text:
Parinibbāna in secular Buddhism
I take it that an important claim of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha never actually taught literal rebirth.
What happens during parinibbāna according to secular Buddhism? How is it different from any other death? If there is no difference, how do secular Buddhists explain the very existence of this term? Can any death be called parinibbāna?

@What is the source of the claim in your first paragraph?

A lot of people conflate the concept of 'rebirth' with the concept of 'reincarnation,' but philosophically speaking they are subtly different. Reincarnation implies an eternal essence or being that returns to inhabit a new physical form. Rebirth in the Buddhist sense is actually the opposite: the idea that our unresolved attachments set the ground for the recreation of the five aggregates that constitute a being.
In that sense, rebirth is like — to use a colloquial analogy — an echo. A sound is sent out and an echo returns; the echo is the same sound sent out again, and a new echo returns. The nature of the sound can change through distortion, clarification, or interference over time, but the process continues until the sound itself is silenced. After that, there are no more echoes. Don't misunderstand; silence can be a powerful thing. A room where everyone is talking is a comfortable jangle of noise, perhaps, but a room where everyone is silent borders on the state of awe. It's merely our attachments to that warm, comfortable, sensuous noise that leads to the echoes that recur.
So if nirvana is the achievement of true silence in our lifetime, parinirvana would be the continuation of that silence after death. Imagine that the whole of Buddhism is the continuation of the silence of the Buddha after his death — a silence that absorbs the noise of others and helps them find silence in their own right — and you'll get a sense for the nature of paranirvana.
Note that I haven't once used the term 'secular,' as though secular Buddhism were something different than 'regular' Buddhism. That's just more noise.

In my understanding, the notion of Nirvana was a nod towards pre-Buddhist (Inc. Jain) ideas of the times. Nirvana was something transcental, something ultimate everyone spoke about but barely anyone could define.
When The Buddha achieved his Breakthrough, he mapped his ideas back to preexisting notions, to make it easier to communicate with people. So Nirvana is a bit tongue-in-cheek term, the so-called Nirvana. The Buddha attained what he himself called "Liberation of mind from suffering through Wisdom", which he equated with the Nirvana everyone at the times were looking for.
Then, the notion of Parinirvana is an even more ironic gesture. Since "Nirvana in this life" was actualized by not holding on to anything that could create a basis for suffering, death of "someone who is like this" (Tathagata) was the ultimate act of not holding on to anything to the highest degree possible, thus it can be half-jokingly called Super-Nirvana or Parinirvana.
Regular people die while still grasping at things, and so their death leaves an element of regret which then lives on as a negative impulse affecting the lives of people to come.
The Buddha's death is the ultimate act of letting go. It's an act of letting things go on their own course, governed only by Natural Law. The Buddha haven't attempted to stay behind and continue teaching Dharma indefinitely - which would be an act of grasping. Instead, his Parinirvana is an example to all of us Buddhists to not force the right Dharma on everyone, nor be aggressive in teaching and saving people, but to let things play out naturally while helping whenever we can.

I take it that an important claim of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha never actually taught literal rebirth.

'Birth' ('jati') is the production of ideas or views of 'self' or 'beings' ('satta'), as explained in SN 12.2, SN 23.2 and SN 5.10. Therefore, the Buddha certainly taught literal 'rebirth' but this literal rebirth is the literal re-production of ideas & views of 'self' or 'beings' or 'persons'.

What happens during parinibbāna according to secular Buddhism?

Parinibbana is described in the suttas as the cravingless ending of conscious experience of an arahant (Iti 44; MN 140; SN 22.85; etc), as follows:

'Here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished.'
Iti 44

.

How is it different from any other death?

'Death' ('marana') is the idea that a self or "a being" dies (SN 12.2). Parinibbana is not 'death'. There are many suttas that say an arahant does not experience death (SN 22.85; MN 140; MN 38; etc).

If there is no difference, how do secular Buddhists explain the very existence of this term?

Parinibbana is a term used for the peaceful cravingless ending of the life of an arahant. Currently, I do not know the reason why this term is used but I imagine it is possibly used so Arahants & Buddhas are not insulted by applying the word "death" to them and to highlight how the life of an arahant ends peacefully without any craving. The suttas say:

Dhp 21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.

The Buddha-To-Be searched for freedom from "death" (MN 26) yet the question here does not focus on what "death" really is but wants to talk about Nibbana, which is something that will never ever be experienced if what "death" & the "deathless" really are is not discerned.

Can any death be called parinibbāna?

Death (marana) is not Parinibbana (cravingless ending of consciousness), as explained. Death is a personal self-view while consciousness is merely an impermanent impersonal natural element (dhatu).
"Death" is the death of beings or selves, as follows:

Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with
  what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater
  than the water in the four great oceans.
“Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the
  death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard
  to wealth… loss with regard to disease.
SN 15.3

When life & experience is viewed as merely elements & aggregates, there will be no more "mother", "father", "son", "daughter", etc, and no more "death".

And what may be said to be subject to death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver  are
  subject to death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to death...
  sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
  them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
  subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
  illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.
MN 26

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Are you saying that this answer is from a "secular Buddhist" point of view, i.e. that this is "according to secular Buddhism"?

There is no such thing as "secular Buddhism" from the perspective of reality. If you think there is a problem in relation to terms here, I suggest to focus on the question. I have tried to explain many times before that the official Dhamma as refuge is "visible here & now" and is unrelated to non-knowable ideas.

Given that the question was asking about the secular Buddhist view (it asked, "how do secular Buddhists explain...?"), and given that you posted this as an answer to that question, I thought it better to be explicit about whether you're answering that question. This is implied to be (is posted as) an answer to the question ... but I thought it wasn't -- i.e. that you're not necessarily trying to answer "how do secular Buddhists explain it".

My answer is from the Pali suttas that sort of matches what Eternalists think Secular Buddhism is. But, in my experience, I have not met one Secular Buddhist that would agree with my post. Most Secular Buddhists appear to believe the Buddha believed in & taught about reincarnation but they, as Secular Buddhists, choose to disbelieve what they believe the Buddha believed. Thus many Secular Buddhists are self-confessed heretics. I differ from Secular Buddhists in that I don't believe the Buddha taught about reincarnation ('meta-physical rebirth').

