text:
Does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
In the following excerpt from the book Yoga Sutras by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious.
Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there.

So is the author right or  wrong?
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart
from human brain?
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism.

Small Edit: I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, check this paper

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

I think it is wrong.

It is is right. What you think is wrong.

When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the
  first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we
  are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or
  unconscious.

Your mind has never entered jhana therefore why are you creating a belief system about jhana? Jhana is a sense object; just as Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana; Udana 8.1). The factors of jhanas, such as rapture & happiness, are sense objects.

Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 6th Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there
  is a human experience so consciousness is there.

All jhanas are sense objects.

So is the author right or wrong?

The author is right.

What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?

SN 22.53; SN 12.67 and MN 38 will answer your questions and show that the author is right.

Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with
  Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism

There can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs, sense objects & other aggregates. That is why there is no such thing as reincarnation. Refer to SN 22.53; MN 38; and SN 12.67.

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own
  poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root]
  and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your
  long-term harm & suffering."
Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, even warm in this Dhamma &
  Vinaya?"
"How could he be, lord? No, lord."
When this was said, the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss
  for words.
Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down,
  brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless man, you will
  be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will cross-question
  the monks on this matter."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk
  Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of
  the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the
  root] and produces much demerit for himself?"
"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"
"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the
  Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not
  only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing
  much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's
  long-term harm & suffering.
MN 38

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible
SN 22.53

According to Buddhism does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
There are different types of consciousness, or different things which are all translated as "consciousness".
I gather from answers and comments to this question that:

There are five sense-consciousness (e.g. eye-consciousness) which arise when there's a sense-object and attention
There's a sixth, analogous to the five, where the mind becomes conscious of thoughts (like the eye becomes conscious of sights)

Later forms of Buddhism posit two further consciousness (see e.g. Eight Consciousnesses).
I suspect that early Buddhism might do something similar but perhaps using different names -- my (poor) understanding is that the function of the (early) sankhara aggregate might be similar to the function of the (later) ālāya vijñāna consciousness.
So is the author right or wrong?
I think he's right that there's no sense-consciousness when there's no sense-object.
Wrong in that there are longer-lived aspects of the mind.
Also I think that the (or a) difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that consciousness, whether short or long, isn't viewed as "self" or "soul".
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?
I don't know, "sentient beings" aren't necessarily human -- they may be animal, ghost, or in a hell or a heaven.
I think that Tibetan Buddhism also posits a Bardo, and existence after death and before the next birth, whereas I think that Theravada assumes that consciousness exists in a body.
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings?
I don't know; that sounds like it might be Hindu "Brahman" -- I don't think it's a feature of the Pali suttas, maybe it's (I don't know) in any of the later doctrines.
Also there's e.g. Brahma (a God), not to be confused with Brahman -- Brahma exists (according to the suttas) -- probably a living being but not a human being, a human body.

'Monistic Idealism' is gaining some ground in mainstream physics, check this article -->https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/  . The Hindu Brahman still has a self, so that position can be easily contested. With the 'universe thing,' I am basically trying to contest the idealist position within the framework of Buddhism.

Sorry, I got the answer but I unaccepted, I think I will take some more point of views.

In the link you provided, Medhini says all five khandas are impermanent, but I think the nature of consciousness is vastly kept unspoken. That which is perceived can be impermanent, that which is perceiving cannot be impermanent as 'quality of change' cannot be ascribed to it.

Do you think there is any point to work in that direction?

I'm a little ignorant of Physics -- I studied Applied Maths, which was not quite the same subject. And, I know nothing of "Monistic Idealism" (your modern doctrine) but I inferred a while ago that monism in general is OK as far as it goes, but is maybe not prescriptive nor falsifiable ... like saying "God", "Tao", "Brahman" are all references to "the One", monad ... but what then? Physicists (Einstein and so on) have been talking about God and consciousness for at least the last 100 years. I don't want to disparage their attainments. The Buddha though was meant to be uniquely capable ...

... able to not only understand "reality" but explain it in a way that's beneficial, understandable, practical. @FriedrickNietzsche

In abihdhamma (chapter 1-5 for mind&mind factor, chapter 6 for matter&nibbāna, chapter 8 for paṭiccasamuppāda&paññatti):
1 moment can separate to 3 sub-moments: arising, standing, and vanishing (upāda, ṭhiti, bhaṅgha).
1 matter moment =  17 mind/mind factor moments.
Paṭiccasamuppāda = cycle system of matter, mind, and mind factor.
Nibbāna = the opposite side of paṭiccasamuppāda.
Paññatti = imagination of mind&mind factors about paṭiccasamuppāda or nibbāna (everything).

So, paññatti has no 3 sub-moments, we can't count it's moment.
I.E. you can imagine "I get wings to fly", but it doesn't mean you really get wings. If the wings never get 3 sub-moments, arising/standing/vanishing, it is just imagination, not truth. However, something is imagination bases on truth, such as bird's wings. Because wings are imagination as well, but they base on the matter, which can get 3 sub-moments. So, bird can fly.

The explanation

Most of jhāna object is paññatti. No one can count paññatti-object's moment, because it never arise/standing/vanish.
Another, some jhāna has mind or perception as object. But that object is the past, which already vanished. Mind can know the present object as the present while it is taking a present moment (still in arising, standing, or vanishing state). but for the past or future object, mind can know it as it is unlimited. Similitude as we can see the present passing through car just the moment it is in our vision. But we can think of that passed/coming car, which being out of vision, unlimited.

By both case above, although the object is not present, the mind still can know it.
If mind have to arise depend on only object, we must know everything even when we are sleeping.

Yes it is normal for puthujjanas to ask

Does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
does an arahant have a Consciousness?
what is the difference between vinnana and citta and mano?
what does it feel like to be an arahant?
what is appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa, ''vinnana  unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative''?
what happens to vinnana after nibanna?
what is the condition of vinnana?
does the chain of conditions happen ''moment to moment'', meaning whatever is conditioned dies and lives continuously or is it over several ''lifespans''?
and, since ignorance is claimed to be the condition for shankara, if it is ''whatever is conditioned (especially Consciousness) dies and lives continuously'', moment after moment, , does it mean that ignorance is killed (in order to kill shankaras moment after moment, since shankaras is claimed to be the condition for consciousness and vinnana is killed moment after moment by killing shankaras)? why is ignorance re-generated all the time?

All those question have a unique answer: an exposition by a buddha of a chain of condition, without being vague when it comes to talk about vinnana.
Unfortunately, today there is no such answer. The suttas are a mess when it comes to the source of vinnana. What there is today is a various puthujjanas creating various views about conditions, then sharing their views and claiming it is a good idea to share views.
In SN 35.60 Sabbupādānapariññā Sutta , The condition for say Consciousness of the eye is that there is a form and the eye-faculty. This 3 is called contact.  In other suttas, the usual condition for the generic vinnana is namarupa.
In the famous sutta SN 12.2, it is shankara that is the source of vinnana.
THen later on, the usual question is what does vinnana do after nibbana? For instance there is the famous appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa, which is vinnana after nibbana, which is translated usually as ''vinnana  unestablished''. So that would mean some vinnana that does not stick to the 4 other aggregates.
It is like you look at the sky and you see various aircrafts doing loops. Then you look again and you see no ''aircrafts doing loops'' which means:

there are still aircrafts but they do something else than loops
there are no aircrafts at all in the sky

Well it is the same for vinnana  unestablished: does it mean there is no vinnana, since the buddha keeps talking about cessation of vinnana, but since he also says vinnana is liberated, does it mean there is some vinnana but it does something else than growing?
Again the unique answer is the reply of a buddha after you ask this question.
Fortunately, this lack of clear answer is not a disaster.the lack of answer is:

not relevant  for bad puthujjanas who want to become good puthujjanas
slightly relevant for the good puthujjanas who want to become sotapannas
heavily relevant for the sotapannas who ''want'' to become arahants

