text:
Is there is anything which is not a phenomena?
Is there is anything existing in the past,present or future which is not a phenomena ?
Is it correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent?
If yes then how we know this?

Hard to say since searching for an any-thing. Nibbana might be a good look around.

You would need to define 'phenomenon'. Do you mean what Kant means? Or are you using it to mean 'dhamma'? The Middle Way view would be that Nibbana is a dhamma, thus could be called a phenomenon, but this would not be not a Kantian phenomenon. We can know all Kantian phenomena are impermanent by knowing what is permanent.  .

I think the dharma says,

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"

So not "all phenomena", but specifically "all saṅkhārās" -- see Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?
This might be paraphrased like, "Everything that has a cause (or, 'has a beginning' or 'arises') has an end".
It's especially relevant for sensual phenomena -- i.e. sights, sounds, thoughts, and so on -- because these are conditioned by contact.
There may be some "phenomena" which are not saṅkhārās and not impermanent -- nibbana for example is said to be not-impermanent. I suppose reasons for that include its being unconditioned (it doesn't depend on something for its existence, in fact it's explicitly independent), and timeless.
I think that some schools of Buddhism identify other not-impermanent (unconditioned) phenomena too: for example, "space" and others (see Two unconditioned dhammas?); and possibly Buddha-nature or Dharmakaya (see Ignorant mind and Buddha nature).

I saw the link.Space is not unconditioned. Truth seems to be the fact that all things are transitory except Nirvana.Also, I was wondering, whether there is a proof of the statement which states that "Everything which has a beginning or cause must have an end".

Space is conditioned. For example, if you fill an empty room, the space disappears. Space is discussed here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html   Nirvana is unconditioned. The law of nature (dhamma-niyama) is also permanent. See link: https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.136

@Dhammadhatu For example, if you fill an empty room, the space disappears I might argue that a cubic metre is always a cubic metre, whether it's filled or not; or that 'infinite space' itself always exists even though what's within it changes; conversely one could argue that "a cubic metre" is a concept (an idea) and so impermanent too; or that it depends on distances, i.e. depends on locations within space being identified; I doubt it's worth arguing about.

@DheerajVerma I was wondering, whether there is a proof of the statement I don't know what "proof" means, and I don't entirely trust mere logic. I think the "truth" of the statement is meant to be obversable: i.e. evident in the here-and-now. "Is it proven?" might be a theoretical question, whereas a more practical question might be "Is it helpful, is it useful?" I think the observation, that sankharas are impermanent, is meant to have helpful, practical consequences (e.g. "don't assume they're permanent, avoid attachment, suffering too is conditioned/impermanent and ceases, etc.").

@ChrisW - In any case, science has proven that space is expanding and according to General Relativity, space-time can be warped by mass and can influence the movement of objects. The recent LIGO results are great proof of the possible squeeze and expansion of space even if it's very tiny (gravitational waves). So, both space and time can be conditioned by mass.

@ruben2020 Nevertheless I think that some Buddhist schools declared that space (i.e. presumably akasa, maybe the first arupa jhana) is unconditioned.

All jhana have contact as requisite condition. Perception is associated with contact, it is included in nama of namarupa. Perception of sensuality is stilled/ceased in the 1st rupa jhana..perception of form in the 1st arupa jhana... Perception as perception ceases only when one attains cessation of perception&feeling which is nibbana in definitive sense. Also op posed the question poorly because the unmade doesn't parttake as the past, present or future, neither this world nor another world but if there was no unmade thn escape from that which does parttake wouldn't b pos

Past present and future existence has contact as nutriment, formation as nutriment, consciousness as nutriment. Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness, sanna, sankhara and vedana. Rupa is not conjoined with consciousness, hence namarupa...

All things, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are dhammas ('phenomena') & elements (dhatu).
All things mentioned in Buddhism, whether conditioned or conditioned, are sense objects experienceable by the mind, i.e., 'ayatana' (refer to Sabba Sutta. Note: the translation should be 'mind objects' rather than 'ideas', so to include Nibbana).
Conditioned things are sankhara; conditioned elements are sankhata dhatu.
The unconditoned element/Nibbana  is asankhata dhatu or visankhara.
Only conditioned things (sankhara) are impermanent.
Nibbana, the unconditioned, is permanent.

277. "All conditioned things (sankhara) are impermanent”— when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path
  to purification.
278. "All conditioned things (sankhara) are unsatisfactory”—when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path
  to purification.
279. "All things (dhammā) are not-self” — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build (visaṅkhitaṃ) this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned (Visaṅkhāra); I have attained the destruction of craving.
Dhammapada

Dve imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—saṅkhatādhātu, asaṅkhatādhātu.
There are these two elements: the conditioned element and the
  unconditioned element.
MN 115

There is, bhikkhus, that base (āyatanaṃ) where... Just this is the end of suffering. Ud 8.1

His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nibbana — the undeceptive — is true. MN 140

How many elements(dhatu) are there? Are these elements immortal? I think not except Nirvana.

The answers to your question really depend on what "a phenomenon" is, in other words a sankhara.
Please see this essay by Ven. Bodhi entitled "Anicca Vata Sankhara" (I have bolded the relevant parts and also snipped some parts, in the quoted section below).
The TL;DR version:
Sankharas are "co-doings," things that act in concert with other things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Ven. Bodhi uses "formations" or "volitional formations" as his preferred translation.
There are 3 uses of the term Sankhara in the scriptures:

Second link in dependent origination - when ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, including "rebirth".
The fourth of the five aggregates - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Also covers all factors of mind except feeling and perception.
All conditioned and compounded things including mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers.

The only thing which is unconditioned and uncompounded is Nibbana.
Long version:

The word sankhara is derived from the prefix sam, meaning "together,"
joined to the noun kara, "doing, making." Sankharas are thus
"co-doings," things that act in concert with other things, or things
that are made by a combination of other things. Translators have
rendered the word in many different ways: formations, confections,
activities, processes, forces, compounds, compositions, fabrications,
determinations, synergies, constructions. All are clumsy attempts to
capture the meaning of a philosophical concept for which we have no
exact parallel, and thus all English renderings are bound to be
imprecise. I myself use "formations" and "volitional formations,"
aware this choice is as defective as any other.
.... In the suttas the word occurs in three major doctrinal
contexts. One is in the twelvefold formula of dependent origination
(paticca-samuppada), where the sankharas are the second link in the
series. They are said to be conditioned by ignorance and to function
as a condition for consciousness. Putting together statements from
various suttas, we can see that the sankharas are the kammically
active volitions responsible for generating rebirth and thus for
sustaining the onward movement of samsara, the round of birth and
death. In this context sankhara is virtually synonymous with kamma, a
word to which it is etymologically akin.
The suttas distinguish the sankharas active in dependent origination
into three types: bodily, verbal, and mental. Again, the sankharas are
divided into the meritorious, demeritorious, and "imperturbable,"
i.e., the volitions present in the four formless meditations. When
ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our
volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the
capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most
significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following
death. .......
A second major domain where the word sankharas applies is among the
five aggregates. The fourth aggregate is the sankhara-khandha, the
aggregate of volitional formations. The texts define the
sankhara-khandha as the six classes of volition (cha cetanakaya):
volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and
ideas. ...... The aggregate of
volitional formations comprises all kinds of volition. It includes not
merely those that are kammically potent, but also those that are
kammic results and those that are kammically inoperative. In the later
Pali literature the sankhara-khandha becomes an umbrella category for
all the factors of mind except feeling and perception, which are
assigned to aggregates of their own. Thus the sankhara-khandha comes
to include such ethically variable factors as contact, attention,
thought, and energy; such wholesome factors as generosity, kindness,
and wisdom; .......
The third major domain in which the word sankhara occurs is as a
designation for all conditioned things. In this context the word has a
passive derivation, denoting whatever is formed by a combination of
conditions; whatever is conditioned, constructed, or compounded. In
this sense it might be rendered simply "formations," without the
qualifying adjective. As bare formations, sankharas include all five
aggregates, not just the fourth. The term also includes external
objects and situations such as mountains, fields, and forests; towns
and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers.
.... By putting an end to the constructing of conditioned reality, we
open the door to what is ever-present but not constructed, not
conditioned: the asankhata-dhatu, the unconditioned element. This is
Nibbana, the Deathless, the stilling of volitional activities, the
final liberation from all conditioned formations and thus from
impermanence and death. Therefore our verse concludes: "The subsiding
of formations is blissful!"

Let us say I hold the element Gold. It is a compounded thing according to you. May I ask what is it made up of ?

Gold atom is composed of protons, neutrons, elections and a lot of empty space. Protons and neutrons can break down into quarks. Gold can be dissolved using aqua regia, an acid mixture.

While the theory is not yet proven, quarks and other fundamental particles may be composed of very tiny strings that vibrate in 11 dimensions. See string theory in Wikipedia.

Great ... Now if I ask what quarks are made up of ? You will say strings. If I ask what are strings made up of ? You will have no clue because science ends here. But Strings are still a phenomenon. Ultimately we can go on asking what something is made up of till the infinity. Right? If yes then we see that objects can have infinite number of constituents.. But thats impossible because infinity can not be dissolved.Therefore everything must be made up finite number of constituents, with base as some element or indivisible dhattu which dissolves even though it is not an aggregate.

The universe started with a big bang from a singularity and we know about E=mc^2, so it's plausible that all matter can be converted into energy. And energy can be converted into matter. So both energy and matter can be conditioned.

And then due to General Relativity, also space and time can be conditioned by matter, so ultimately nothing in the physical world exists unconditioned.

@Dheeraj Verma what you are saying reflects the debate in the science circles of whether reality is discrete or continuous. But what you asserted so surely to be impossible is far from unanimous position. That's why this is still a debate and under investigation, because it's unclear.

Isn't "Gold" a nama-rupa (name and form) and therefore conditioned by vinnana (consciousness)?

"Is there is anything existing in the past,present or future which is
  not a phenomena ?"

No.
Anything existing, no matter if in past, present or future, is phenomena.
Now listen carefully my friend ...
If you find anything existing which is not a phenomena, claiming "this is not real, this does not exist", that find would come from ignorance.
If you find anything existing which is a phenomena claiming "this is real, this exists", that find would come from ignorance.
If you look at phenomena without ignorance, you would see absence of phenomena.

"Is it correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent? If yes
  then how we know this?"

I'll answer as I was once told by a Buddha:
When a being is born, that being, no matter where it is born, no matter for how many aeons he would live, a day would come, when he would have to die.
And why is that so?
Suppose a king, due to good kamma, after death, can choose the duration of his life and the universe he is born in. Suppose he decides to be immortal and be born in an universe without any beings. Thus he is born in an universe where no beings can harm him and is immortal. He lives like that for many many aeons. He delights in his immortality. He is the all knowing king, eternal king of the universe. Then, he wakes one day, and sees a being! He asks: "Being! How did you come into my universe?!" The being answers: "Because I made the wish." Then, after many aeons, that being dies. Then, after many aeons, the king wakes one day, and sees a being again! "Being! How did you come into my universe?!" he asks. "Because I made the wish." the being replies. The next day, centillions and centillions of beings appear next to the king! "What! Why did you all come into my universe!?" the king asks. The beings reply: "Because he made the wish." and shred the king into pieces.
It is correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent. We know it, because the Buddha says so. Those who don't know, will soon know too ... just like that poor king.

Did Buddha told you the story ?!!Where are the links to the story you have mentioned?

Yes. Unfortunately I have no links for this story.

Buddha can not tell you the story. Last Buddha achieved the Nirvana. Have you found a new Buddha ?

No. You met many Buddhas too.

"A riddle, or a cricket's cry, is to doubt, a fit reply." - William Blake

Methinks, the four forces as described in physics are unondiitioned things exist in the universe. They are Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. These are omnipresent in Nature.

Dhammesu dhammanupassi viharati=practitioner must use daily life to see causes (dhammanupassi) of phenomena (dhammesu=whole lokiya aggregates=suffering).
Loka-uttara such as magga/phala/nibbana, excluded from mahasatipatthana, because the uddesa of mahasatipatthana sutta  said "vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam" .

Viraga/norodha/patinissagga-anupassana are vipassana=lokiya. So it is not lokuttara. Nirodha word also use in lokiya, too, not just lokutara.  So my translation not conflict with the other sutta, but your translation conflict with loka word

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


text:
what is anatta during vipassana practice?
During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

No. Anatta arises from seeing the arising and passing nature of conditioned phenomena wherever you look. You see that the whole body is like mass of bubbling particles. One set gets destroyed another arises. You also see that this process is not controllable and this process generates sensations which are essentially unsatisfactory. Unpleasant sensations are unsatisfactory, pleasant sensation are unsatisfactory when they end and neutral sensations are unsatisfactory as they are conditioned and pass away giving rise to unsatisfactory experiences.
In addition, craving towards any of the sensation gives rise to the notion or perception of a being. Such perceptions all end in unsatisfactoriness.
Whatever unsatisfactory is not worth identifying as self. This is Anatta.

experienceed the unsatisfying nature sometime back.caused to stop meditation even. but didn't see it as anatta.

Do you see that every particle you are made of as unsatisfactory? Sometimes feeling disheartened can be mistaken as this though it is also unsatisfactory. In such a case ones knowledge is not solid as you might think there might be something else which is satisfactory.

no.saw hearing  is unsatisfactory. and thoughta are unsatisfactory.

What I meant by seeing is what you see or experience. This is at the experiential level.