Given that you deny that you've presented the secular Buddhist viewpoint, you haven't, strictly speaking, answered my question. On the other hand, it's not hard to find secular Buddhists who would likely agree with your post, for example this one. I agree with @ChrisW that you should clarify what question you are answering.

Sorry. But my viewpoint is not "Secular Buddhist". My viewpoint is Tathagata Dhamma. I posted already on the link you provided disagreeing with the teaching of Linda Blanchard. This is why I said I have never met a Secular Buddhist with the right view. Regardless, these Secular Buddhists only copy things by Buddhists who existed before Secular Buddhism. As I posted, if the mind does not know the reality of "deATH", it cannot ever know Nibbana. The more you argue against the Dhamma Dhatu, the further away from Nibbana the mind is.

My answer is the true Dhamma of the Buddha which is directed supported by the Pali suttas. I encourage you to take refuge in this answer in order to reach stream-entry and arahantship. Clinging to ideas of reincarnation does not bring stream-entry. With metta

@Dhammadhatu Please note that I asked for a piece of information. When somebody asks for a Mahāyāna viewpoint, the answer should contain a Mahāyāna viewpoint. When somebody asks for an answer supported by Pāli suttas, the answer should refer to Pāli suttas. When somebody asks for secular Buddhist viewpoint, the answer should present a secular Buddhist viewpoint. This has nothing to do with the viewpoint of the answerer (as every intelligent person is able to present a viewpoint that he or she disagrees with), and nothing to do with actual correctness of the presented viewpoint.

@michau The problem is where is the authoritative voice in secular Buddhism? There isn't a corpus of texts for us to reference. If you want an answer, you need to specify secular Buddhism relative to someone. Or else you are just asking what peoples opinions are, which Stack Exchange may not be the best place for.

There's a broken link I can't repair in michau's reference to someone who might agree with Dhammadatu. I noticed it because I'm the "this one" referred to, and while I agree with Dhammadatu that the Buddha wasn't teaching literal rebirth*, other secular Buddhists believe he did, and that he was wrong (most notably Doug Smith, primary poster on the secularbuddhist.org site, with whom I've disagreed).
That's the thing about "the secular Buddhist view" -- there isn't one.
Link to "this one" is https://secularbuddhism.org/what-is-dependent-arising/

note: disagreeing with his approach

i certainly agree with Linda here. , Other secular Buddhists believe the Buddha taught materialistic reincarnation rebirth, most notably Doug Smith, primary poster on the secularbuddhist.org site, with whom we & others have disagreed with, without success. It was futile attempting to get Doug Smith to renounce his pernicious view

I am not religious person.but  I am very confused for rebirth.
Beacuse I have no experience rebirth but i have no evidence  there is no rebirth. So we can't say  anything.
Rebirth true.
Rebirth false.
We need evidance.
But we can say without no dubout . There is  dukha
Every one agree this is truth

The OP asks: If there is no such thing as rebirth, then what is the difference between parinibbana and any other death?
But what exactly is rebirth? And what exactly is death?
Most people take rebirth to be the rebirth of oneself into a new life. If we zoom further into what this means, this is the continuation of the same consciousness that is aware of its surroundings and its thoughts into a new body with a new identity and new life. The same consciousness from birth wandered through life till death, then it continues in a new life after rebirth.
The Buddha did not accept this view in MN 38:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

The Buddha taught consciousness to be dependently originated.
This is elaborated further in the same sutta:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
  dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
  the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
  consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
  as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
  and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
  arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
  tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
  and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
  consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
  reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
  particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
  dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
  dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
  dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
  dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
  burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
  burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
  consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
  which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
  forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
  dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
  mind-consciousness.

So, is there such a thing as rebirth? Yes. But what is it?
It's not the rebirth of oneself, but it's the rebirth of one's self - not one's soul, but one's mental idea of a self. In SN 15.3 (below), the Buddha looks at YOU (the mental idea of self) and tells YOU that YOU have been reborn so many times and grieved the death of so many loved ones (which are more mental ideas classified relative to the mental idea of the self - see this question on papanca), that the volume of tears shed by YOU (the self) is more than the volume of water in all the oceans of the world combined. Also, a beginning to this samsara is inconstruable.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother...
  father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death
  of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to
  relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to
  disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease
  while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying &
  weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated
  from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great
  oceans.

What is death? Of course, it is also the death of YOU, a self identity.
Then what is Parinibbana?
Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.
The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.
Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.
What is difference between parinibbana and any other death? In the former, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased. In the latter, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion keeps burning, the (mental idea of a) self is reborn and suffering continues.
A change of perspective is needed i.e. rebirth, birth, death, and parinibbana should not be linked to any permanent consciousness or identity. The first noble truth is that there is suffering. It's not there is my suffering or your suffering but simply there is suffering. This also relates to anatta (not self).

From a secular perspective, there is no such thing as rebirth or reincarnation.  When you die, you die.  Karma doesn't carry forward as what you did dies with you.  There is no rebirth cycle to end, so the fact there is a buddhist phrase for it doesn't mean anything.
The Problem With Reincarnation

Sorry, but why was that down voted?

I don't know. I guess it could be improved, with a reference? How could one assess whether this answer is true?

So, an impermanent being has a permanent property of death? How does this square with anicca?

The questioner asked in regards to secular buddhism.  In my mind that is following the precepts, a bit about suffering and none of the mystical "smoke and mirrors" everyone gets so wrapped up in. So from that perspective you have life and then you die.  It is as simple as that.  No rebirth and no reincarnation.

Wikipedia's Secular Buddhism says, "Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs ..., namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, ..., etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, and karma, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc." -- footnote references from that article might be a good addition to this answer.

@ThirdPrize. I'm not the downvoter but: Your answer seems correct from a secular perspective but the question was asked about a secular Buddhist perspective, which can be far more nuanced.

@LindaBlanchard but as no one really knows what "secular buddhist" means ... ;)


text:
Citta experience during meditation
During meditation if no doer and knower operate citta come for knowing. Means thoughts coming with spaces without external object. Is this  what  do you call citta?  Is thoughts  are due to citta operate  without  self  ?when loba dvesa moha cease citta subjects to cease. Is it like that?

Citta is the emotional mind-heart. When defilement of greed, hatred & delusion cease, the citta is pure, luminous & liberated (as explained in the Pabhassara Sutta).