What matters for anybody who is not close to nibanna is to focus on the dispassion towards the 5 aggregates, by the method exposed by the buddha, and once those people are near nibanna, they can focus on the source of vinnana and then kill this source.
So let's begin. Now vi-jñāna is jñāna which discriminates.. vinnana is ''knowing discriminatingly'', and it is declined into 6 senses, which means, for instance for sight, the color blue is not a carrot.The 6th sense, create the idea of color blue and idea of color red and other ideas like honor and the idea of color blue is not the idea of honor which is not the idea of a carrot.
THe most famous discrimination is with vedana. There is a discrimination of vedana into pleasant, dis-pleasant and nondispleasant-non pleasant.
The last illustration is that when somebody wants stop dukkha, the usage of mano is restricted to yoniso manasikara, which typically means at the begining, seeing rupa as rupa, and finding the condition for arising of rupa, and finding the condition for the cessation of rupa and finding the way fo the cessation of rupa. Seeing rupa means not confusing rupa with say vedana, vedana is not rupa and rupa is not vedana. THe firt task is to see rupa as rupa and that begins with typically vinnana, later on ñāṇa. Same situation for the other 4 aggregates and that generates the famous various vipassanas.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.57/en/sujato
Again an illustration for ''the arising of a sense'': for there to be sight, there must be a eye (Cakṣus) cakṣurdhātu (like it is written in the heart sutta), plus a visible form rūpadhātu, plus the vinnana for sight cakṣurvijñānadhātu. Dhathu just means elements, typically like a lego brick. you join the three lego bricks: Cakṣus typed as a lego brick, rupa typed as a lego brick and cakṣurvijñāna typed as a lego brick and you get  ''the sight of form''. Instead of brick, a dathu can be seen as a fiber and you twist 3 fibers to make a big rope. The big rope is called phassa (contact). The glue of the contact is desire for something.
As usual the 6th sense mano is special because it gets to ''know the other senses''.
So in terms of dathu, there are 3 dathus x 6 senses = 18 dathus to ''explain'' the 6 senses. the dathus are glued together by some craving.
Vinanna is easily bad because it can sticks to the other 4 aggregates and it grows from there
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.54/en/sujato
and the good vinnana is the vinnana that does not generate shankaras.
Here, liberation is expressed in terms of vinnana, not citta.

“The four grounds of consciousness should be seen as like the earth element.
“Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, pathavīdhātu, evaṃ catasso viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo daṭṭhabbā.
Relishing and greed should be seen as like the water element.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, āpodhātu, evaṃ nandirāgo daṭṭhabbo.
Consciousness with its fuel should be seen as like the five kinds of plants propagated from seeds.

THere is also the saṃjñā which is saṃ-jñā and the vedana. THe generic vinnana and the sanna and vedana and the rupa and the saṃskāra are the 5 aggregates. THe nature of the aggregates is ''to arise and cease'' as sariputta says.
''to arise and cease'' means Being conditioned, which means that there is source for each aggregate  and there is a cessation to an aggregate: it turns out that the way of the cessation of an aggregate is the drying of the source of the aggregate. So to kill an aggregate, you kill the source of this aggregate. You never ever kill an aggregate directly by killing the aggregate in question.
the sutta https://suttacentral.net/sn22.56/en/sujato says The source of rupa is food.
Fortunately, the 3 aggregates of sanna, vedana and shankara have a universal condition: contact.
When contact ceases, those 4 aggregates cease. When there is contact, those 4 aggregates blossom.
THe usual way to kill contact is to kill desire, lust, greed because this desire is always towards some aggregate or something stemming from one
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.121/en/sujato
/sn22.60/en/sujato
and the usual way to kill desire, lust, greed is to train to see and to see the 5 aggregates as anicca dukkha anatta
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato
The source of this desire is ignorance.the way to kill the desire is to kill the ignorance.
For instance, to cultivate the perception of impermanence
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.102/en/sujato
/sn22.59/en/sujato
Now how do you stop vinnana and is there still some objects to be cognized. Or can you kill cognizing of an object, when you kill the object that is cognized?  Well you look at the condition of vinnana and at this point, the exposition becomes a mess.

Consciousness originates from name and form.
Nāmarūpasamudayā viññāṇasamudayo;
When name and form cease, consciousness ceases.
nāmarūpanirodhā viññāṇanirodho.

Usually namarupa is vedana, sanna, shankara. but in  SN 12.2, namarupa is vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa, manasikāra. So which is it? Again the suttas are a mess.
Then the famous sutta SN 12.2 Vibhaṅga Sutta, the condition for vinnana is shankaras. In sutta SN 35.60 Sabbupādānapariññā Sutta , it is the objects and the faculty which generate vinnana. so which is it?
Again, This lack of clear answer is:

not relevant  for bad puthujjanas who want to become good puthujjanas
slightly relevant for the good puthujjanas who want to become sotapannas
heavily relevant for the ariyas close to nibbana who want to become arahants

What matters for anybody who is not close to nibanna is to focus on the dispassion towards the 5 aggregates, by the method exposed by the buddha, and once those people are near nibanna, they can focus on the source of vinnana and then kill this source.

After the extinction of the six sense-spheres of contact, and the fading away of desire, after cessation, after ending, is there any remainder?
After the extinction of the six sense-spheres of contact, and the fading away of desire, after cessation, after ending, is there no remainder?
that is meaningless talk
there is fading away of all meaningless argument and the attaining of nirvāṇa, then this is the teaching of the Buddha

Problem is, it's very true as pointed by you that, 'that' which couldn't be spoken of was left unspoken, but physics and philosophy need verbalization. Like as far as personal practice is concerned I agree with you but we need to stand test of findings of science and modern philosophical positions.

Need or crave? :D

Life is an ongoing stream of one consciousness appearing and disappearing after the next.
Every moment of consciousness exists of two things:
the knowing and the known.
Or consciousness and the object of consciousness. It's a one-on-one relationship, so to speak.
It's not:

'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

Each moment of consciousness has one object.
Mind objects (thoughts, memories, images in the mind and so on) appear together and cease together with the accompanying consciousness. Rupa objects 'live' a bit longer: seven mind moments. It's a bit more complex, but for now this will do.
There can only be one consciousness at a time. So, a consciousness has to disappear after appearing, otherwise a new consciousness could not come up.
As mere mortals we can't see every single consciousness cease, but we can, with training, see an object of a consciousness arise together with its accompanying consciousness and cease with it's accompanying consciousness.
It's interesting when this happens. You can actually see consciousness cease together with thought, or nose consciousness together with smell. And like all sense consciousnesses mind consciousness with its accompanying mind object can also cease, or all five aggregates simultaneously (nirodha). That one will blow your mind.
I'm not really wild about the idea of an object generating consciousness. They come up together, in dependence (there you have a bit of dependent arising). But object is not always the cause, if memory serves.
(Dive into the Abhidhamma for more detail!)
Also: Buddhism holds that the brain and the universe exist in the mind, not the other way around.
The

'infinity of consciousness'

is, I think, also meant the other way around. It's not that we experience something that is infinite. But consciousness itself is infinite.
That's my take on it.
Hope it helps.

Thank you for the answer but I am going to say what you wrote is your interpretation (sorry :( ). There is a physics/philosophical position called 'monistic idealism' which is gaining grounds. check this work -->https://www.bernardokastrup.com/ . I think within the framework of Buddhism it should be possible to explain that. It means consciousness is there as a ground of existance of matter. Why Buddhist texts dont have that view because saying anything about is wrong, like telling a blind man about light. That's why Buddha didn't said anything about it.

@Friedrick Except the part where I share experience. That's not an interpretation. ;)

@FriedrickNietzsche Maybe Ajahn Sumedho holds more credibility: https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/the-mind-is-not-in-the-body-the-body-is-in-the-mind/

@Medhini was not questioning your credibility. Sorry if it appeared that ways.

@BodhiWalker No harm done. Maybe credibility is not the correct word anyway.  :)


text:
Is there an antibuddha?
Is there a figure in Buddhism corresponding to the Christian notion of such? And what would that mean, practically?

I take it that you mean a figure like the Christian notion of Satan. Or is the anti-Christ unlike Satan?

Also I guess when you say "practically" I gather that you're not interested in historical events of figures (e.g. analogous to Satan tempting Jesus in the desert), but rather what is the effect on present-day practice.

One to one comparison with Satan is not possible, but there's an angel called Mara who dislikes the existence of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. He tries to stop beings from attaining enlightenment.