Your answer is good, but the word using is lacking. "Anatta-lakkhaṇa"  appears clearer, not "anattā arises" because aggregates,anattā, arise naturally, but the practitioner comprehends the cycling of aggregates,anattā, then Anatta-lakkhaṇa appears clearer. People will confuse and think "aggregates are attā so I will comprehend let anatta arise." Actually, anattā is arising and vanishing even for a bird, so no one has to let anattā arise, but the practitioner comprehends the dependent origination to let Anatta-lakkhaṇa appears clearer.

See the path of purification to understand about the difference of anattā and anattattā, anatta-lakkhaṇa. Another is easier to understand but no translation: Ettha ca aniccaṃ, aniccalakkhaṇaṃ, dukkhaṃ, dukkhalakkhaṇaṃ, anattā, anattalakkhaṇanti ayaṃ vibhāgo veditabbo. Tattha aniccanti khandhapañcakaṃ. Kasmā? Uppādavayaññathattabhāvā , hutvā abhāvato vā. Uppādavayaññathattaṃ aniccalakkhaṇaṃ hutvā abhāvasaṅkhāto vā ākāravikāro.

When in meditation observe fabrications that arise in your mind. If you see that no matter what fabrication you observe, the observed fabrication is not you nor it's yours, that is the experience of anatta.
You said that during your meditation mind itself can be seen. Do it again and ask yourself if this mind you see is you and is it yours? If you clearly see that it is not you nor it's yours, that is the experience of anatta.
Next, experience anatta by observing as much fabrications as possible in your mind.
Next, experience anatta by observing as much fabrications as possible outside your mind, in the world/universe.
No matter where you'll observe, inside or outside, you'll experience anatta.
Na matter where you'll search, you'll experience anatta.
If at the end of your search for self (atta), you experience anatta and just anatta (no self), then you'll know anatta: all is not self. All is empty of self.
This is knowing anatta by experience.
Once anatta is known in the way I described, then the realization of the dhamma is not far away.

This post was marked down because, while the theory was excellent, it contained the words "you", "yours", "you'll" & "I" too many times to represent anatta. Also, the emphasis upon "fabrications" gives the impression it is theoretical because, in real meditation, the breathing/body, feelings, defilements, impermanence & conditionality are first discerned as anatta. To discern the anatta in fabrications is very subtle and very advanced and many other more gross phenomena are discerned as anatta far more easily & naturally, as the questioner described. .

During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

Seeing anatta is seeing the natural absence of 'self' in things; such as the absence of self in a drop of water.
If the mind can see its knowing & consciousness (awareness) is without self; if the mind can see it is the physical body that breathes rather than a 'self' that breathes; if the mind can see the breathing is merely 'air' or 'wind' (rather than 'my breathing'); and if the mind can see the automatic happenings in meditation occur without any self; this is beginning to see anatta.

What you are describing is a state you reach when you practice meditation. This cannot be anatta since anatta is not a state, it is a property of existence present in all things.
Rather, your description looks like you have reached a state called access concentration. This is the first but important step in practice. This is the state where mind no longer gets lost in usual wanderings, and breathing becomes relaxed, with mind staying with the object of meditation (breathing). Thoughts don't arise or if they come, they stay in the background, because the subtle tension that gives rise to thoughts doesn't become strong enough to distract and goes to the background (This is what I believe you meant by mind itself can be seen).
Also, your description that mind itself can be seen also tells me that is not related to anatta, as that itself is a thought (without that you would not know that it is mind you are seeing), which means you are in the identification stage and not (yet) seeing the true nature of things. Observing anatta is seeing the grasping/identification activity in action and noting that that is not me (if it is, then who is the I that is watching it? - hence a contradiction so both are not me in essence).

@Dhammadhatu The questioner is concluding that something he has seen is mind in operation, which is a thought (as mind cannot be seen like foot or breathing, for example). Since he has not observed that it is a thought, a conclusion, which means there is an entity that is concluding that has not been observed and deconstructed, it is not an observation of anatta. For your second point, watching the self-grasping means that which is grasping is not me, as if it was, then who was the I that was watching it ? (Its an argument to indicate the fallacy of concluding that it is I doing the grasping)

How do you know this? By direct observation or reading scriptures? If you haven't seen the self in operation, how it concludes things that were not its own, how can you see that it is not "me" that is doing things?

Also everything is anatta doesn't mean that you are seeing it as anatta or being capable of seeing it as such.

I don´t know. If you look inside whilst thinking, ask yourself "What is this?" Try to find the one who is thinking. Then the thought just vanishes, because it is Not-Self, not you nor anything else, but a changing phenomenon that comes and goes. Just let it go by asking What is This? There is no answer in your brain, you just need to see that there is nothing behind a thought but emptiness (no entity)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana?

Modes of Production
“What is it that is kamma-born, what cause-born, and what
season-born? What is it that is none of these?”
“All beings, O king are kamma-born. Fire, and all things
growing out of seeds are cause-born. The earth, water and
wind are season-born. Space and nibbàna exist independently
of kamma, cause and season. Of nibbàna, O king, it cannot
be said that it is perceptible by the five senses, but it is perceptible
by the mind. The disciple whose mind is pure, and
free from obstructions, can perceive nibbàna.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf

For further discussion on SC https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/why-dont-we-realise-space-instead-nibbana/6327/23

What do you mean by "realize"? See the definition of Ākāsa here, which begins,

'space', is, according to Com., of two kinds:

limited space (paricchinnākāsa or paricchedākāsa),
endless space (anantākāsa), i.e. cosmic space.

1) Limited space, under the name of ākāsa-dhātu (space element), belongs to derived corporeality (s. khandha, Summary I; Dhs 638) and to a six fold classification of elements (s. dhātu; M.112, M.115, M.140). It is also an object of kasina meditation. It is defined as follows: "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to indicate the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter; or its manifestation consists in being untouched (by the 4 great elements), and in holes and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited. It is on account of the space element that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above. below, around that' " (Vis.M. XIV.63).
2) Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. unobstructed or empty space. It is the object of the first immaterial absorption (s. jhāna), the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana). According to Abhidhamma philosophy, endless space has no objective reality (being purely conceptual), which is indicated by the fact that it is not included in the triad of the wholesome (kusalatika), which comprises the entire reality. Later Buddhist schools have regarded it as one of several unconditioned or uncreated states (asankhata dharma) - a view that is rejected in Kath. (s. Guide. p. 70). Theravāda Buddhism recognizes only Nibbāna as an unconditioned element (asankhata-dhātu: s. Dhs. 1084).

So maybe people do perceive space: both limited space (in ordinary perception) and unlimited space (as an object of meditation).

The question is why we can't attain Space instead of Nibbana or what is the difference between Space and Nibbana if both are unconditioned.

The answer given is that neither sort of space has an objective reality. Nibbana would transcend extension in time and space. . .