What do you mean by citta is the heart.

Where does  the emotional mind heart situated?Is it closer to real heart?

No. Citta is not the physical heart.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness?
Context: I'm considered a skeptic of rebirth in my tradition which is the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm asking this question to help me understand what other traditions think. In my tradition it is believed that rebirth is a semi-obscure phenomena the truth of which can be fully known through reasoning alone. I have a hard time understanding how and do not find any line of reasoning I've heard to be particularly convincing.
The strongest reasoning I've seen others in my tradition give for rebirth is that each instance of consciousness must have a substantial cause. And that brain/matter cannot be that substantial cause because brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures. Therefore, each instance must have been proceeded by a previous instance as its substantial cause leading to an infinite regress/progress back/forward in time.
Here is an excerpt from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's book - Kindness, Clarity and Insight - where he briefly summarizes this reasoning:

"... the nature of
  the mind is mere luminosity and knowing. Mind is something that has
  the capacity of appearing in the aspect of whatsoever object through
  the force of the object’s casting its aspect to it and is an entity of
  mere clarity and cognition, with a nature of experience. It
  disintegrates moment by moment. However, among its many
  causes—classified into substantial cause and cooperative conditions—it
  must, as an entity of conscious experience, have as its substantial
  cause an immediately preceding cause which is a former moment of consciousness. It is not
  possible for an entity with the character of luminosity and knowing to
  be produced from external material elements as its substantial cause.
  Similarly, an internal mind cannot act as the substantial cause of
  external elements. Since each moment of consciousness requires a
  former moment of consciousness as its substantial cause, there is no
  way but to posit that the basic continuum of mind is beginningless.
  Some specific types of minds [such as desire for an automobile] have a
  beginning and end, whereas other types [such as the ignorance
  conceiving inherent existence] have, in terms of their continuum, no
  beginning but an end. However, neither a beginning nor an end can be
  posited to the mind of luminosity and knowing. Therefore, although
  mind disintegrates moment by moment, its continuum is beginningless."

I believe this reasoning is basically equivalent to Chalmer's Hard Problem of Consciousness. To be clear, I think it is a hard problem for scientific reductionists who believe that consciousness can be reduced to physical matter and energy arranged in a specific way.
On the other hand, it is also equivalent in a different formulation to another famously hard problem: Descarte's famous mind/body problem which assumes the dichotomy of mind/body above and then asks if these are of such fundamentally different natures, then how do they interact? It would seem that positing any mechanism of interaction would betray the original assumption: that they are so fundamentally different that one could never give rise to the other... that they could never touch if you will.
Which leads to the question: what is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness?

Mind
Matter
Both
Neither
Pineal gland did it!

Would prefer answers with reasoning to help me understand.

BTW, if you are unfamiliar with this problem from a Western philosophical perspective see here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

I marked the question down & voted to close it because it is not related to Buddhist philosophy. The question is about biology or neurology where as the Buddhist teaching is about how suffering arises & how suffering ceases.

It is actively talked about and discussed by people who believe they are speaking about Buddhist philosophy including ordained members of the Sangha so I'm not sure how/why you think it unrelated to Buddhist philosophy.

My comment was clear. The Buddha said he only teachings about suffering & its cessation (MN 22)

You mean, "he only teaches" rather than "he only teachings", right? His Holiness the Dalai Lama has explicitly taught about this subject. You seem to have an idiosyncratic idea about what constitutes Buddhist philosophy.

The Dalai Lama often follows Tibetan ideology. Also, if the Dalai Lama could answer your question, why don't you simply find an answer from the Dalai Lama?

Yeshe Tenley, I'm not sure what (or who) you're asking: are you asking for an orthodox answer e.g. according to what the Dalai Lama taught? Or are you asking everyone for their personal opinions? Are you only asking for answers from people who do, or who don't, see this as a reason to give for "literal rebirth"? Or only asking people who have learned the "Western philosophical perspective" you cited?

Hi ChrisW, I'm asking all Buddhists who believe they know the answer and to provide reasoning to support if possible. My reference to the Dalai Lama was only in reply to whether this question was legit in the context of Buddhist philosophy: ie, it was meant to proffer evidence in support.
I'm not really sure what the Dalai Lama would answer nor what his reasoning would be, but if he reads this I would be very interested in his answer as well :)

i think you should explain what you mean by substantial cause, which is a term i had forgotten or was not familair with. i mean, in most english language interpretations of buddhism substance is closely linked to self and svabhava

You can see below Tenzin Dorje’s answer which has the definition of “substantial” which I don’t think has the implication of “substance” as you are thinking, but not sure.

The cause of suffering is avijja. The choice to avoid uncomfortable truths. Nibbana, the total end of suffering, can only be attained by summoning the courage to conquer this weakness and striving to see things as they actually are. The uncomfortable truth is that clinging to views which are not supported by evidence is a coping mechanism for suffering which keeps us locked into the cycle of suffering.

In his commentary to Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation, His Holiness the Dalaï-Lama lists 5 types of causes:

All those phenomena that  are produced at some times but not others
  depend on causes and conditions, and they are of various types. Causes
  are of different types, such as (1) substantial cause, (2) direct
  cause, (3) indirect cause, (4) cause of equal state, (5) concomitant
  cause, and so forth.

He gives a definition of substantial cause:

[A substantial cause is] A cause that primarily produces its result as its
  substantial continuity; e.g., production of a sprout from a seed.

In 'Kindness, clarity and insight', HHDL says:

It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its
  substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment
  of consciousness, a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot
  be posited.

In addition, in 'Consciousness at the Crossroards', HHDL gives an interesting line of reasoning establishing that matter (form) is not the substantial cause of awareness:

Specifically, the awareness must have a substantial cause. Now if the
  substantial cause of awareness is matter, then why is it that some
  things have no consciousness, and other things, such as animals, have
  consciousness?

In Pali and Sanskrit, 'substantial cause' is Upādāna. Regardless of contexts where it refers to specifics, literally it translates fuel. The Tibetan for substantial cause is nyer len.
In 'Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gönchok’s Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayba’s Root Text on Tenets, by Daniel Cozort and Craig Preston, Jamyang Shayba says:

Because of being a mind, it is established that [another mind]
  precedes it.

