over three existences and in the ten
  directions. In response, the entire universe bathes you in the light
  of good fortune.

The Heart of the Lotus Sutra, Ikeda.
To clarify, the question is not "Is mantrayana efficacious?", but if that is the question you want to answer, I already asked that a while back. The question is, as practiced, an in doctrine, do the various Buddhist institutions expect their monks and laity to understand what they chant?

Chanting is an interesting practice and I think each school might have a different take on this.  In my own tradition (Rinzai Zen), the meaning of what's chanted is absolutely irrelevant.  In fact, the liturgy that we use is a Japanese phonetic rendition of a Chinese phonetic rendition of Sanskrit.  Needless to say, no one understands a word of it.  And that includes the folks in our group that speak any one of those three languages.  ;-)

In the Triratna Buddhist Community we chant in Pali and English. When we chant in Pali we often do it without a translation for example

Buddham saranam gacchami
Dhamman saranam gacchami
Sangham saranam gacchami

translation would be

(To the Buddha for refuge I go)
(To the Dharma for refuge I go)
(To the Sangha for refuge I go)

I chanted the refuges and precepts in Pali for years without the vaguest idea what they meant. That is probably a reflection on some worrying lack of curiosity on my part than anything else.
However it was recently explained to me that the reason we do it is that these chants are chanted throughout the Buddhist world and have been for a long time. Therefore by chanting it connects us to Buddhists past and present and Buddhists throughout the world. We could go to Thailand or Japan and hear the exact same chant and have that connection. To me that feels like a good reason to chant Pali even without knowing what it means.
As another general point, Peter Harvey in an Introduction to Buddhism states that chanting sutras is a form of meditation and as such the language and meaning of the sutras is not relevant in that context. It is more the physicality of the chant and the community of participants, both active and passive. He asserts that this is particularly potent when the monastic community chants in the presence of the laity. It has the effect of bring both parts of the Buddhist community together.

The Soto Zen temples and sanghas I've visited in Brazil all supported understanding what they were chanting (usually handing out translations, but chanting in japanese). Some of them made their own translations and chant in portuguese. Another center of tibetan lineage I visited also had a group of language study. Finally, when I was on a Ch'an temple, we chanted in chinese (though translations of the texts were available), and we also had mandarin classes.

Try an experiment. Sit and, without expectation, recite a phrase in a foreign language that you do not understand 6 times a day, to people that also do not understand that language. Do this every day for a week.
Any perceivable effect?
Now, get yourself a phrase in a language that you DO understand, some phrase that has meaning to you such as, "I take refuge in the Buddha (as an example and a teacher), in the Dharma (as the teachings), and in the Sangha," or replace that with something like, "As long as space remains, and there are sentient beings to be found, may I remain to dispel the misery of the world," or something of that kind, and repeat that 6 times a day for a week. Repeat this to people that understand the language that you are using, and the terms that you are using.
Any perceivable effect?
What good are empty rituals? They become like a chain around your neck, and are a tool for control of superstitious minds. There is the warning that is a part of the Kalama Sutta, "...do not go by traditions." For something to have potency, true, real potency, there must be meaning for you in it. Relying on empty ritual or tradition simply makes you a puppet.

I'm not SGI myself, but people do report chanting works for them. A sceptic would attribute this to confirmation bias (good things were bound to eventually happen, you attribute them to what ever you want to be the cause). So a single person experiment doesn't necessarily convince anyone. There is an offhand chance that this is true for less controversial practices (at least on this board), like meditation.

One of the characteristics of those who have attained stream entry is that they have abandoned the fetter of clinging to rites and rituals. To me, chanting without understanding the meaning of verses is a ritual and therefore counter productive to the goal of escaping suffering.

Tibetan sadhana practice definitely involves understanding in the sense of doing the visualizations and contemplating the significance of each element. Done properly, with stability, clarity and appropriate prerequisites such as receiving the initiation, hearing a commentary, and studying the text and commentaries, sadhana practice is a profound and effective form of insight meditation. It can also be used to develop shamatha.
There is also a concept of oral transmission (Tib. lung) in Tibetan Buddhadharma. The teacher recites a text in the presence of students and this transmits the blessing of the teacher's lineage for the particular text, thus preparing the hearers to study and practice it on their own. During oral transmission, the student will typically not be practicing even if they know Tibetan, since the recitation is usually rapid and not fully enunciated, in a kind of chant, and it may be the first time they have heard the text. So, oral transmission actually works even if the hearer does not understand Tibetan. Of course, after receiving an oral transmission, a student who does not know Tibetan will need to study and practice the text in translation.