Space does not exist independently of kamma & cause. By kamma (action), space can be filled, such as filling a hole with soil. Or by cause, space can be created or removed, such as a volcanic eruption creating a cave with space but filling space in a crevice. Or when sickness blocks the space in the nostril.
The Lord Buddha said the realisation of space is conditioned & not Nibbana.
Nibbana is dispassion; Nibbana is non-attachment; Nibbana is the destruction of craving; Nibbana is the absence of greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, a mind abiding in Nibbana can walk & talk. Where as a mind abiding in space cannot walk or talk. That is why the Buddha rejected the dimension of the infinitude of space as Nibbana; because the dimension of the infinitude of space is limited, bondage, conditioned & not freedom.

One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop
  the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated'. MN 140

And what is the space property?... Anything... that is space, spatial... the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the
  [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed & tasted gets
  swallowed, and where it collects... MN 62

In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering. In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are
  words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent,
  connected with emptiness — will come about. SN 20.7

To the ignorant eye, space is space. Looking at space with wisdom, one sees Nibanna.
Space is not space. It is neither infinite, nor finite, nor both, nor any combination of these. There is no length nor height nor width nor distance nor closeness nor solidity nor empty space. Space is not space as we know it. All points in space are one single point and this one single point is all points in space.
To the ignorant eye, object is object. Looking at object with wisdom, one sees Nibanna.
Object is not object. It is neither infinite, nor finite, nor both, nor any combination of these. There is no length nor height nor width nor distance nor closeness nor solidity nor empty space. Object is not object as we know it. All objects are one single object and this one single object is all objects.
Everything is Nibanna.
Clouded with ignorance, space is the closest we can get to Nibanna with our senses.
Once ignorance is removed, Nibanna can be reached.

Space is not unconditioned. Space is simply a derived element. In other words, it's merely the absence of matter. When matter arise, space perish, when matter perish, space arise.

the difference between aggregate existent, nibbāna existent, and nonexistent (paññatti):
Nibbāna has no cause, because nibbāna never arise (every aggregate arisen by causes). Nibbāna is reality, existent, because nibbāna is the end of suffering (5 aggregates), the opposite side of suffering.
But paññatti, such as space, is not reality, not existent, although we can know it. Because paññatti has not any cause, too. And mainly, it is neither included in aggregate existent, nor included in nibbāna existent. It is not arises by causes like aggregate, and not opposite side of suffering like nibbāna. Paññatti is imagination that is imagined by consciousness. So we can imagine paññatti follow to aggregate, nibbāna, paññatti, or not follow to anything (=wrong view). That magination of consciousness never arise, but aggregate can arise even though without imagine. We can not called "is made by" because paññatti never is made by causes. It is just imagination.
So, arahanta-phalasamāpatti is difference of paññatti, because arahanta-phalasamāpatti completely abadon evey akusala, before arahanta can realise nibbāna. But everyone can realise, imagine, paññatti.
For more information of space paññatti, see ChrisW's answer.

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


text:
If there is no Self , what Self is there to be affected by the karma which non-Self now performs?
If there is no Self , then what Self is there to be affected by the karma which the non-Self now performs?
EDIT: A similar question I guess was asked in Samyutta Nikaya and Buddha replied as follows :
" With thy thoughts, which are under the dominion of desire, dost thou dream thou canst overhaul the teaching of the Master "
However I not sure what that means. I would be really happy if someone can explain the meaning of that answer from Buddha.

(I've been looking for that sutta on a side note, would anyone have a reference by any chance? I was searching the MN mostly! :p )

Sounds very similar to: "Is it me or someone else paying karma for my sins?"

@IlyaGrushevskiy I have found the original question in Samyutta Nikaya.

This comes from the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Basically, it's pointless to ask questions like this, according to the Buddha. Instead, we should approach it from the perspective of dependent origination.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"
  (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

What Buddha saying is beings are dependently originated due to ignorance. As far as we have self view we continue to accumulate Sankhara and we continue to exist. Sankhara is not the self but it is the accumulation due to self view.
Beings are effected by kamma due to selfview. Once you eliminate self identificaton (Arahant) there is no more becoming or affected by the kamma.

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

"There is no self" is not correct.
"There is self" is not correct.
"There is self and there is no self" is correct.
With ignorance desire arise. With desire fabrications arise. With fabrications self arise. With self kamma is present.
With wisdom desire cease. Without desire fabrications cease. Without fabrications self ceases. Without self kamma is extinguished.
This was the teaching of the Master.

"There is self and there is no self" is correct is incorrect, according to logic. Can't be this is black and also is not black, two contradictories can't be one. Right saying is, "there neither self nor no-self" - inspired by Nagarjuna.

You are right: "there neither is self nor no self" is correct. I think that answering to the OP in such a way, would confuse him even more, because then he would think "if there neither is self nor no self,then there is nothing. If is nothing, then who/what is affected by karma??" which is not correct either, correct is "there is neither self, nor no self, nor nothing". Or he could go in the other extreme: "if there neither is self nor no self, then there is something else" which is not correct either. But if I say "there is self and there is no self", he can investigate and realize the truth.

Haaha... I can see that you are a yogi (meditator), people just listen to what they like to hear, they don't go to see how your mind works and since they read what they like your concerning how they digesting your word is over-done, IMO. I do appreciate your way of dealing with the topics, whether I agree with them or not.

After a little research I found the original question in Samyutta Nikaya along with Buddha's response.

Then what self can those acts affect which are not self-wrought?"
  Thereupon the Exalted One, with his thought reading the thoughts of
  that brother's mind, said to the brethren: It is possible, brethren,
  that some senseless fellow, sunk in ignorance and led astray by
  craving, may think to go beyond the Master's teaching thus: "So then
  you say that body is not the Self; feeling is not the Self, perception
  is not the Self, the activities are not the Self, and consciousness is
  not the Self, Then what self can those acts affect which are not
  self-wrought?" That question, brethren, I have already answered thus
  and thus in those teachings that I have given you. Now what think ye,
  brethren? Is body permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord."
  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that
  which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to
  regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?"
  "Surely not, lord." Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
  "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"
  "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in
  nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this
  is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Is perception permanent or
  impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it
  weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful,
  unstable in nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this
  am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Are the activities
  permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is
  impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is
  impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to regard it
  thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not,
  lord." Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent,
  lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord."
  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of
  me?" "Surely not, lord."
      Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or
  near, - every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of
  me."
Every feeling whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or
  outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every feeling
  should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight: "This is
  not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."
Every perception whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  perception should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:
  "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."
Every activity whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  activity should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:
  "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."
Every consciousness whatever, be it past, future or present, be it
  inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  consciousness should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of
  me."
      "Wherefore, brethren, he who thus sees conceives disgust at body, at feeling, at perception, at the activities, at consciousness. Being
  disgusted he is repelled by them; by that repulsion he is released; by
  that release he is set free; knowledge arises: in the freed man is the
  freed thing, and he knows: 'Destroyed is rebirth; lived is the
  righteous life; done is the task; for life in these conditions there
  is no hereafter.'"