Mara its name is Mara. It can be understood as unconscious desires of Buddha or as a literal being who comes to fight with him and does not want to get him enlightened.

It wouldn't work. The Buddha is a dependently originated entity, therefore in finality empty. An antibuddha would have to be full, but not anatta is not possible.

There is a pachcheka buddha - The one superior is the buddha.

If you are using the word anti- as it is used in Physics then no there is no anti Buddha. In physics anti-proton or anti-electron are valid particles which when meet with their counter proton or electron they get annihilated i.e particle and its anti particle annihilate each other releasing energy.  The particles die.
But Buddha has no anti Buddha. Nothing can neutralize Buddha. Whether after death Buddha exists or does not exist is not known.
However if you are using anti- for something or someone who opposes Buddha then yes there is Mara who opposes Buddha and everyone who chooses the path of enlightenment. Mara is not just anti-Buddha , he is anti-enlightenment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can someone give references of the four stages of enlightenment in the four major Nikayas?
It is generally held that there are four stages of enlightenment, namely, Soatapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahant. These stages are achieved by a practitioner as she/he gradually eradicates the ten fetters. I need the complete reference of these topics (four stages and ten fetters) in the first four Nikayas of the Pali canon. Can anyone help me?

When you ask for "the complete reference" I think you're not asking for answers with any individual references to suttas (e.g. MN 118) -- instead you want a reference to a commentary, essay, or book which includes all the references. I think there may be at least one such about stream-winning, at least (but I don't remember anyone mentioning one about the latter three). Also, I guess you know, I think it's detailed in the Visuddhimagga (which you're excluding in this question).

Yes, I am actually searching for a scholarly work on this topic which is based on the complete reference from Sutta Pitaka, like say the book by Sue Hamilton for the Khandhas or the book by Gethin for the Bodhipakkhiya Dhammas. In this case, it may not necessarily be a book. A long essay might suffice, or some reasonably long chapter of a general treatise on Buddhism. It will be very helpful if you can suggest such a work. By the way, what is the name of the work on stream-winning?

There's a Sottapana Handbook, and, Into the Stream: A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening, both online.

Thanks. The compilation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to be particularly suited for me. There are two reasons for this: first, I am already familiar with his writing and I "trust" him; second, he has given the references of the canonical books through the Sutta numbers, not through the page numbers of the particular English translations.

It appears in many sutta of many nikāya.
The Example
Sutta Pitaka Vol 1 : Sutta. Tī. Sī Mahālisuttaṃ:

‘And what, Sir, may those other things be?’
‘In the first place, Mahāli, a brother by the complete destruction of the Three Bonds (the Delusions of self, Doubt, and Trust in the efficacy of good works and ceremonies) becomes a converted man, one who cannot be reborn in any state of woe, and is assured of attaining to the Insight (of the stages higher still). That, Mahāli, is a condition, higher and sweeter, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.
‘And then further, Mahāli, a brother by the complete destruction of those Three Bonds, and by reducing to a minimum lust, ill-will, and dullness, becomes a Once-returner, one who on his first return to this world shall make an end of pain. That, Mahāli, is a condition higher still and sweeter, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.
‘And then further, Mahāli, a brother by the complete destruction of the Five Bonds that bind people to this world becomes an inheritor of the highest heavens, there to pass away, thence never to return. That, Mahāli, is a condition higher still and sweeter, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.
‘And then further. Mahāli, when a brother by the destruction of the Deadly Floods (or Intoxications—Lusts, Becomings, Delusion, and Ignorance) has, by himself, known and realised and continues to abide here, in this visible world, in that emancipation of mind, that emancipation of heart, which is Arahatship—that, Mahāli, is a condition higher still and sweeter still, for the sake of which the brethren lead the religious life under me.

Another, in Sutta Pitaka Vol 2 : Sutta. Tī. Ma. Mahāparinibbānasuttaṃ:

“Ānanda, the monk Sāḷha, with the ending of effluents, dwelt in the effluent-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known and realized them for himself right in the here-and-now. The nun Nandā, with the ending of the five lower fetters,16 has spontaneously arisen (in the Pure Abodes,) there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world. Sudatta the male lay-follower, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, is a once-returner, who—on returning only once more to this world—will put an end to stress. Sujātā the female lay-follower, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of destitution, certain, headed for self-awakening. Kakudha the male lay-follower… Kāraḷimbha… Nikaṭa… Kaṭissaha… Tuṭṭha… Santuṭṭha… Bhaṭa… Subhaṭa the male lay-follower, with the ending of the five lower fetters, have spontaneously arisen (in the Pure Abodes,) there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world.
“Ānanda, more than 50 lay-followers who have died in Nādikā, with the ending of the five lower fetters, have spontaneously arisen (in the Pure Abodes,) there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world. 96 lay-followers who have died in Nādikā, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are once-returners, who—on returning only once more to this world—will put an end to stress. 510 lay-followers who have died in Nādikā, with the ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, never again destined for states of destitution, certain, headed for self-awakening.

The link, that I gave you, are included pāli version. You can take the keywords from that pāli to search more information.

The OP isn't asking how to search, but is asking whether anyone has already written an index or reference.

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


text:
Can we say cause/causes behind the world is/are eternal?
There is one reality which is eternal and that is Nirvana. Nirvana had no beginning nor has an end yet it exists.
Nirvana and the world are closely linked up. The one who is in the world can attain Nirvana.
If we say world has a beginning then Nirvana predates that beginning. Only Nirvana existed and then world came into existence. Which means World came from Nirvana as world is not unconditioned and before world there was only Nirvana.Which means world must have come out from state of Nirvana. But that is impossible.
Therefore can we at least conclude that cause or causes behind the world are without beginning?
update: I knew Buddha has said that it is undeclared whether whether world is eternal or not ,but people in this forum and elsewhere have declared Nirvana to be eternal.If Nirvana is eternal and permanent then we can say something existed for an infinite time in the past. Clearly Nirvana provides an eternal timeline to discuss upon. for example : In the infinite time in the past when Nirvana was there did world exist or not? Now  @ChrisW asked what did I mean by world ? By world I mean any reality in which experience of suffering can arise.
So to rephrase my question : Was there any point in the past when there was no suffering at all or has the suffering existed forever like Nirvana ? I know the gravity of this question as Buddha chose not to answer it. I dare to take up the question in order to provide some new insight to my fellow Buddhist men who think in order to believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha one doesn't need to blindly believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha. I believe I will also ultimately conclude that one should left such questions undeclared but I would like give one last try based upon the conclusion we have made so far like Nirvana is eternal. Given the infinite timelime ,if Suffering (or the world ) had a  beginning then what was before that beginning ? It was Nirvana. What was the cause of the suffering to arise at the beginning? Since Suffering is always conditioned and before beginning there was only Nirvana , clearly it means Nirvana was the cause of arising of suffering. But that is impossible. Because that would mean Nirvana is unstable, Nirvana is impermanent. Therefore conditioned suffering existed infinitely in the past independent of Nirvana. The cause of suffering (or the world) was impermanent but was/is a permanent feature of the world or existence or suffering which appears to be permanent. I can assure you that this question is not meant to lead you astray from the path but make us understand why we are not concluding what Buddha concluded, to know what is incorrect in our line of thinking.

Can you specify whether you're looking for answers based on Theravada or on Mahayana doctrine? I'm pretty sure that some Mahayana doctrine says some things on these topics (maybe about "original mind" or perhaps about nirvana being "empty", and/or somehow related to samsara), which Theravada doesn't.

Unfortunately I have not read anything about Mahayana or Theravada tradition until now. Any logic will suffice. Give answer based on your preference.

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

Actually this sort of questions are out of our understanding level, so LORD BUDDHA said not follow these questions, it'll only consume your valuable time and rare chance of being human.
You are still having the trouble with Nirvana, Nirvana is not anything to existed nor not existed, it is a ultimate result for following eight noble path and understand the Four Noble truths. So those who attained Nirvana can not explain to ordinary people,exact explanation, because we can not understand it by our present knowledge Nirvana can not compare with anything. Though as a ordinary human being we can not understand it until we attained Nirvana. Only one way to find out answers for your answers, be faithful and follow the path attained Nirvana.