And Losang Gönchok comments:

The subject, a knower [i.e., a mind] just after conception, is
  preceded by a mind that is its substantial cause because of being a
  knower. The subject, the final mind of death of a common being, is
  able to generate the mind that is its impelled object because of being
  a knower having desire, such as a prior main consciousness.

With respect to the ancillary topic (rebirth) it says:

Because of movement [to activities immediately after birth] and memory
  [of former lives] also, [the existence of former lives is
  established]. Moreover, since a calf who has just been born seeks the
  milk of the teat and since with respect to animals, etc., the mind
  moves to activities of eating grass and engaging in desire without
  being taught, one can understand that this is done due to the
  conditioning of previous lifetimes. Also, memories of former lifetimes
  exist, and matter cannot act as a substantial cause to produce
  consciousness.

this answer is much better than mine!

Since you asked for personal responses with reasoning, I feel I can just answer in my own words, not quoting scripture or teachers. And yet I believe my position is in line with the view of the realized. In fact this time I will go as far as to say that I know and see directly, and the only constraint on sharing this is my ability to communicate or our ability to understand each other.
I understand your question, and I see multiple parts to it, or several assumptions that you make.
First, about mind/matter dualism, it is absolutely clear to me that these relate as information and it's media. Which basically translates to, they are not the same, neither are they separate. In context of existence at large, information is inherently connected with causation... and energy... This is to say that information, causation, and energy are different aspects of the same thing. Of the two sides, information and media, the media or matter is not primary. We could say, information is primary, as it shapes, transforms and animates matter. Perhaps we could even say, information-energy is all that exists, since in one sense matter, when looked at closely, is nothing but energy all the way down. This information-energy principle is what gives rise to mind.
Here's how mind arises from the continuum of dynamic information-energy permeating the universe. Because information moves over matter as it's media, and moves non-linerarly in various directions, it shapes and influences its media in different ways. This process carries some patterns across, leaving imprints, or something like informational echoes. This gives rise to representation - an ability of information to reflect or represent. As parts of the universe interact, they leave imprints on each other, carrying the echoes of information, representing the shape of the interaction. This representation of information by information is what we call mind.
Mind not always exists in conscious form; 99% of it is thin and subtle, manifesting as astronomical, geological, and biological phenomena. Only in sentient beings mind gets condensed enough to give rise to consciousness, or full-blown experience of a world. Consciousness is the mind's nature of representation taken to its pinnacle.
So when you ask about causes of consciousness of a sentient being (defined here as experience, or dynamically maintained model of existence), it is present mind (here defined as information's representation capacity) plus past mind (stored representation, or memory), plus interaction or exchange of information over media between the locality of the sentient being and the rest of the world. In other words, the cause of an instance of consciousness is mind, and the nature of mind is dynamic information. This dynamic information is a process of exchange and transformation that has no logical beginning.
This entire description is limited in its dependency on the notions of time and space. Strictly speaking, time and space are creations of mind in its modeling activity. In reality the structure I described above is a multidimensional network that in its complexity goes far beyond "space" and "time", and has some holographic aspects, but from the perspective of individual consciousness with its observation of locality, time and space seem to exist. But we are at limits of speakable here, so I won't talk about this much.
Anyway, what's useful for us, Buddhist practitioners, is to realize that mind is not special, but that in fact it permeates the normal fabric of things, and that it's interactions come to us from beginningless times. So in some sense we (the sentient beings with our minds) are the result and the legacy of the same beginningless process that gives rise to stars and Buddhas. We are of the same nature, we are continuation of the same thing. Each of us is a holographic locality of the rest of the universe.
What this means, is that Enlightenment has nowhere to hide from us. Our nature is Buddha nature, and has always been unstained from the beginningless times. This also means that consciousness, or experience of the world, is a very crude model, a contrived representation that we assumed to be real and accepted as our prison. We are stuck in our own mind, taking its models for real, and spinning in a circle of reaction, frustration, pain, and fake goals, which keeps us maintaining the same picture of the world. A particular picture of the world, contrived and maintained by the mind stuck in a negative self feedback loop is called (contaminated) experience or consciousness.
The cause of this experience of a world is ignorance (of the fact that this experience is mind made) and the self-maintaining loop of pain, frustration, and action that comes from taking this world for real.
At the end of the day, this entire story, including ignorance, and waking up from ignorance, is just the way things work, so everything is perfect in its completeness, and there's no reason to feel bad about the illusion of the world we live in, since creating illusions is the nature of mind. But perhaps, with greater understanding we can be free to stop maintaining the worst nightmares we dream to ourselves, and experience the meta-reality from a wider range of perspectives.
This is probably the most out of line answer I ever gave, so I apologize if this goes too far outside topics we normally deal with on this site. I hope you can relate to this from the perspective of Buddhism, at least in my mind it all connects and makes sense together.

Hi Andrei, I think this answer is most appropriate and probably does the best job responding to what I was looking for. I have also seen your other replies and answers on similar topics and find that our views are pretty closely aligned. That said, I think this answer is essentially refuting what my teachers say or at least I think their is daylight between this view and theirs. In other words, this answer does not posit that the truth of rebirth can be deduced through reason alone. Would you agree?

Hi Andrei, your answer is intuitive, and the way you have presented it here is quite remarkable. I enjoyed reading it and I respect your view. But the phrase "Mind not always exists in conscious form; 99% of it is thin and subtle, manifesting as astronomical, geological, and biological phenomena." made me pause. The Buddhist definition of mind is that it is culmination of feelings, thoughts, ideas, intuitions etc, which doesn't bode well to your quote above. Just wanted to get your insight on the above quote. Can you please elaborate?

Thanks! Not sure where you got that definition of mind as culmination of feelings, thoughts etc. - certainly not in suttas. Then again, when we say mind we need to be careful since it's a very overloaded term. Here in the answer I spoke about the basic mind element as opposed to the higher order phenomena such as the human consciousness. Basic mind element is mere representation, for example as a star's spectrum carries a representation of its chemical composition, or an impact crater's shape carries a representation of the asteroid's size and speed.

The inanimate nature is full of information exchange, interactions carrying representations, with their impact accumulating, developing into tendencies. These then serve as the building blocks for the so-called Life which is just a more developed level of tendencies and in-turn their interactions carrying their representations.
E.g. a set of volatile organic compounds emitted by a flower is a representation of its nectar's content, including sugar, and ultimately of its genetic makeup (a specific self-reproducing cyclical tendency). The bee is an instance of another cyclical tendency...