A late thank you for providing this reference!

The problem we have here is that the Buddha was speaking to people in a culture different from our own. This is important because the "Self" they were talking about was atta/atman and it was defined as eternal, like our concept of a soul in that way. When we talk about a Self nowadays, we tend to do it from a psychological stance: the importance of developing a healthy self-identity. We speak of self-reliance, knowing ourselves, and so on. We're not talking about an eternal separate, changeless self. So from the start, trying to transfer what the Buddha said then to now begins in confusion because we don't mean what he meant. He was talking about atta/atman/a soul. We are talking about psychological constructs within living beings who do experience the results of our actions.
In the Ananda Sutta the Buddha does not answer wander Vaccagotta's question about whether there is (atth-attā) or isn't (natth-attā) an atman. If the Buddha answered that there was, he says he would be contradicting all his past statements that everything in the world is anatta -- not the atman, the soul. If he answered that there wasn't then "the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the atman I used to have now not exist?'"
What the Buddha had no doubt found from past experience -- that guided him in denying an answer to Vaccagotta -- was that when he tried to give a clear answer, people's preconceptions about atman blocked them from understanding an entirely new concept: that what they tended to mistake for atman was something else entirely. It was constructed, changeable, affected by the world around us and -- effectively, all in our heads. Yes, we do have a self but it's not atman, not eternal, changeless, separate.
The construction of that which we mistake for a lasting self is exactly what the Buddha is describing in Dependent Arising. And within that lesson the Buddha shows us how it is that constructed self that generates the karma (actions) that lead to karma's fruit (dukkha) experienced by that constructed self.

You and I do exist in the world, so one cannot say there is “no self”. The reason that it is said that there is “no self”, is because no person remains the same.
It is in the Brahmajala sutta that we find the Buddha's take on this. He explained that both views of “self” and ‘no self” are wrong. This wrong view is one of the 62 types of mica ditthi as explained in the scriptures.

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

There is no self affected by karma. There is no self at all. Please, if you have a self then take it out and give us all the ultimate "selfie".

Self in Tipitaka is a general word, It means a wrong view just in no causes/wrong causes context.
Attā (self) can found in both wrong view ('eso me attā'ti), and right view (attāti attano nātho) context.
Context is the definition of the self-wrong view and self-right view.
So by the wrong view, self, manpower self, affects the other self, or is affected by the other self.
But by the right view, self, no manpower and various causes & effects, affect the other self, no manpower, and various causes & effects, or is affected by the other self, no manpower and various causes & effects.
Kamma is just one of many causes of effect.
Effect need more than one causes to arises.
So, perfect manpower self in only one person is not noble truth.
If someone wanna insert conjunction in this post, let's do it. My English is terrible. I don't understand the proper way to insert conjunction words to connect between sentence.

You are karma. Your body, your accumulations, your memory, your mind, your compulsive thoughts and activities are all an aggregate that is you, right now. If I wipe out your memory, you won't know what is what, you have to relearn everything, you'd have to start from scratch. In the same way, if I wipe out your karma, you will cease to exist in this state.
All this translation confuses people. Self, no self bla bla bla. Yes it's a load of rubbish. Just know that you are an aggregate/accumulation of a lot of memory and karma and the food you've eaten.

@esh you are basing your entire existence upon the nature of your memories they do not add up to sum of your life, the consequence of your experiences and there result is formed within your memories of events and your consious reaction to those events but I believe your self is independent of the consequence of reaction in the physical world and is utlumatiley not dicated by it.This absolute is torchered by the physical world but is not a consequence if it full stop

I quite like this description, many people don't realize that, yet this is the superficial normal people experiencing they called self, or mis-practiced for no-self/Anatta.

I personally feel translations confuse people. Although it may be intellectually stimulating to get into these "mental concepts" of no-self or whatever, too much mind will only drive a person crazy, not take someone towards the truth.


text:
How to change myself?
It seems that no matter how much I meditate, practice mindfulness, read dhamma books and attempt to follow the 8fold path etc it only takes one little thing to happen and I just instantly revert to very entrenched maladaptive, negative, and I suppose conditioned thoughts and behaviours.Then I feel lots of shame, hopelessness and guilt etc. how do I work with this and change myself for the better  permanently?   I've changed a little since I begun about 6 years ago but I'm impatient as life is going by very quickly, I'm getting older and I want to be happy and live a fulfilling life  but I keep thinking, saying and doing  things that are not conducive towards that. I don't have much hope that I'll ever make any lasting positive change.  My brain seems to be wired to fail.   How can buddhism help me with this conundrum?

It's ain't brain but all about is mind so focus on Dhamma and practice Uposatha also. And when you felt you getting lost then see at Buddha's calm and peaceful en-lighted face may you'll be calm then. Also you have to brings Buddha's techniques and knowledge practically in life.  Don't be impatient  to achieve peace you'll felt restlessness than peace.  Hope may this helps you. You'll get rid of it.

So a client hires me as their personal trainer.  They say, "I've been working out for five years.  I never see any results.  I just don't think I'll ever get into shape!"  I ask them to workout for me.  They go from machine to machine doing all sorts of bizarre rep schemes.  They take five minutes between sets.  They use weight that's easily 50% less than what they should be doing.  They get on the treadmill and do ten minutes at about 2.5 MPH.  I ask them how often they do their workout out.  "At least once a week.  Sometimes twice.  Sometimes I don't go at all."
I put them on a basic, consistent, progressive program.  Since they are paying me $25 an hour whether they come or not, suddenly they start going to the gym with more frequency.  After six weeks, they've seen more progress than in their previous five years of training.
Seng Ts'an says that "to live in the great way is neither easy nor difficult, but those with limited views are fearful and irresolute."  If I was to look at your practice, how much would it resemble one of my fitness clients?  Are you really showing up or are you just going through the motions with your practice?
Simple exercise regiments often work just as well as the most complicated.  The deciding factors are effort and consistency.  The Buddhist path is no different.  At most, there are three things to keep in mind - sila, samadhi, and prajna.  Practice these three things wholeheartedly and you will make progress.  It's absolutely inevitable.  This means paying close attention to the precepts, meditating every day for at least an hour, going on regular retreats, and meeting often with your teacher.  It also helps to sit with a sangha.  This gives you accountability in a way that practicing by yourself simply cannot.
You can change, you simply have to work at it with everything you've got.  If you get derailed, simply get back on the cushion and keep going.