There is one reality which is eternal and that is Nirvana.
Buddhism does not teach this. AN 3.136 and SN 12.20 say the Laws of Nature is also eternal reality.
Nirvana and the world are closely linked up.
Buddhism does not teach this.
The one who is in the world can attain Nirvana.
This does not mean the world and Nibbana are closely linked.
If we say world has a beginning then Nirvana predates that
beginning.
This is speculation. The Buddha was concerned with the "world" of "suffering" (SN 12.44). The world of suffering begins with ignorance.
Only Nirvana existed and then world came into existence. Which means
World came from Nirvana as world
This is theism, as taught in the Bible and Brahmanism. It is not Buddhism. Buddhism teaches the world arises from ignorance (SN 12.44).
Which means world must have come out from state of Nirvana. But that is impossible.
No.
Therefore can we at least conclude that cause or causes behind the world are without beginning?
The Buddha taught the beginning of the world is ignorance.

Thanks for the answer. If beginning of the world is ignorance then what was before ignorance ? It was Nirvana because state of Nirvana always existed. Isn't that true?

Irrelevant question. The relevant sutta is here: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/an10.61

SN 12.44 does not mention ignorance -- instead I think it begins with sense-object, sense-organ, sense-consciousness; and then contact.

I like to use ** instead of > to quote the OP: because these behave like subsection heading in the answer (each bit of the answer is a reply to a separate bit of the OP); and, more importantly,  so that > is reserved/available for quoting any references.

Oh dear ChrisW. Best wishes with whatever goal you have with Buddhism.

Sometimes I hope an answer may be clearer or more explicit if you also quote what you reference. On review I thought that some  connections between the answer and the references might not be obvious -- e.g. "all processes are inconstant" (in the referenced-but-not-quoted AN 3.136) compared with "Laws of Nature is also eternal reality" (in the answer). But this was just a suggestion, a review comment, and maybe my review/opinion is irrelevant since I'm not the OP. Thank you for the best wishes.

SN 12.44 is about dependent origination. It obviously always starts with ignorance, whether or not ignorance is mentioned.

AN 3.136 is about the "fixed law" ("niyama"). Buddhism 101.

Nibbana is an ultimate reality, but the 'world' is a concept. What you call the world is merely seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking. These are just experiences. There is no arising of experiences in Nibbana.

If we say world has a beginning

But we cannot say this as it has no basis in reality. So any conclusions or questions you come up with based on this assumption will only take you away from the reality. It is not in the spirit of Buddhism to entertain such questions.
Be mindful of the questions arising in the mind that only serve to please your imagination. They will lead you astray from the Buddhist path.

If we say world has a beginning
It's not clear that's true (i.e. perhaps that's not true).
There's a sutta -- Assu Sutta: Tears (SN 15.3) -- which begins:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

The question of whether "the world" is eternal is one of the unanswered questions.
Part of the ambiguity is, what do you mean by "world":

The entire universe
Each and every compound thing within the universe

The latter (compound things) are by definition impermanent -- each thing breaks up and becomes other things -- but it's not clear you can say the same about the collection-of-all-things.
Some Buddhist doctrines (suttas and so on) talk about cosmology or cosmologies, suggesting that they're cyclic or infinite ... so:

I don't think there's canonical justification for saying "the world has a beginning"
I don't think it's knowable by personal experience
I think that trying to deduce it using logic alone is unsound.

World came from Nirvana
I'm not sure how that statement is meant to work.
I see "the world" as being physical (rocks and stars and air and so on), also chemical and biological, also sensory (perception of the world), and social (the French word for "everyone" is tout le monde literally "all the world").
I see "nirvana" as being a state of mind, a state (or object) of perception, a state of wisdom (maybe ethics).
I suppose that a view of the world can come from an understanding of nirvana -- but I wouldn't say that the world comes from nirvana in e.g. the physical sense that one thing might come from (might be compounded from) another thing.
means world must have come out from state of Nirvana. But that is impossible
I think that Mahayana has doctrine a bit like this, about commonality between samsara and nirvana -- but, yes, I think that according to (in the context of the dctrine of) the Pali suttas that statement seems meaningless or confused.
can we at least conclude that cause or causes behind the world are without beginning?
Maybe. The doctrine doesn't say that dhammas are impermanent -- so perhaps they're "without beginning" -- and dhammas include physical laws.
I'm not sure that I'd call a dhamma a cause though -- I think of it as a description. As a scientist I wouldn't say ...

There's a dhamma which says the world must be like that
Therefore the world is like that

... (except as a "self-fulfilling prophecy" i.e. seeing the world in a certain way because you believe it to be so -- also called having a "view").
I'd say instead, something like ...

The world is such, it's as it is
Someone observes, "the world is such, as it is"
That observation or description is a dhamma
If the world is always like that, always behaves like that, always has the property which was described, then that dhamma is always true

In Buddhism, "the world" means subjective experience of the world (Umwelt).
The cause behind "the world" (aka "appearance") is called "Dependent Origination". Dependent Origination is eternal law.
Your statement that the world came from Nirvana is correct. This is called "Basic Nirvana" or "Primordial Nirvana".
In Mahayana we say that Primordial Nirvana and Final Nirvana are the same in theory but different in practice.
Primordial Nirvana is called "all-ground of various tendencies" (in the neutral sense). Or "innate ignorance" (in the negative sense). It has a natural tendency to evolve into confused mind which manifests as Samsara, and then this confused mind has tendency to further evolve into enlightened mind, which understands this entire process and its own ground, and accepts it as is - which is called Final Nirvana.
In the end, nothing really changes.


text:
Are there different types of enlightenment?
I came across this article by Jack Kornfield in which he says that it is better to talk about enlightenments, since there are different versions of it. (So, this is not about different levels of enlightenment, but different enlightenments.)
Of course, I can imagine that Mahayana teaches something different than Theravada or other traditions and vice versa, but this article refers also to different types of enlightenment within Theravada.
Added by request:

enlightenment as a shift in identity;

liberation from greed, hatred and delusion;

devotion and surrender, being carried by the Buddha’s “grace";

When you actually experience consciousness free of identification with changing conditions, liberated from greed and hate, you find it multifaceted, like a mandala or a jewel, a crystal with many sides. Through one facet, the enlightened heart shines as luminous clarity, through another as perfect peace, through another as boundless compassion. Consciousness is timeless, ever-present, completely empty and full of all things. But when a teacher or tradition emphasizes only one of these qualities over the others, it is easy to be confused, as if true enlightenment can be tasted in only one way. Like the particle-and-wave nature of light, enlightenment consciousness is experienced in a myriad of beautiful ways.

He also describes different gates through which one can get enlightened:
The gate of impermanence, suffering, no-self. So far there is no surprise.
He then mentions more gates:

There are many other gates: the gates of compassion, of purity, of surrender, of love. There is also what is called the “gateless gate.”

The way enlightenment expresses is also different according to JK:

This is enlightenment as love.

This is enlightenment as emptiness.

He expresses enlightenment as fullness.

Enlightenment as mindfulness.

The Dalai Lama personifies enlightenment as compassionate blessing.

He expressed enlightenment as wisdom.

(I would suggest to read the article.)
Naturally, I'm a bit puzzled now.
Do suttas also talk about different types?

The are the 3 Bodhis: Sammasambuddha, Pacceka-Buddha, Arahath. Then there is Sopadisesa-nibbana and Anupadisesa-nibbana. But I don't think that's what you are asking about when you say different types.
What you need to keep in mind is that same thing can be described in many different ways. To give an analogy, an elephant can be described as 'heavy' by some, 'tall' by some, 'large' by some, 'gracious' by some, 'noisy' by some etc.
One person can say "spreading the light" to which another might say "dispelling the darkness". But they both refer to the same thing.
On the other hand, different teachers and traditions might label different experiences as enlightenment depending on their understanding or misunderstanding. That does not mean there are many types of enlightenments. Otherwise the Buddha would have listed them down under the Third Noble Truth.

enlightenment as a shift in identity

This is cutting off of identity-view(Sakkayaditti) when one attains Sotapanna. It is also partial liberation from delusion.

liberation from greed, hatred and delusion;

This is when one attains Arahanthship. So it appears that Jack Kornfield might have gotten confused by the descriptions of different stages of enlightenment and different stages of mental purifications.

devotion and surrender, being carried by the Buddha’s “grace";

This is not a description of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism. But it may just mean that if one devoted oneself to the Buddha and submit to the practice of holly life under him, one will attain enlightenment.