The bee picks up on the scent and collects the nectar - and here we have the basic mind at play. Human mind is just more of the same. Buddha defines "distinguishing mind" (vijnana) as something that develops from accumulation of "tendencies" or "latencies"(samskaras) - which is exactly what I described above. Sorry, this must be difficult to follow, I'm trying to be as clear as I can but it's not an easy subject to explain in a few comments.

One more thing, further to this answer:

a view of life -- developmental neurology

... and this answer ...

Frankly, that's an awful argument that would be laughed out of any undergraduate class

Without wanting to be rude to the teachers, I'm quietly sympathetic to the latter statement, i.e. I too was not persuaded by the argument as an argument.
Perhaps, if you want to accept it, you shouldn't see it as an argument, not as a  proof, but rather as a description of what is.
I learned (from my Physics teacher) that you choose a (scientific) theory because it's useful -- e.g. it isn't contradicted by observations, and it makes useful/accurate predictions about future observations. Sometimes there are different mutually-contradictory theories, which are useful in different circumstances (e.g. sometimes electrons are "like a wave" or sometimes "like a particle" depending on the type of experiment -- so you sometimes choose one theory and sometimes another, depending on which problem you're trying to solve, or which observation you're trying to explain).
The Theory of Gravity for example is useful for predicting planetary orbits. It's not, so far as I know, any good at explaining why people love each other. I'd thus describe the Theory of Gravity as a "right view" when you're calculating planetary orbits ... and it's a "wrong view" when you're explaining why people love each other!
So perhaps you shouldn't separate, can't afford to separate, the explanation from the reason for the explanation (i.e. its purpose, the use to which it will be put).
The "developmental neurology" I mentioned ... I mentioned it because you asked about the origin or substantial cause of consciousness: and maybe that (the book I referenced) was a fair description of how "consciousness" might start, grow, develop. To that extent it may be a right view of the development of consciousness in a person.
In my opinion, though, it's something of a "wrong view" from a Buddhist perspective:

Firstly, because it's easily mistaken for a materialist view ("neurology" implies you're observing physical neurons and encourages you to overlook the effects of experience and even of intention);
More importantly, because (in my experience) the theory doesn't help solve the important problems at hand, for example questions about ethics or about dhukkha (or about "self").

I find that the "neurology" view isn't just useless to me1, it's even counter-productive, if I try to apply it to the kinds of circumstance -- e.g. post-natal existence :-) -- for which Buddhist doctrine is helpful.

My main study at school was actually Maths not Physics. IIRC Maths doesn't try to prove everything. Progress in Maths depends on making or accepting assumptions (called an "Axiom)", and then saying, "given this axiom, what further theories can we prove?" Or conversely, "In order to prove this theory, what axioms do we need to assume?"
I think there's no shame in treating some statement as axiomatic -- I guess2 that doing so is inherent in any attempt to use logic. For example, a Syllogism depends on "premises".
Quoting from this answer again:

I mean, you seem to beg the question that consciousness has a substantial "cause", and then beg the question that it cannot have such a "cause", and then infer that it must, then, be eternal. Really, it should just show you that one of your assumptions is wrong.

I think there's a limit to what you can "prove" using logic (in particular it's difficult to prove the premises you're using) -- on the other hand logic can be helpful.
In summary, when you're studying at a school like this one3  perhaps it might help (to understand what's being taught) if you were to see statements about rebirth as being axiomatic rather than proven, and see whether you derive useful results from those axioms.

I wonder if the first three of the Four Noble Truths are another example of a logical syllogism:

Definition of Dukkha is an axiom
Craving as the origin of Dukkha is an axiom
Cessation of Dukkha with cessation of Craving is a logical conclusion from these axioms

My logic tells me that:

The first two are acceptable, plausible, axioms, which I can fit to my experience.
The third would be useful if true, is based on reasonable logic and on plausible axioms
The third is therefore a theory that's worth considering: i.e. to experiment with, to test, to see whether it's true (i.e. to see whether you observe the effect predicted by the theory).

You wrote in a comment:

To my mind, belief in rebirth requires faith but I know others disagree.

So far as I know, any logical statement ultimately rests on some premise[s] or axiom[s].
You may, or may not, want to describe that as "requiring faith" (see also faith).
You can try to prove an axiom by appealing to further axioms (e.g. prove rebirth by assuming something about substantial causes) -- ultimately it's turtles all the way down -- so (instead of hoping for some ultimate proof) you might want to depend on assessing what you'd consider sensible4, useful, ethical.

I'm not sure but the fact that logic is like this might be related to how or why some schools describe everything as "empty"?

1 (I'm not a neurologist myself, so no wonder I get little insight from it; I don't want to disparage neurologists' work either)
2 (I'm not sure, because I'm not a philosopher either)
3 (I say this without understanding what that school is teaching, and why)
4 (sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi -- see also this answer)

Hi ChrisW, as someone with a background in physics and math I am sympathetic to your answer, however my teachers say that the truth of rebirth can be arrived at through pure reasoning and that it is not dependent upon any controversial axiom. As I have explained, I have problems understanding how, but I don’t necessarily think that means they are wrong. In other words,  I have great deal of respect for them and thus leave open the possibility they are right and I just have an obstacle to overcome.

the truth of rebirth can be arrived at through pure reasoning Kant wrote something about that, if that matters. But, even without "axioms", perhaps there are "definitions"? If your mother points at something and tells you, "that's a cow!", that's not a reasonable but a definitional one. So might it help (help to accept) to see more of the statements as definitional rather than reasonable or logical? And IMO sometimes you're in class not to learn about the world but to learn about (to study) the teacher, and how the teacher reasons.

I'm not saying that the reasoning my teachers posit is free from axioms or definitions, just that the axioms are uncontroversial and the definitions rather common :) Again, I myself admit to being unable to arrive at the conclusion that they say is evident. However, I am as yet unwilling to conclude that I am right and they are wrong. In the meantime, I take it on faith and strive to understand their reasoning and to try and look deeper.

What is the substantial cause of the wetness of a wet cloth?
Is it water? Or is it the cloth? Or is it your hand touching the cloth and ascertaining that it is wet?
There is no single substantial cause for wetness. Similarly, there is no single subtantial cause for consciousness. It arises out of the complex interaction of other factors, which is covered under dependent origination.