Repeat after me: ;-)

Nothing is wrong with me.
I'm alright.
I don't really need anything to be different.
Life is pointless and there is nothing I need to achieve.
I am less entangled in life than most of the people.
In fact, I probably am much happier than most people already
If I ever feel envious of this world, or rejected by it - I just need to remember that, in fact, they are all quite miserable.
As for their perspective on me, as long as I'm morally pure, there is nothing for others to blame me for, so I don't need to feel bad about my life.
As for achievements, the peace of mind is the highest achievement, so if anyone asks about my achievements, here it is.
As for helping others, this is what I share, the gift of confidence and the peace of mind.
So in all senses I can feel good.
All of this is a matter of conviction and will power, so I will not let others make me feel incomplete, and I will not let the doubts arise.
Everyone has a dharma (a system of values and a way of living) that they identify with, foolishly. Their dharmas require skill, effort and will-power, and lead to both great joys and great suffering. In contrast to them, I knowingly and deliberately choose to be certain about this Dharma. My Dharma too requires skill, effort, and will-power - but unlike theirs it always leads to peace.
I can feel good about myself, knowing that my Dharma is flawless and complete.
There is nothing in particular I have to do, other than to be confident in this Dharma and be an expression of it.

Do you understand? This looks like a trick, a loophole - and in a way it is. You don't need to "change", you use Dharma as tool to change your attitude, that's all. "With no hindrance in the mind / no hindrance, therefore no fear / far beyond mistaken fantasy at last there is nirvana."

Well said, well said.

I'm impatient>

Perhaps this could be the problem. Just let go off the impatient and let the life take it's own path. Make sure you follow the Noble Eightfold Path though.

It is part of the problem but not the whole problem.

Yes, I think most problems are the clash of our expectations with how things really go.

In order to realize complete liberation from suffering, one needs to calm his mind.
Only when the mind is completely calmed, meditation becomes effective to realize complete liberation from suffering.
In order to calm the mind, one needs to live a simple life.
To live a simple life, one needs easy access to water, food, shelter and time.
When one lives like that, with easy access to water, food, shelter and time, worries of complicated life fall off. If while living a complicated life one had ten worries, now, when living a simple life, one has no worries.
Such a simple life calms the mind.
Only when the mind is calmed enough, the mind can be completely calmed.
In order to calm the mind completely, one needs to meditate.
Only when the mind is completely calmed, meditation becomes effective to realize complete liberation from suffering.
Once liberation is achieved, one can live in peace and harmony in any life presented, even in complicated life.

"it only takes one little thing to happen ..."

In life where "little things" arise, mind is agitated.
Realization of complete liberation from suffering is not possible.
The path is to calm the mind.
Make your life simpler by removing these "little things" that happen.
That's the first step.

From AN10.1:

Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One, paid homage to
  him, sat down to one side, and said to him:
(1) “Bhante, what is the purpose and benefit of wholesome virtuous
  behavior?”
(2) “Ānanda, the purpose and benefit of wholesome virtuous behavior is
  non-regret.”
(3) “And what, Bhante, is the purpose and benefit of non-regret?”
“The purpose and benefit of non-regret is joy.”

And it goes on with "What is the purpose and benefit of joy?"
Ven. Thanissaro wrote in the essay "The Integrity of Emptiness":

Observing Everyday Actions
The Buddha told Rahula — who was seven at the time — to use his
  thoughts, words, and deeds as a mirror. In other words, just as you
  would use a mirror to check for any dirt on your face, Rahula was to
  use his actions as a means of learning where there was still anything
  impure in his mind. Before he acted, he should try to anticipate the
  results of the action. If he saw that they'd be harmful to himself or
  to others, he shouldn't follow through with the action. If he foresaw
  no harm, he could go ahead and act. If, in the course of doing the
  action, he saw it causing unexpected harm, he should stop the action.
  If he didn't see any harm, he could continue with it.
If, after he was done, he saw any long-term harm resulting from the
  action, he should consult with another person on the path to get some
  perspective on what he had done — and on how not to do it again — and
  then resolve not to repeat that mistake. In other words, he should not
  feel embarrassed or ashamed to reveal his mistakes to people he
  respected, for if he started hiding his mistakes from them, he would
  soon start hiding them from himself. If, on the other hand, he saw no
  harm resulting from the action, he should rejoice in his progress in
  the practice and continue with his training.
The right name for this reflection is not "self-purification." It's "action-purification." You deflect judgments of good and bad away from
  your sense of self, where they can tie you down with conceit and
  guilt. Instead, you focus directly on the actions themselves, where
  the judgments can allow you to learn from your mistakes and to find a
  healthy joy in what you did right.
When you keep reflecting in this way, it serves many purposes. First
  and foremost, it forces you to be honest about your intentions and
  about the effects of your actions. Honesty here is a simple
  principle: you don't add any after-the-fact rationalizations to cover
  up what you actually did, nor do you try to subtract from the actual
  facts through denial. Because you're applying this honesty to areas
  where the normal reaction is to be embarrassed about or afraid of the
  truth, it's more than a simple registering of the facts. It also
  requires moral integrity. This is why the Buddha stressed morality
  as a precondition for wisdom, and declared the highest moral principle
  to be the precept against lying. If you don't make a habit of
  admitting uncomfortable truths, the truth as a whole will elude you.
The second purpose of this reflection is to emphasize the power of your actions. You see that your actions do make the difference between
  pleasure and pain. Third, you gain practice in learning from your
  mistakes without shame or remorse. Fourth, you realize that the more
  honest you are in evaluating your actions, the more power you have to
  change your ways in a positive direction. And finally, you develop
  good will and compassion, in that you resolve to act only on
  intentions that mean no harm to anyone, and you continually focus on
  developing the skill of harmlessness as your top priority.
All of these lessons are necessary to develop the kind of wisdom
  measured by the Buddha's test for wisdom; and, as it turns out,
  they're directly related to the first meaning of emptiness, as an
  approach to meditation. In fact, this sort of emptiness simply takes
  the instructions Rahula received for observing everyday actions and
  extends them to the act of perception within the mind.

My Guru has said much similar to me. It is also in books, interviews of many kinds of people, it is all around. Just needs to be inside, too.