There are many other gates: the gates of compassion, of purity, of
  surrender, of love. There is also what is called the “gateless gate.”

There are only 3 real gates. Others may bring one close to enlightenment, but the meditator still has to attain absolute certainty of either impermanence, suffering or non-self to get to Nibbana. Read here for more details.

This is enlightenment as love.

This maybe referring to attaining the Jhanas through Metta meditation. But there is more work to be done from there to reach enlightenment.

This is enlightenment as emptiness

This maybe talking about ākiñcaññāyatana(infinite nothingness), the 7th Jhana or the 3rd Arupajhana. But it's still not enlightenment.

He expresses enlightenment as fullness.

This maybe talking about the rapture and joy arising in the first jhana or the fruits of Buddhanussati meditation: "When a bhikkhu is devoted to this recollection of the Buddha, he is respectful and deferential towards the Master. He attains fullness of faith, mindfulness, understanding and merit. He has much happiness and gladness." -Visuddhimagga

Enlightenment as mindfulness.

Mindfulness leads to enlightenment and Arahaths are said to be always mindful. But mindfulness itself is not enlightenment.

The Dalai Lama personifies enlightenment as compassionate blessing.

Dalai Lama is not Theravada, but he could just mean that enlightened beings are compassionate and a blessing to the world.

He expressed enlightenment as wisdom.

Wisdom leads to enlightenment. Seeing impermanence, suffering and non-self is wisdom.

I think you and I have similar ideas/interpretation of what being enlightened (aka being an arahant means). New question: Would you say that someone is not an arahant yet so long as dosa still comes up in the mind stream, even though that person does not cling to the dosa but just observes its coming and going in a neutral way?

@Medhiṇī if Dosa comes up he's not even a Anagami, let alone Arahath. Even a person without any attainment who is just practicing Metta meditation can overcome Dosa and not react.

That's what I thought as well, @Sankha Kulathantille.  Yet, that person I'm thinking of, was a highly respected teacher and said to be an arahant. He himself didn't say this, as far as I know; but his students and meditators were saying this of him. However, when asked about anger he - the teacher - said that anger still came up, he just wouldn't grasp it. Why he was still considered to be an arahant is puzzling to me.

If the anger comes up, he is not an Arahant. If he himself didn't claim to be an Arahant, he cannot be held responsible for what people around him say.

"Wanderers of other sects who ask thus may be answered in this way: 'How then, friends, is The Goal one or many?' Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: 'Friends, The Goal is one, not many.' - MN 11

Although, even in Pali Canon, "the goal" is described as many things:

cessation
liberation
final knowledge
highest bliss
attainment of the deathless

So, as Jack Kornfield said, "the goal" is "multifaceted" as "crystal with many sides". However, because of the language limitations we can only speak about one of these qualities at a time. That said, I would not go as far as to say there are different types of enlightenment.
Instead, according to my teacher, enlightenment manifests differently according to the needs of the situation - and because there are infinitely many different situations, there are infinitely many forms enlightenment takes, but it is still the same enlightenment.

That sounds like as if enlightenment in your tradition (not Theravada, right?) is understood as something different than in Theravada. That's interesting. Do you have a definition of enlightenment for me (to get some context)?

I'd suggest that enlightenment is the same in all cases regardless of whether one has even heard of Buddhism. After all, the Buddha hadn't. It may be sensible to speak of different levels or depths of enlightenment but not different types. All roads lead to Rome.


text:
Is it only possible to pay attention to one thing at a time?
I once was at a (theravada) mini-retreat where the teacher insisted that if one really watched carefully, one would recognize that it is not possible for the mind to pay attention to more than one thing at a time.  I commented that in my experience it is possible to experience a lot of stimuli simultaneously. to see "whole picture" in one glimpse, just like listening to many instruments at the same time, but he kept insisting that this was due to the fact that attention shifted at a very fast pace between objects. And that if I kept practicing I would realize this.  Is what he said in accordance with buddhist teaching?  I have never heard it mentioned from any teacher other than him (but I remember it from some old perception psychology which I don't know if is out dated), and it really interferes with my mindfulness when I come to think of what he said.

I think this other topic is similar -- Awareness of two things -- so similar that this one may be a duplicate, Anyway you may want to read that other topic and its answers too.

The teacher is correct.
It is only possible for the mind to hold a single object at a time. Thinking that the mind is able to hold multiple objects at the same time is merely an illusion of continuity. It is just the mind shifting very rapidly between objects and mindfulness is not yet strong enough to register/discern that.
As mindfulness, concentration and insight matures that fact will gradually become more apparent.
By practicing Vipassana meditation one can come to clearly experience this fact.

Your teacher is correct.  It might be helpful to explore the Zen concept of the nen in regards to this topic.  I find it a bit clearer than what I've heard from the Vipassana community (which isn't to say a clear, Vipassana explanation doesn't exist!).  You can read about it here - the three nens.
The short of it is that the initial moment of perception - the first nen - always involves a single object be it eye consciousness, ear consciousness, etc.  Each nen follows one after another like beads on a mala.   Unfortunately, our mind left in an untrained state tends to see individual nens sort of smeared into each other.  The calmer one's mind becomes, however, the more evident it becomes that only one first nen can be experienced in any given moment of consciousness.  The second nen is essentially perception + reflection.  Here, you would find Dhammadhatu's "long breath" or "agitated long breath" or "smooth long breath moving from nose thru chest to abdomen", etc.  The third nen is discursive thought based on perception + reflection.  Our example of the second nen mind object of "long breath" becomes "that breath was much longer than the last one!" in the third nen.  It goes without saying that by the time you get to the third nen, you really aren't practicing anymore as you are waxing philosophic!  ;-)
I.e:

Case 50 in the Hekiganroku, Ummon’s ‘Particle After Particle’s
  Samadhi’
Engo’s Introduction
Transcending all ranks, rising above all expedients; spirit
  corresponding to spirit, words answering words—unless he has undergone
  the great emancipation and attained the great use of it, how could he
  rank with the Buddhas and be a faultless exponent of the teachings?
  Now, tell me, who can be so direct and adaptable to all occasions, and
  have the free command of transcendent words?  See the following.
Main Subject
A monk asked Ummon, “What is particle after particle’s samadhi?”
  Ummon said, “Rice in the bowl, water in the pail.”
Setcho’s Verse
Rice in the bowl, water in the pail! Even the most talkative can add
  nothing.
The North and the South stars do not change places, Heaven-touching
  waves arise on land.
If you doubt, if you hesitate, Though you are heir to
  millions—trouserless!

What does particle after particle samadhi look like?  I'm pretty sure you've got an idea!

It's an excellent question.
In terms of eye optics there is a focal point where vision perceives whatever is in that focal point. But there often appears, with me, a complete flooding of sensory information where the whole picture is seen as one. It's as if the focal point has widened into the peripheral areas of vision.
This could be because saññā (perception) has ceased operating through the conditioned portion of mind. How so? When we perceive something, we break it down into sizeable chunks because that's how we were conditioned and it also seems more convenient. There's a car, a tree, a pigeon.
From both viewpoints, there is still only one thing being perceived. You can see a car, but you're also seeing the external components that make up that car. In the same way, you can see a busy city street in its entirety with all of the components that make up that busy city street. It's still one thing.