Hi Ruben, I am sympathetic here as I also have a hard time understanding how to reduce an infinite series of dependencies for any phenomena into a finite number of causal conditions and labeling one of them the “substantial” condition.

I'm not sure if this counts as an answer, but ...
I think that some (other) people ask a similar question, to "prove" the existence of God. They argue that, "If something (i.e. the universe) exists then someone (i.e. God) must have created it. If the universe was created by the Big Bang, then what created the Big Bang? The answer is, 'God'."
They point to some infinite chain of causation, assume there must have been a "prime cause", and call that prime cause "God".
You seem to be arguing something similar -- "a cause for consciousness isn't evident, therefore present consciousness must have been caused by a previous consciousness, reborn from a previous life." Is that a fair summary of the argument?
So far as I know, the Buddha in the suttas doesn't answer that question. There's a sutta (Assu Sutta (SN 15.3)) translated as

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 beginning is called "inconstruable" and you leave it at that, and return to a more important topic.
See also The unanswered questions.
As a former mathematician I distrust attempts to "prove" things by reasoning about "infinite" series (e.g. Zeno's paradoxes) -- IMO they prove nothing except that logic is untrustworthy -- that kind of reasoning doesn't really prove the existence (or non-existence) of God ... nor of literal rebirth.

To answer the question ... I don't know, a friend of mine once gave me The Blank Slate which I thought was good. I think it claims that the brain (when it's born) has some built-in structure (the optic nerve and what that connects to, for example), and then learns to see (and eventually to be "conscious" of what it's seeing, e.g. to discriminate between different sights, to associate other experiences and feelings and so on with various sights, to recognise objects, and so on).
But although that is a view of life (I'm not sure what to call it -- developmental neurology perhaps), I don't think of it often: it's a view, but not an important one. I mean, you can consider it important if you want to ... but I think, my experience is, that this a topic which I am only able to classify into the "thicket of views" category.
To try again to answer the question, I suppose the cause of present (adult) consciousness is some combination of sensory contact with (learned or stored) past experience.

(There's a lot of literature that I'm not familiar with, including Tibetan Buddhism, the Abhidhamma, and David Chalmers.)

Hi ChrisW, I had assumed (apparently wrongly) that other Buddhist traditions besides Tibetan buddhism believed two things:

That the truth of rebirth is a semi-obscure phenomena that can be known through reasoning alone

That instances of consciousness require a substantial cause - for without a substantial cause this is akin to saying that instances of consciousness arise from nothing at all and are not subject to karma

I will update my question stating explicitly these assumptions and followers of other traditions can answer accordingly.

I had assumed (apparently wrongly) Not wrongly -- for all I know, you may be right -- I suppose some people do believe these things, or argue that way. I wasn't trying, in my answer, to explain the belief of a tradition -- only my own view. I thought this topic was a follow-on from a previous question about 'secular buddhism' -- I think you were implying that the argument (about cause) is solid logical proof of literal rebirth -- I don't understand it to be a solid proof, and maybe not even a useful or answerable question.

Ah, no this question is not related. In fact, I have trouble following this reasoning and do not see how it is sound. In other words, my tradition - Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism - regards rebirth to be a semi-obscure phenomena that can be known through reasoning alone. I assumed this was a widely held belief among other traditions as well. I asked this question to explore reasonings to hopefully understand why teachers I respect say this can be known through reason alone. To my mind, belief in rebirth requires faith but I know others disagree. I wanted to know their reasons.

According to a quick google search, it seems that HHDL is using Dharmakriti's argument for rebirth, supplemented with the idea that mind and matter are not absolutely divided, that reality is in fact indivisible. I would just want to raise two points wrt your question:

what exactly is a "substantial cause"? Once you have that you can work out whether every moment of consciousness is preceded by another moment of consciousness as a substantial cause. What's important is that you do so without begging the question.
I don't think Descartes thought that reality is indivisible. Descartes is engaged in a specific metaphysical project to describe the nature of "reality itself", and in doing so he says that mind and body are "really distinct". If in reality itself mind can exist without body, and vice versa, then it is wrong to say that reality is indivisible, whether or not reality is divided.

If you want to ignore the more subtle differences between philosophical arguments it seems a bit like 1st cause argument for God, except God is replaced with the self.

Oh??!! I did not know this argument was originally Dharmakirti’s argument! That is very helpful and gives me something to research... especially as Dharmakirti often gave arguments from non-Prasangika tenet system. Thank you very much for this!!

@YesheTenley thanks! and you agree with point 1, right? i think that's the key to understanding the "argument", and i can't see of any other way one could proceed with it

I think right now I agree that premise 1 as you have above seems to be begging the question. IOW, it seems the definition of “substantial” seems to be doing a lot of the work in this reasoning and I have doubts whether the definition is sound or whether it is ill-defined. It looks like a tautology...

This is my apostate explanation in answer to your question, founded within my meditative practice, not my scholarship (phd). It’s too long to quote here, but it’s not TL;DR for someone with your obvious rigor, Yeshe Tenley. Please accept it in that light.
https://bit.ly/BreakingTheMirror

Karma is the direct cause of consciousness. When light hits the eyes, the eye consciousness arises as a result of past Karma. When the sound hits the ears, ear consciousness arises as a result of past Karma.
But except for the case of mind consciousness, the physicality acts as an indirect cause for the consciousness to arise as every sensory experience except the mental experiences consists of both mental and physical aspects.
Regarding rebirth, it is the materialists who need to provide evidence that all experiencing cease at the moment of death. What we call death is really a concept. You have no firsthand knowledge of death. But you have firsthand knowledge that after every experience, another experience arises. You have no direct evidence that experiencing is ever going to stop. So why throw away your first hand knowledge in favor of a concept you have no direct knowledge of?

SN 12.25 says there can be no kamma without contact.

SN 12.25 :"The Blessed One, my friend, has said that pleasure & pain are dependently co-arisen. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact." Pleasure and pain are Vipaka(result or Karma). Not Karma itself. You got it confused.

Whatever brahmans & contemplatives, teachers of kamma, who declare that pleasure & pain are self-made, even that is dependent on contact. Whatever brahmans & contemplatives, teachers of kamma, who declare that pleasure & pain are other-made, even that is dependent on contact. Whatever brahmans & contemplatives, teachers of kamma, who declare that pleasure & pain are neither self-made nor other-made, but arise spontaneously, even that is dependent on contact.