This is an EXCELLENT question Arturia. I'd like to answer it from a layman's perspective.
First of all I couldnt agree with you more. I've only been working on this about half the time that you have  - specifically regarding Buddhism. But I have been exploring my beliefs to help my behavior for a few decades.  I feel the exact same way that you do very often. I think I've made a little progress and then the old habits and thoughts come back.
But I did learn that there is value in the path itself and not just in the destination. The fact that you actually recognize your shortcomings and work to resolve them is huge. If you read the Isha Upanishad it teaches that so few get to even that point so you shouldnt be down on yourself.
I actually focus often on the Brihadaranyanka where we are advised of a simple plan to aid us when we stumble. Damyata Datta Dayadhvam. Self control, giving of yourself first, and compassion. I use these 3 guides as my keel and they help me navigate troubled waters.
The neural pathways of our aged brains require more repetition to lay in new routes. As mere infants we are easily able to develop new habits and routines. As adults it takes more patience and repeating.
So do not lose hope. The effort itself achieves good karma and as long as you're following a good beacon the right path will show itself to you. This is how Buddhism helps me. namaste

I remember I've "changed" a couple of times in my life, and I'm sure that has also happened to you: over the process of separating from the mother when one is a baby, over the process of puberty when 10 to 18 years old, when one gets "matured" , when one gets children and develops automatically new senses and wideheartnesses, when one gets old and permanently sick - those are periods where "the self" of someone (his desires, his interests, his hopes and his behave) change substantially - if you had a diary from the time of your youth you could simply read this from your own books. Those are the well known times of existential "crisis" in life.
For me personally it happened even a couple of more times - mostly because of existence/influence of very much (existencially) beloved people, sometimes because of forecast-projections of biological change after sicknesses, or even after the contact to political and later of spiritual "greats", earlier with the peace-movement, later with buddhistic teachers and with that what was transmitted to us about the Buddha, his life and his teachings.
I think -because my own experiences with this- it was and is essential to be in lovingly contact with other people, so much, that in the unavoidably occuring conflicts you're really ready for change even if it would "destroy your self", if panic comes up in you that you would die ("symbolically" - that would already be enough).
You may then even experience that the mental force of "patience" can come to you and so on - because with awareness and loving kindness you'll see and shall really understand the examples of other people who are already able to be patient and to change things slowly and positively, with that force.
Studying literature and doing meditation alone shall not be able to achieve that process in you - remember the Buddha needed to step out into the forests, needed to have comrades with him (the samaneras around), needed living with teachers for some periods, and needed then a fight with himself which led him very near to physical extinction - until he was prepared to understand, that dying would be no help for liberation, given (in the philosophy of that time) that one's karma would continue and some kernel of the inner self (the "atman") would reincarnate with a new corpus: only after winning that understanding he could accept food to come back to life again and being then able to set himself out for the so-much-existential change of "him-self" by a full awakening.  (see for instance MN12 in the pali-canon, but there are some more focusing the same theme and possibly even better)

So change can and will come to you and your "ego/self" anyway - chances are always better to allow it before you begin ageing, when you want to give it also a wholesome direction. To approach this it seems to me easier when you get in contact with life (besides meditation and thinking, but never for get that! It keeps the direction of the road!) as deep as it is possible for you. "Love" is known as one of the strongest force to accept the risk for change, and has also the advantage that it can happen with the folks near to you... :-)

Yes, aloneness tends to harden people rather than change them. We do best with some wisely chosen company.

I have practiced mindfulness meditation for over 50 years and I have even written a couple of books on my experiences. You say that you have not changed since you were 6 years old. That undoubtedly means that you suffered from an abusive or profoundly dysfunctional family. Modern suffering is due to such family conditions. By suffering, I mean profound problems with self-love and finding love in adult life. The historical Buddha did not deal with or talk about this kind of suffering. Nonetheless, mindfulness meditation has the purpose of gaining insight into how and why your debilitating emotions were cause by deeply tragic circumstances. I suggest you go the a mindfulness center that offers both MBSR and psychotherapy.

The OP wrote, "I've changed a little since I begun [to practice] about 6 years ago"; and didn't write, "I have not changed since I was 6 years old".

Chris W is correct.

Psychologists do say that most people do not change much after age 20, and by age 6 we have a lot of our basic attitudes in place, so it is not such a grave misreading :)

There are two ways that one can change using mindfulness meditation. First one is by practicing morality and by practicing mindfulness, one can become more relaxed, less agitated and become less pulled into stuff that causes irritation, frustration and the likes. It doesn't take much time to experience this change. Since you are practicing for six years, maybe you have experienced this change, probably you are getting pulled into stuff lesser than before but not considering this as a change as many things still affect you and you still experience (some) negativity.
The above change is temporary as it is dependent on you practicing on a continuous basis. The other way to change is to work your way through enlightenment. For the kind of changes you seem to expect, I would say at least till sakadagami (second path, the one after sotapanna or stream entry) as this cuts the defilements of gross attraction and aversion. Stream entry itself can bring lot of changes as it cuts through the fetter of identity view, but for some at least it doesn't change their behaviours fundamentally (It definitely reduces the burden though by bringing changes in perception and opening of dhamma eye and hence makes practice easier). This change generally takes longer time to achieve and there will be phases were things seem to get worse but if you persist this will lead to permanent and lasting change.


text:
Did Gautama Buddha cease to exist after death?
After death did Gautama Buddha ceased to exist? Or  does he still exist?

This is exactly one of the topics (i.e. whether a Tathagata exists or doesn't exist after death, or both) which the Buddha "didn't declare" -- see the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63):

And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life.

If somebody asks me the question what should be reply ? Should I keep quiet ?

Can you tell them what the sutta says (read the whole of it, I only quoted a little)? IMO that sutta explains what is declared, and why, on that subject. You might call it advice and not a good answer because it doesn't answer the question, but on the other hand it is a canonical reply to that exact question.

I like it, as an answer. It's an example of Buddhism being practical and goal-oriented, and kind -- it's even an example, of "stress" (asking the question) and "cessation of stress".

See also MN 2 and MN 72 which are similar ... which warn against "a thicket of views" (e.g. from asking questions about "self", having views about "self", and other topics like "the cosmos", the "soul and body", etc.): which don't free a person from stress.

Can I say that there is no answer to the question because Buddha says that it is better not to ask such questions as it doesn't lead to the cessation of suffering? We must have faith in Buddha and his teachings.  Tathagata's existence is beyond reason and logic.And over such matters we must trust Buddha like we trust God.

@DheerajVerma I think the parable of the Poisoned Arrow in that sutta is famous and popular (so maybe that's a way of explaining, remembering, or introducing the reply). And I wouldn't say "beyond reason" because it seems to me a reasonable answer ... not illogical or unreasonable. And, not "must trust" but instead "choose to trust" because the dharma is evident, open to inspection, and "good in the beginning".

... see also Should Lay Buddhists Teach the Dhamma?

To Vacchagotta on Fire - MN 72 - https://suttacentral.net/en/mn72

Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he
  reappear?”
“‘Reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”
“In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear.”
“‘Does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”
“…both does & does not reappear.”
“…doesn’t apply.”
“…neither does nor does not reappear.”
“…doesn’t apply.”
“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk
  reappears… does not reappear… both does & does not reappear… neither
  does nor does not reappear, he says, ‘…doesn’t apply’ in each case. At
  this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused.
  The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is
  now obscured.”
“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep,
  Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil,
  refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by
  the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other
  satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know.
  That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as
  you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in
  front of you, would you know that, ‘This fire is burning in front of
  me’?”
“…yes…”
“And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, ‘This fire burning in
  front of you, dependent on what is it burning?’ Thus asked, how would
  you reply?”
“…I would reply, ‘This fire burning in front of me is burning
  dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.’”
“If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know
  that, ‘This fire burning in front of me has gone out’?”
“…yes…”
“And suppose someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in
  front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West?
  North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”
“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a
  sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished—from having consumed
  that sustenance and not being offered any other—is classified simply
  as ‘out’.”
“Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the
  Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the
  classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard
  to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not
  reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t
  apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.
“Any feeling… Any perception… Any fabrication…
“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would
  describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed,
  made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development,
  not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of
  consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to
  fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’
  doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither
  reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.”