Your speaker (not "teacher") is incorrect.
What the speaker (not "teacher") said was unnecessary non-sense and unrelated to Buddhism (which is about ending the causes of suffering).
For the speaker (not "teacher") to be correct, the speaker (not "teacher") must 1st define what an object or "thing" is. Since potential "objects" become infinitesimally smaller, it is impossible to define what a single object is.
For example, to perceive a "long breath" or "agitated long breath" or "smooth long breath moving from nose thru chest to abdomen" includes many different yet collective perceptions. It is impossible to perceive each of the above aspects of these perceptions individually.
For example, how can "agitated" or "smooth" be perceived independently from "breath"?
For example, to perceive a picture of a flower on a green wall can be done with one ordinary act of eye consciousness. To believe the mind is shifting extremely fast between objects of "picture", "flower", "green" and "wall" is superstition (maybe a worse more primitive superstition than reincarnation).
The Lord Buddha, who knows & sees, defined "perception" as follows:

And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.
SN 22.79

If the mind only could pay attention to one thing at one time then there would be no "contrast" (perception of difference) between different colours because the mind could only perceive one colour at one time.
For example, if the mind could only perceive one thing at one time then reading this forum would be impossible because the mind could not perceive the difference between the black colored letters and white colored background. The mind could not perceive the "vertical" line of the letter "T" and the horizontal line of the letter "T". The letter "T" could not be perceived.
The more one attempts to analyse this question (as I am attempting to do), the more speculative, theoretical and insane it becomes. Sheer madness & insanity. Utter adhamma.
The Lord Buddha, who knows & sees, described the vipassana required for complete enlightenment and the ending of the asava (defilements) as follows:

There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form,
  such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its
  origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its
  origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their
  origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its
  origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of
  concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of
  the effluents.
AN 4.41

If the mind could only be aware of one "thing" at one time then it could not perceive "arising" and "passing" of "aggregate". Without a sense of continuity, there would not be a contrast between "arising" and "passing". For "passing" to give rise to the disenchantment of "dispassion", there must remain some recollection or memory of the prior perceived "arising".
As mindfulness and concentration deepens that fact will gradually become more apparent.
As mindfulness and concentration deepens, superstition & deliberate false speech about things not truly experienced will be abandoned.
Thus the Buddha taught:

Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to
  delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one
  cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these
  qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
  separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between
  them.
Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
  to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one
  perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these
  qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
  separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among
  them.
MN 43

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


text:
Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?
Someone who likes to ask rhetorical questions on the internet once questioned whether it was appropriate to describe “consciousness” as a reification since in one sutta (MN 43) it is said that consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment were conjoined: If consciousness is a Reification, how does a Buddha attain the Truth?
An apparent contradiction arises when looking at another question offered by the same person: Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?
The OP seems to like the answer to the second question which stated:

“When … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises” of moral nihilism.”

Could it be that this “insisting on consciousness” as an objective real thing leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned and others concurred: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26814/13375

Theravada Buddhist answer.

Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?

It is not.
Consciousness (Citta) exists only as a taker of objects. If one has to characterize it as anything, it is rather a "knowing, cognizing or processing" of an object and not a real thing.
Here is a quote (my highlights) on the nature of Consciousness from the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

"Consciousness: The first chapter of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha
  is devoted to an examination of citta, consciousness or mind, the first of the four ultimate realities. Consciousness is taken up for study first because the focus of the Buddhist analysis of reality is experience, and consciousness is the principal element in experience, that which constitutes the knowing or awareness of an object.
The Pali word citta is derived from the verbal root citi, to cognize, to know. The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument, and as activity. As the agent, citta is that which cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintenti ti cittam). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamattam cittam).
The third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object. It is not an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition".
-- Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 1: Compendium of Consciousness, Guide to §3, p. 27.

It appears the Lord Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism) because it is doctrine based on grasping (upadana). In other words, the Lord Buddha appeared to not criticize natthikavādaṃ because of disbelief in an afterlife.
In Buddhism, the word "grasping" is "upadana", which means to "take something as one's own". Due to views of "self" or "ego", selfishness arises. Selfishness leads to moral nihilism -- the mind is grasping at dirty animal lust as "me" and "mine" and "I". This dirty grasping at dirty things, leading to harm & trauma of everyone involved, is natthikavādaṃ.
For minds out of touch with reality, some suttas about "grasping" and "selfishness" are as follows:

Now, craving is dependent on feeling, seeking is dependent on craving, acquisition is dependent on seeking, ascertainment is
  dependent on acquisition, desire and passion is dependent on
  ascertainment, attachment is dependent on desire and passion,
  possessiveness is dependent on attachment, stinginess is dependent on
  possessiveness, defensiveness is dependent on stinginess, and because
  of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful
  phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives;
  conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and
  lies.
DN 15

But viewing consciousness as "cognition" is not "grasping". This is why the Lord Buddha said the reality of consciousness is that is cognises.
The question asked makes no sense because the question seems to irrationally believe the idea of a "thing" is the arising of "self" or "grasping"; such as to view a computer as a "computer" is "grasping".
The Lord Buddha did not to teach to abandon the idea of "things". What the Buddha taught to abandon is described below:

16. "But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well
  trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their
  teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality
  in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not
  consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This
  is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed,
  and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also
  he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the
  Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal,
  immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' —
  that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am,
  this is my self.'
MN 22

In conclusion, insisting on consciousness as an objective real thing does not inherently lead to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned. Only insisting that consciousness is "self" or "me" or "my" inherently leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned.

Old comments moved to chat.


text:
Sexual thoughts coming with full pace to silent mind
I'm being very mindful and aware nowadays.  My mind is now very much quite and I am able to watch handful of thoughts in day to day life.  The problem is at a particular instant of quite mind, sexual thoughts come with full vigour.  Don't know why.
Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

Sexual thoughts arise from a combination of the sensuality element (SN 14.12) & the ignorance element (SN 45.1). Because the mind still ignorantly believes sex can bring happiness & lasting pleasure, the instinctual & habituated sexual impulse (element) & thoughts still arise. In short, they arise due to wrong view.

What is the solution then? I mean sex can give someone pleasure, otherwise we wouldn't it if it's painful.

Medhini Is also correct.  It's both escapism+your reason.  Better if you write about escapism as well.  Will be helpful.

Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?
Thoughts arise and disappear on their own. If you are plagued by any particular thought, consider that relishing is the root of suffering. Find that delight, look at it and simply understand that "this is not mine, this is not who I am, this is not my self." This simple declaration will loosen your grip on the thoughts and they will disappear. Thoughts and feelings persist because there is relishing. Disavow the relishing and the thoughts and feelings pass like clouds in the sky. Be mindful of your breath as you do this. The breath is very much a part of your life. The thoughts simply come and go.

The reason is simply habituation.
The mind is used to input, any input will do. Whether it's thoughts or sound or images, and whether the thoughts are about sex, drugs, rock-n-roll doesn't really matter.
More interesting is that you consider memories popping up a problem. So, there is wanting there. Maybe wanting the peaceful state to continue? Which it won't since everything is impermanent.
There is more to uncover. Keep watching.

Thing is you already did the first step and thats
recognizing its existence
Its just important to separate from self as the answers told you

Now why you get them so vigorously when your mind has developed mindful awareness you say ?
Mindfulness comes easy for you in some aspects and hard in others which is normal because everyone has beliefs and habituation about things learned since childhood so filtering that through mindful awareness takes time and ardency.
So knowing the reason why is the second step
After that you can more easily divert your attention to something else it doesn't mean avoidance of what you don't like it only means that you can now do what you intend to do with less suffering.
Diverting your attention to something else is the last step

The essence of Buddhism is understanding that we can't control our body, our mind and things happening around us. But people tends to involve those things and thus, our emotion attached to those things and start karma cycle.
For example, when we eat a food, at the same time in our mind happening Greed(on our favorite food), Anger (Bad taste, Don't like), etc. And based on those emotional attachment, we taking out the actions which will become karma and reincarnation cycle.
In Accent of Buddhism is eating also a part of life and that is out of our control and so get rid from attached mind such as Greed and Anger, etc., to stop reincarnation cycle.
So, it is natural that you have those kind of mind such as sexual thoughts. And try to understand as it as just a thought and watch as it is until it lose again, as everything as happening in this universe.


text:
I have some metta problem
I have personal problems with the metta practice. I would say may I/you be happy and I would go in this wish fulfilment mode. Imagining myself and others happy would create a jinni in the bottle attitude. It would become this deluded practice.

How can I wish people to be happy when I know this wish wont come true?
How can I wish people to be happy whithout going into this prayer mode?

Can I use words like "I hope you be happy"? Or maybe I find joy"
Is metta hoping? Or attitude of maybes?

Love & compassion can't be cultivated.  But awareness can be cultivated and through awareness one starts understanding love and compassion.