Buddha's advice in the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) is contemplation, observation, meditation:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them".

(Translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
The Buddha asks his followers that they examine the outcome of practice to see if the teachings are true. Buddhism isn't about beliefs. Buddhism is about firsthand knowledge.

firsthand experience

The question is, as practiced, an in doctrine, do the various Buddhist institutions expect their monks and laity to understand what they chant?
Interesting question: in the time that the mantra was introduced to the people, yes.
To gain a benefit from a mantra though it is not technically necessary because the effect is the vibrations themselves which resonate your body and mind with a certain frequency and allow the bodhisattva/Buddha to help you.

You have asked about the Theravada view so i am going to answer that part.
Mahayana has had the influence of eastern asian countries and therefore talk about things like Curses,Fortune etc. The issue here is that Theravada Buddhism does not believe in such things.
Theravada view  depends more on actions and their effect and does not give such significance to great ones like "Bodhisattvas" because it focus its respect on the triple gems.Great ones like "Bodhisattvas" are only mentioned and not much is being talked about them in daily Buddhist life.

So what is admired the most....
In Theravada actual understanding is strongly advised to the public and to monks.but some people recite without knowing the meaning in hopes of using "suttas" For protection.But as i have heard many times even though it might create less powerful good karma when reciting without knowing the meaning it is still effective.

I would like to tell you the story of "Manduka deva putta"
One day a man heard lord Buddha advising some people and he went to join them.This man was a Shepard and he had a stick with him.So he went there and found a vacant place and started listening.He did not sit down,he was standing up.
He was exited about what he was learning and payed no attention to anything else.what he did not noticed was that there was a frog right next to his stick.As he was standing he used his stick to support his weight and the frog was caught among the stick and the ground.
The frog was listing to the voice of lord Buddha and it was paying no attention to anything either.So when the frog was caught it had no chance to escape and it died on the spot.
It died and opened eyes again what it saw was the "Deva realm" and it was not a frog anymore he was a "Deva".Quickly he memorized what happened and came to see lord Buddha and said what happened.
This is  a good example about not knowing the meaning and still having good results from dharma.

Conclusion
So it is clear not knowing does not make it powerless put it would be better if you know the meaning because it would help you understand and remember Dhamma better and it would gain you some good and powerful karma.


text:
What is meant by pursuing gain with gain?
Leading on from this answer - in the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta  it identifies wrong action in one's livelihood as

Scheming
Persuading
Hinting
Belittling
Pursuing gain with gain

What is meant by pursuing gain with gain? It is a problem with the translation that makes it unclear or have I just missed an obvious interpretation?

My first thought was that it meant usury, but apparently Buddhagosa defines it as,

'Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain? Seeking, seeking for,
  seeking out, going in search of, searching for, searching out material
  goods by means of material goods, such as carrying there goods that
  have been got from here, or carrying here goods that have been got from
  there, by one bent on gain, honour and renown, by one of evil wishes,
  a prey to wishes—this is called pursuing gain with gain' (Vbh. 352-
  53).

... which I think implies being a merchant (buying here and selling there), or more generally capitalism.
Note that that sutta is addressed to monks.

Thank you for the explanation ChrisW. What does the Buddha mean when he says Right Livelihood with Effluents and without Effluents. I thought the former refers to laypersons who are immersed in the 5 strings of sensuality. But, as you said the sutta is directed to monks and nuns yet mentions these. Or, is he referring to Right Livelihood of an Arahant vs not an Arahant?

I think you're quoting MN 117? It says, And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood. ... And what is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. ...

Interesting answers, especially the Buddhaghosa answer. I also heard an interesting suggestion that gain may have meant 'profit', thus gain-with-gain meant compounded interest. But then I thought Buddha did say that honest wealth was acquired by the sweat of ones brow and the strength of one's arms, so I inclined to Buddhaghosa's interpretation. Also consider that the merchants were the ones that used 'writing' in Buddha's time, which was a reason that writing was considered to be a lowly practice. Merchants were pretty much considered to be lowlifes in Buddha's day.

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