@Dhammadhatu that simply explains pleasure and pain are not created by a self or entities other than self. Karma has nothing to do with a self. It's a mere causes and effect process.

The Pali suttas often mention 'consciousness' because consciousness is one of the five aggregates clung to as 'self'. It is the absolute Law of Dhamma that such clinging will always bring suffering, as described in the following sutta, which uses the metaphor of a 'thief' for clinging:

And how is the nutriment of consciousness to be regarded? Suppose
  that, having arrested a thief, a criminal, they were to show him to
  the king: 'This is a thief, a criminal for you, your majesty. Impose
  on him whatever punishment you like.' So the king would say, 'Go, men,
  and shoot him in the morning with a hundred spears.' So they would
  shoot him in the morning with a hundred spears. Then the king would
  say at noon, 'Men, how is that man?' 'Still alive, your majesty.' So
  the king would say, 'Go, men, and shoot him at noon with a hundred
  spears.' So they would shoot him at noon with a hundred spears. Then
  the king would say in the evening, 'Men, how is that man?' 'Still
  alive, your majesty.' So the king would say, 'Go, men, and shoot him
  in the evening with a hundred spears.' So they would shoot him in the
  evening with a hundred spears. Now what do you think, monks: Would
  that man, being shot with three hundred spears a day, experience pain
  & distress from that cause?
Even if he were to be shot with only one spear, lord, he would
  experience pain & distress from that cause, to say nothing of three
  hundred spears.
In the same way, I tell you, monks, is the nutriment of consciousness
  to be regarded. When the nutriment of consciousness is comprehended,
  name & form are comprehended. When mind & body are comprehended, I
  tell you, there is nothing further for a disciple of the noble ones to
  do.
SN 12.63

Thus, when the Buddha taught about the arising (samudhaya) of consciousness, he only taught how consciousness arises when internal defilements (asava) & thoughts (sankhara) that lead to suffering condition (paccaya) consciousness to arise, as follows:

With the arising of formations (sankhara) there is the arising of consciousness.
  With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of
  consciousness. The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is
  just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right
  concentration.
MN 9

Thus, it terms of actually causality (hetu), all the Buddha taught was the manifestation or knowing (paññāpanāyā) of consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind & body (nama-rupa), as follows:

Nāmarūpaṃ hetu, nāmarūpaṃ paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa
  paññāpanāyā.
Nama-and-rupa is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the
  consciousness aggregate.
SN 22.82

The above quote from SN 22.82 refutes the non-Buddhist idea below because the physical body (rupa) is said to be one of the causes (hetu) of consciousness:

The strongest reasoning I've seen other... give for literal
  rebirth is that each instance of consciousness must have a substantial
  cause. And that brain/matter cannot be that substantial cause because
  brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures.

The Buddha used the term 'nama-rupa' ('mind-body') has a compound thus did not quibble about whether mentality has an exclusive mental origin, as follows:

Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are
  called mentality. The four great elements and the material form
  derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality.
  So this mentality and this materiality are what is called
  mentality-materiality.
MN 9

What the Buddha primarily taught about consciousness is consciousness arises dependent upon physical & mental sense organs and physical & metal sense objects as its condition, as follows:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises....
Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises.
MN 18

Therefore, the Buddha never taught the idea: "that brain/matter cannot be a substantial cause of consciousness because brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures".

So #3 and because the Buddha said so?

Can you use reasoning to arrive at the answer? If so, can you explain your reasoning?

I provided an answer to your question from the reported teachings of the Buddha. This is the only answer the Buddha can provide. However, later philosophers may provide some speculations. Regards

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

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


text:
How to achieve sotapanna?
If see the citta during meditation   how it links to depend origin?is seeing the citta cause liberation as sotapanna?

The question is hard to answer as it appears the question assumes various non-sequiturs.

In net site named 'pure dhamma " based on tripitaka, there is mention of four stages sotapanna(stream enterer),once returner, non returner and fourth i don't remember now. once the sotapanna stage is reached. the stream of dhamma carry away us unless we resist by our own efforts to the destination of nibbana. In your question you have mentioned seeing the chitta . Did you mean observing the chitta?.I guess it is observing the chitta . In the dependent origination chain the point at which the mind reacts is important. Hence if chitta is observed for arising of thoughts,emotions etc etc and when not reacted with craving/aversion the vinnana (consciousness) does not get impetus to prolong its being/becoming. But there there is no end . innumerous kammavipakas (sankharas-volitions giving rise to action)  we have in our bank balance of our travel of becoming since numerous lives, kamma vipaka stored . Too much of work to do. Liberation is liberation from these stored kamma vipakas. Sotapanna is one out of four stages of liberation. These kamma vipakas are such that ,even buddha after attaining enlightenment had 11 nos of it which manifested in body/knee pain ,acute stomach ache in him. The benefits of attaining sotapanna are very well elaborated in above mentioned site. but attaining  sotapanna is far far away from liberation. you could imagine from above mentioned example of buddha. the journey is long long long . But there are lot many examples in various suttas about attainment of arahat stage in mere seven days or less of sunitha , a person carrying village garbage/feces and just happened to cross buddha on his way and receiving diksha from buddha.,and that with regards to ananda ,closest disciple,  maximum stayed with buddha attained arahat hood after the mahaparinirvan(death) of buddha. we don't know at what stage we were in our previous birth. But we are inquisitive/curious about dhamma in our present life shows that we were travellers on the path of dhamma.A humble little effort to put some light on your question.

List of things lead to Sotapana

5 Percept
No doubt about buddha teach.
Don’ forget about death/ Don’t stick too much with body

These are first 3 of Samyojana 10.
Keep do this until strong and familiar enough.
Meditation was important to help you achieve these 3 easier.