I disagree completely that love and compassion cannot be cultivated and wonder how you could think otherwise given all the empirical evidence to the contrary of countless individuals who have done exactly that.

They cultivated awareness. And love and compassion are by product of awareness.

In order to understand metta, one first has to understand "ill-will" (vyāpāda), origination of ill-will, and cessation of ill-will.
In order to understand origination and cessation of ill-will, one needs to understand Dependent Co-Arising.
Our image of the world and our image of ourselves are mirror reflections of each other. The two sides are reflections of each other because each side co-evolves by contrasting its identity with the other side.
Because of this, "ill-will" (=negativity) towards an aspect of the world we see as wrong and frustrating is always connected with attachment to some sort of idea of "good" we identify with. In simple words, "in this regard, they are bad and I'm good" or "they are wrong and I'm right". Similarly, "ill-will" towards oneself always comes with some sort of comparison: "in this regard, they are good and I'm bad" or craving: "they achieved this and I did not".
In practice, almost every person usually has a mix of many such points, some of which are
(self)[+]<===>[-](world) and some are (self)[-]<===>[+](world). As our attention switches between these different points during the day, our sense of self and the world may flip many times between positive and negative. One moment you think you're messed up and the world is fine, and the other moment you feel the world is messed up and you're fine. Or, if you are very attentive, you can even notice two opposite points in your mind at the same time, making the lives of others pitiful and enviable at the same time, and making your self be an unrecognized genius and a complete loser at the same time. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but you get the idea. If you judge others, you judge yourself. If you judge yourself - you judge others. These judgements are relative to each other, therefore are always connected.
To boil all this down to a simple rule, if you hate the world you hate yourself. If you hate yourself you hate the world. The good news is, because the two sides are connected, healing one will always heal the other. So, if you learn to accept yourself, you'll learn to accept the world. If you learn to love the world, you will learn to love yourself.
And this, my friend, is the whole idea of Metta!
As my teacher explained, cultivation of Metta starts by cultivating acceptance of oneself with all your imperfections. Once you learn to not judge yourself, once you learn to "love" (accept) yourself unconditionally and to be your true self in front of the others without fear of judgement, just as you are -- then you will notice an immediate relief in your relationships with the world and with other people. Then, the next step, learning to "love" (accept) others without judgement will come easily and naturally. But you can also approach it from the other side: if you learn to accept others without judgement, you will eventually learn to accept yourself and be free.
Freedom is only possible when we are free from fear, including the fear of judgement, constraining our spontaneous expression of our inner goodness.
By now you should get a pretty clear idea that Metta is not "Wishing others to be happy". Metta (or Maitri in Sanskrit) is unconditional acceptance of someone just as they are, without judgement or hostility.
When you have metta towards someone imperfect (including yourself, or even towards the entire society), you don't pretend that they are perfect. Instead, you accept them with all their problems and wounds, like you would accept your own children. When you have metta towards someone difficult, you don't see them as inherently "bad" - but you do appreciate that some of their past karma, or karma of their family or social group, might have created causes for aggression and hostility, or lack of education, or bad taste for simple pleasures, or a confused system of values and ideals - so you do see everything as is, with all the causes and results of the causes and how these results limit the future possibilities, but you no longer impute an inherent qualitative characteristic to it.
(This idea of not judging, and not reifying your judgements as if they were inherent characteristics of other people, eventually builds up to realization of Emptiness, the insight into how our mind constructs its experience.)
The end goal of Metta is a state when you fully accept yourself and the world, so you feel "like a fish in the water". Meaning, when you are without judgement, you can be friendly and spontaneous without being on the defense. It's almost like the boundary between yourself and the world disappears. In a way you feel like a child, completely comfortable in your own realm.
With Metta, you don't need to try hard to look perfect, educated, strong, consistent etc. - because you accept yourself as you are and you're not afraid of judgement of others (because that judgement used to be your own projection to begin with). Similarly, your experience of the world is no longer negative - because the attachments that held your attention fixed on the judgements that colored the world in the negative colors - are gone too. You are perfect and the world is perfect, with all their imperfections, just as they are. This is Metta as it is understood in my tradition (the Maitreya tradition).

So fascinating. I feel like I'm learning some part of this recently. The way I said it was that in order to be gentle with others you have to be gentle with yourself. But one could say the converse too.

Thx! Lot to reflect on!

Very recently I attended a retreat where guidance was given on cultivating metta. In brief, the guidance was that to begin one should focus on one individual at first and then visualize actually doing something that would make that being happy. I chose a dog that I know who seems very happy when a particular person comes by to greet it. I visualized this dog and visualized myself carrying this small dog to the other person. I can say from personal experience that the meditation was successful in cultivating very warm and loving feelings. The guidance was to pick for that first being an individual that is easy to generate loving kindness towards ie., better not to pick someone who you have an aversion to.
Further guidance was given, that after one has successfully done this for several, several sessions and developed confidence by seeing the effects of this on the mind ... only after this should one branch out to visualizing a different individual that is a little bit - but not much! - harder to generate metta towards. For this second individual several sessions should again be done before replacing with a third etc., etc.,
And then, slowly, slowly, slowly over time you can start practicing with beings that you are neutral towards. And then slowly, slowly, slowly, practicing with beings that you have slight aversion towards ... medium aversion towards ... strong aversion towards ... actual malice or hatred towards... like that.
Always start your meditation with one being and not many. If you wish to end your meditation by visualizing more and more beings and extending that out to all sentient beings this is fine, but for those of us who have not developed calm abiding better to begin the meditation with one individual at a time as quite enough. Also, don't make it generic like just thinking, "May this person be happy." in a mechanistic manner. Try to actually visualize yourself doing something to actualize that happiness.
Anyway, this is the guidance given to me and I thought it very wise guidance and in my own experience it seemed to work. You should check yourself though.
Hope this helps!

Thx for the post! I have a cat that i love very much. I would visualize my cat and pleasent feelings in my chest would arise. Is metta focusing on pleasent feelings in your body? I thought it was about the mind and intentions of goodwill.

The mind and body are connected, but generally speaking the metta should definitely result in very warm and happy feelings in the mind. This could then cause the body to also feel very warm and happy.
When you visualize the individual it is important to not mistake love for attachment though. What matters is focusing on just making the other individual happy without any reciprocal expectations whatsoever. Of course, for us ordinary beings attachment will arise from time to time and your job is just to note it and let it go and try to refocus on just making the other individual happy.

Also, try to be gentle with your mind during the meditation and not try to impose your will with any violence. It is hard to be gentle with others if we are not gentle with our own minds.

Thx! "mistake love for attachment" didnt think about that! That helps!

Metta comes under Samma Sankappo or Right Intention. The whole point of Metta practice is to develop the right attitude or motivation towards practice, namely non-Ill Will (Metta or goodwill), Renunciation (Non-greed) and Non-cruelty (Karuna, Compassion). These emotions or drives are what will get us through when practice gets difficult.
Sure, it is not possible that all beings will be happy. But, at least when you prime yourself with Metta practice, you will reduce the probability of being that person who causes suffering to others. You will try to maintain a mind of goodwill even when others try to cause you harm.
Moreover, if the exact Metta phrases do not resonate with you, try some other ones. Or try radiating Metta one by one in all 6 directions (Front, back, left, right, down, up). The whole point is to generate the friendly, kind emotions when someone opens the door for you and that brings a smile to your face. It is just that times 10 or more.
I also invite you to check Ajahn Sona's youtube videos. He can go very deep:
Metta: Basis for Insight

"But, at least when you prime yourself with Metta practice, you will reduce the probability of being that person who causes suffering to others. " thx this line is really great!

Thank you for the kind words :D
By the way, I feel the 5 recollections are a good counter-weight when Metta drifts into unrealistic idealism. Also, Asubha practice is a good counter-weight when Metta drifts into attachment.