"Not destined for future arising " means he ceased to exist.

Subject to defining cessation and existence in the necessary way, yes. But the Buddha went beyond conditional definitions, so the terms do not apply.

ok. Can I say that Gautama Buddha will not arise again?

@DheerajVerma the answer is, you cannot say anything about whether Gautama Buddha will arise or not. The question is wrongly put.

From the Yamaka Sutta:

[Ven. Sariputta:]
  "And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
  truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
  declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One,
  a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
  annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
  supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
  have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
  Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
  monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
  is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and
  gone to its end."
"Very good, my friend Yamaka.

Agree. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end. But  I also think that that which is not stressful has remained. Nirvana is supreme bliss.That blissful existence remains. However we can not say where it exists.

Very good, my friend Dheeraj.

When the Buddha talked about his death, he was dealing primarily with misconceptions of death and Enlightenment. While practicing Tibetan meditation, I received initiations that are designed to allow me to dialogue with the Buddha. This suggests he is not dead. After having practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years, I strongly suggest you use this practice to gain insights into your own issues and misconceptions. Understanding death is not important. Maybe you could read my book on mindfulness meditation.

Any definition of Gautama Buddha after death, is not correct.
Ceased to exist, is not correct.
Still exist, is not correct.
Ceased to exist and still exist, is not correct.
Neither ceased to exist and neither still exist, is not correct.
Any definition of Gautama Buddha after death, is not correct.
Alive, is not correct.
Dead, is not correct.
Happy, is not correct.
Sad, is not correct.
Enlightened, is not correct.
Free, is not correct.
Any definition of Gautama Buddha after death, is not correct.
Why is that so?
Because after death Gautama Buddha's self does not appear.
Now you're thinking: "If self does not appear, then what appears?"
Nothing.
If nothing appears, then what remains?
He remains.
Now you're thinking: "If nothing appears, but he remains, then who is he?"
Again and again and again you're asking the same question over and over again: "After death did Gautama Buddha ceased to exist? Or does he still exist?"
Any definition we give to Gautama Buddha after death, is not correct.
If nothing appears, no definition can be given.
It's because you don't see the real nature of things that you are bewildered by my answer.
What is the real nature of things?
No self.
If there is no self, then who are you???
Meditate and gain insight about WHO YOU ARE.
If you see something, that is not you!
If you see something, that cannot be you, because the mere act of seeing something, means that is not you.
If you see nothing, that cannot be you, because the mere act of seeing nothing, means that is not you.
Seeing anything is not you. In the same way you throw a ball and see the ball flying away from you and think "I see the ball, thus the ball is not me", in the same way you see something or nothing while in meditation and think "I see something/nothing, thus something/nothing is not me".
So, who are you if there is no self to be found????

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

"Any definition we give to Gautama Buddha after death, is not correct." made me think of the concept of NaN: The value of any mathematical expression containing NaN, is not a number (NaN).


text:
Vedana: does it include feeling sleepy, dizzy, alert…
I am a (somewhat lackadaisical) follower of S.N. Goenka's meditation teachings.  After a couple of 10-day retreats and reading some articles such as this: http://www.vridhamma.org/Why-Vedana-and-What-is-Vedana I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input, but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion —  feelings like the ones above, or hunger, fatigue  and so on. Are those vedana, and hence proper objects of mindfulness?

I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input

In the Pali suttas, 'vedana' refer to: (i) pleasant; (ii) unpleasant &; (iii) neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings that occur with sense impressions.
When the mind lacks mindfulness-&-wisdom, pleasant feelings give rise to the defilement/urge of greed/lust/love; unpleasant feelings give rise to the defilement/urge of hatred/anger/irritation; and neither feeling can give rise to confusion.

but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion

Vedana/feelings are not attachment or revulsion. For example, if you break your leg, that is an unpleasant feeling. The revulsion (hatred) or attachment is a separate matter.

hunger, fatigue and so on.

Hunger begins with an unpleasant/painful feeling but, ordinarily, quickly gives rise craving. You should try to separate the painful feeling from the craving. Feeling/vedana is not an 'urge' & not 'thinking'. Feeling is the mere painful sensation.
Fatigue is not a vedana. It is a lack of energy, either related to exhaustion of the physical body or defilements of the mind weighing down the mind. Fatigue is classed as a 'hindrance' ('nivarana') rather than a 'vedana' ('feeling').
Thus hunger is a proper object of mindfulness, where the meditator is vigilant towards & subdues craving & excitement towards food; thus attentive only to the painful stomach sensation.
Fatigue is a difficult & subtle object of mindfulness; unless one is a very skilled meditator. Generally, if fatigue arises, the meditator should focus on their physical posture; or change posture to standing or walking; or otherwise have some rest and sleep in bed. Refer to this link about 'sloth & torpor'.

Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to
  it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is
  touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments,
  weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying
  tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it
  actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the
  danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying
  tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here
  and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying
  tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the
  underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without
  extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and
  arousing true knowledge—this is impossible. MN 148

Are those vedana, and hence proper objects of mindfulness?>

Yes. Feeling and sensations are conjoined hence not easy to separate. In that case been aware of all feelings and sensation is Vipassana meditation.


text:
What is the proper etiquette when greeting/meeting a Venerable?
Am completely new to the practice. What is the custom/proper etiquette when meeting a Venerable, in this instance for the first time but still applies overall? Further, is one to bow to the Buddha first and then greet? Please be as detailed and specific as possible. Example, If one is to bow, how and how many times, when, etc.

You bow one time when you meet the monk and you bow one time when you depart. You bow to the Buddha statue when you offer flowers, incense sticks, oil lamps etc. or when you chant some verse in front of the statue.

There's a YouTube video here, by Ven. Yuttadhammo, entitled "Monk Radio: Greeting a Monk".

Answer provided around 3:00 is very descript.

Is this really mandatory? I haven't met a "venerable" until now. These days one has to be very careful, because there are monks who teach wrong things. Also sticking to useless rites is Silabbatupadana. If you bow down that's fine - I wouldn't. I associate bowing down with submissiveness, but that's just me. If it helps the mind, it helps. Just be cautious of idiolizating the monk and also question everything as stated in the Kalama Sutta.