I think all your considerations are based on the idea that the wish won't come true. But, in many ways, the wish does come true, especially when conjoined with the perspective of emptiness.
For example, if you wish that a friend gains tons of happiness, this might not directly occur, but you might generate compassion in yourself towards that friend and increase their happiness via your interactions, which will be more positive.
Even the mere wish of someone's happiness, from the point of view of karma, is virtuous, beneficial. If you don't help this person, then you may help that person. The first benefactor might be happy about you, about you helping others.
Overall, just as compassion and karma share a worldly quality related to action, they also share the need to see them vastly, without too much precision. Generating compassion for a single person, symbolically, is related to the act of generating compassion for the entire world; in one's very perception, there is separateness, but in ultimate reality there is none. Just because you grow towards universal compassion later doesn't mean its disconnected with focusing on just one person now.
I feel few people realize the implications of compassion, and you may feel as though you're doing something trivial. But, the intention is foremost, just by generating compassion in a given way you generate qualities in your mind, whatever the perceived result might be. Even, compassion entails also being compassionate towards yourself, seeing the virtuous act you're doing while meditating, and having sympathetic joy for yourself. You might want to see the limitations you perceive in metta as obstacles to practice, and focus on the ways in which those wishes do come true. Compassion, even gratitude, are similar in their tendency to focus on what is best in life, what is conducive to well being.
Also, perhaps I'm going in a realm not linked to the answer you expect, but how can you be so extremely sure that your metta practice is not affecting the well being of others just by wishing? Just because your expectations about what happens to them aren't met, the well-being of these people -- the very meaning of metta -- might be achieved still. If anything, you above all will benefit from sending metta to others, and the world will be better because of it. Metta, seemingly, works in mysterious ways.
Hope this helps.

I think that if people insist on wanting what's impossible, they may "suffer" -- that's, like, the first and second noble truth.
Similarly, if people insist on wanting what's harmful, they may suffer.
Was it for these reasons that you said, "How can i wish people to be happy when i know this wish wont come true?" -- is it because of these reasons that you expect that people won't be happy?
My impression , from Pali literature, is a bit narrower than the other answers (the other answers might well have been Mahayana-influenced and not only based on Pali) -- i.e. I think that "metta" might not mean, "make someone else happy" -- it might just mean, "don't hurt someone else."
So "may you be well" is a synonym for "I don't want to hurt you, I don't want hurt to come to you".
Keeping the precepts is an example of metta: "I don't kill, I don't lie, I don't steal from you, I don't get angry, I don't want harm to come to you" -- that is what metta is. Is that impossible to hope for?
From the Dhammapada:

He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

In that last verse, "non-hatred" (averena), I think that is what metta is (some of the answers to What is the Antidote for a Hateful Temperament? give various references).
I think that's where it begins, anyway.

I think that the Karaniya Metta Sutta (Snp1.8) is one of the definitions. Here are some extracts:

Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.

And:

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down

It mentions "conceit" to begin with -- see answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for further descriptions of "conceit". And beyond what's said there, I think the suttas also say that "conceit" is a cause for people's arguing with each other, trying to wound each other verbally.
Another quality of conceit is comparing people (saying "this person is higher" and so on), whereas a quality of metta seems to be, "May all beings be at ease", as if you have no enemies.
The second passage alludes to the precepts and to right speech ("Let none deceive"), and what I said above about ill-will versus harmlessness.
Also I think you're hoping to free yourself from (or abandon) ill-will, at the same time as freeing others.

I think there may be a connection between metta and generosity too, in the practitioner -- but I'm not sure how to answer (or to "prove") that from the Pali scriptures.
I think that monks (who were perhaps the primary audience and subject of the suttas) have (unlike lay people) literally nothing to give except good-will -- and maybe dhamma-talks or course -- plus benevolent actions and so on that I shouldn't minimise, social/engaged activities -- even so, I don't think I've noticed such activities recommended to monks in the suttas. So anyway (though perhaps I'm wrong) I'd expect overt "generosity" to be more practised/practicable by laypeople (or Bodhisattvas) -- maybe, I don't know, Mahayana has more to say about that.
Not that there isn't generosity or charitable work to be found from some contemporary monks and nuns.
And actually I think monks are taught to be generous -- sharing food, for example (I'd reference this sutta but see also the Vinaya) -- I'm not sure whether that's called metta though. I'd lke to say "yes", but possibly not -- maybe metta is an antidote to ill-will, where generosity or giving is an antidote to greed. Maybe it amounts to more or less the same thing in the end though.


text:
Why does the Noble Eightfold Path work?
Since I have started reading Buddhist texts and trying to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, my life is happier and 'easier' but why is this? I believe it to be 'common sense' and the innate human nature that doing good is easier than doing bad but it can also be the reverse with certain conditions in this world. In a nutshell, I've taken the optimistic stance on this philosophical debate.
To understand the context of my question, let me describe my thought process on trying to understand this:
What if in our ultimate beginning (if there was one), we were all in an unconditioned state but then somehow became conditioned which lead to becoming (think of the story of Adam & Eve). Since this becoming, our ultimate objective is to return back to that unconditioned state and because we were in that unconditioned state, if one were to follow the Noble Eightfold path it would be innately/instinctively accepted to work.
I believe those that follow the path and through practice accept it to be logical but also to be innately/instinctively accepted. (Since this is a Buddhist forum, I believe users here can agree on this opinion).
Question: My question is based on the premise that the above is somewhat logical and in accordance with Buddhist teachings; if so is there any Buddhist literature that can elaborate on why it is ‘easier’ to follow the path or if its the total opposite. I believe ‘easier’ here can be subjective but I believe through my elementary understanding of Buddhist text, once you realize what is right in front of you; it is/can be easy.
If my logic is incorrect or you see a confusion in my question, please show me the correct way with references to Buddhist literature as well.

Please see this question and my answer to it.

@AndreiVolkov thanks for the link. You’re right, removing conflict makes things a lot easier which by following the path is doing just that. In a way my question is a duplicate to the question in your link. Your answer fundamentally answers my question but does it go deeper? Reading your answer along with the others is logically sound and IMO instinctively correct but I guess the other part of my question is why is that? By asking why, am I just going in circular thinking?

The nature of suffering is conflict because mind (being an informational phenomenon) does not handle logical contradictions well. So anything that leads to an experience of clash or contradiction is perceived as suffering by the mind attached to (or identifying with) one of the sides of the contradiction. Conversely, reducing the conflict leads to experience of harmony, and that's the mechanism behind 8NP. This is already down at the level of fundamentals; I don't think there is a further why more fundamental than this.

Thanks Andrei, this answers my question in entirety. You can close this question.


text:
Is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable?
Given that except Nirvana everything is impermanent, is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable? In other words whether, given something ,isn't it true that it will change no matter whether there is any reason behind it or not?
Can we say all conditions are superfluous for a change to happen? Can we say change happens with or without conditions ?

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice

I understood the doctrine as being that conditioned things are caused:

They exist when all the conditions for their existence are present.
They cease to exist when conditions for their existence are no longer present.

For example:

A fragile thing (e.g. a sand castle) exists for as long as nothing hits it, and ceases to exist when that condition is no longer true (i.e. if something hits it)
A living thing exists as long as it's born and fed and healthy and not too old (etc.), and ceases to exist when those conditions change

What I said above about "conditioned" things is generally true of "put-together things" or "compound things" -- everything that's made (or compounded) of several things put together will eventually come apart.

I'm not sure about "reasons" -- perhaps reasons are man-made or artificial. For example the question "Why did the apple fall from the tree?" has several possible explanations -- maybe "reasons" can be called empty, like "things" are.

All conditioner have 3 sub-characteristics (upāda[jāti], ṭhiti[jarā], and bhaṅga[maraṇa]) according to the description of 5 aggregates and 12 dependent originations.
Saṅkhāra means cause of effects. This is conditioner aggregate of dependent origination.
Saṅkhata means effect of causes. This is conditioned aggregate of dependent origination.
Because saṅkhāra of saṅkhata, have to be saṅkhata of the other saṅkhāra.

So, nothing is no condition, except nibbāna. And that everything, except nibbāna, must be changed (jāti, jarā, and maraṇa) by it's multi-conditioners.

No, it is not true that everything is impermanent. Only compounded phenomena are impermanent. Non-compounded phenomena are permanent- for example, concepts.
For a phenomenon to arise, it depends on some conditions and causes- they are not arbitrary or superfluous. Nothing arises out of anything. Phenomena which occur are definitely because of causes.