To achieve Sotapanna, all you have to do is to listen to proper dhamma. Taught by a monk who teaches the true dhamma. Where everything relates back to the four noble truths. I listen to Ajahn Brahm and Bhante Gunaratana.
Try your best to watch the five percepts, they are training rules. We all break them by accident just know that you broke it try your best not to next time.
Meditate atleast 10 mins everyday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oci4eulKaJg this really helped me.
Try to go to a buddhist temple if you can. If not just practice at home.
I read the dhammapada by Narada which i found helpful. I read this everyday
and try to associate with good and wise people who will try to help you and correct your mistakes. If you know certain people are a bad influence stay away from them.
Initially you will feel as if you aren't progressing but slowly and steadly. You 'll improve daily and one day you'll have a break through. Either in your meditation or right after you meditate and listen to Dhamma.
It was a meditation break through for me. But i have heard of people reaching this state by doing all this above and listening to dhamma right after meditating.
Anyone can do it.

Find a person who inspires confidence and observe him in regards to greed, anger and delusion due to which he might say i know & i see without knowing & seeing.
Having found a suitable person one should visit and lend ear upon visitation to learn the Dhamma step by step.
One should remember the Dhamma as one heard it and examine it in the mind.
Having examined it one will come to agreement, having come to agreement one will contemplate, having contemplated one will become willing, having become willing one will exert effort to realize for oneself that knowledge & vision of the noble one's.
Having realized the vision & knowledge one is one who has attained the first fruition of stream-entry and one who has come to agreement with the general exposition of the Dhamma is one who is working towards it's realization and will realize it no later than the moment of death.
A disciple working towards realization will attain it sooner or later and it depends on the intensity of his faculties and the amount of work he puts in to nurture the appropriate perceptions such as unattractiveness, impermanence, dispassion towards the world & mortality to develop those circuits by which thoughts travel by giving of attention as to make it an inclination of mind.
The progression from having confidence to having verified confidence due to knowledge & vision of release is entirely about developing sharp enough judgement based on insight such that mind/consciousness/intellect turns itself off on account of dispassion with perception & feeling, loosely speaking obv. A lot of concentration work is required to still distracting thoughts and seclude oneself from unwholesome perceptions in general and this is done by redirecting to development of skillful lines of thought & themes of perception to entertain.
Technically both types with confidence and with verified confidence are considered sotapanna in 4 fold classification of disciple types but are distinct in a 8 or a 7 fold classification which differentiates between those working towards realization of a certain fruition and those who have attained a certain fruition.
One who emerges from the destruction of taints due to the knowledge & vision of release for the first time is said to have the path leading to knowledge & vision of the cessation principle whereas one who is a working towards this realization is one developing the path.
Note that a person can be a sotapanna working to realize Arahantship (EG Ven. Ananada remained a Sotapanna until final attainment of Arahantship) and therefore there are different classifications, as 4, 8 or 7 types of disciples.
The 4 fold classification is - Sotapanna, Sakidagami, Anagami, Arahant
The 8 fold classification differentiates between one developing this or that path and one who has a certain path.
The 7 fold classification has 2 types without verified confidence as faith and dhamma-follower who have either faith in right view or have developed a modicum understanding and 5 more types of disciples in higher training or who have completed it, these are one attained to view, a bodily witness, one liberated by faith, one liberated by judgement & one liberated in both ways.

Saviṭṭhasuttam
So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near
Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.
Then Venerable Saviṭṭha and Venerable Mahākoṭṭhita went up to
Venerable Sāriputta, and exchanged greetings with him.
When the greetings and polite conversation were over, they sat down to
one side and Venerable Sāriputta said to Venerable Saviṭṭha, “Reverend
Saviṭṭha, these three people are found in the world. What three? The
personal witness, the one attained to view, and the one freed by
faith. These are the three people found in the world. Of these three
people, who do you believe to be the finest?”
“Reverend Sāriputta, these three people are found in the world. What
three? The personal witness, the one attained to view, and the one
freed by faith. These are the three people found in the world. Of
these three people, I believe the person freed by faith to be finest.
Why is that? Because this person’s faculty of faith is outstanding.”
Then Sāriputta said to Mahākoṭṭhita, “Reverend Koṭṭhika, these three
people are found in the world. What three? The personal witness, the
one attained to view, and the one freed by faith. These are the three
people found in the world. Of these three people, who do you believe
to be the finest?”
“Reverend Sāriputta, these three people are found in the world. What
three? The personal witness, the one attained to view, and the one
freed by faith. These are the three people found in the world. Of
these three people, I believe the personal witness to be finest. Why
is that? Because this person’s faculty of immersion is outstanding.”
Then Mahākoṭṭhita said to Sāriputta, “Reverend Sāriputta, these three
people are found in the world. What three? The personal witness, the
one attained to view, and the one freed by faith. These are the three
people found in the world. Of these three people, who do you believe
to be the finest?”
“Reverend Koṭṭhika, these three people are found in the world. What
three? The personal witness, the one attained to view, and the one
freed by faith. These are the three people found in the world. Of
these three people, I believe the person attained to view to be
finest. Why is that? Because this person’s faculty of wisdom is
outstanding.”
Then Sāriputta said to Saviṭṭha and Mahākoṭṭhita, “Each of us has
spoken from the heart. Come, reverends, let’s go to the Buddha, and
tell him about this. As he answers, so we’ll remember it.”
“Yes, reverend,” they replied. Then Sāriputta, Saviṭṭha, and
Mahākoṭṭhita went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side.
Then Sāriputta told the Buddha of all they had discussed.
“In this matter, Sāriputta, it’s not easy to definitively declare that
one of these three people is finest. In some cases, a person who is
freed by faith is practicing for perfection, while the personal
witness and the one attained to view are once-returners or
non-returners.
In this matter, it’s not easy to definitively declare that one of
these three people is finest. In some cases, a personal witness is
practicing for perfection, while the one freed by faith and the one
attained to view are once-returners or non-returners.
In this matter, it’s not easy to definitively declare that one of
these three people is finest. In some cases, one attained to view is
practicing for perfection, while the one freed by faith and the
personal witness are once-returners or non-returners.
In this matter, it’s not easy to definitively declare that one of
these three people is finest.”

For sotapanna, the mind must know the absence of craving & attachment is peacefulness and liberation. Here, the mind will have no doubt about the Teachings, will not cling to unnecessary rules and will know 'self' is not anything real. For sotapanna (noble disciple), the luminous citta must be experienced. The Pali suttas say:

Luminous, monks, is the mind (citta). And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind.
Pabhassara Sutta

So the thoughts coming up and inbetween there are spaces .Is that the luminous citta?

It is best to know the luminous citta when there are no thoughts.

@Dhammadhatu is that vinnyana which have experience.

during meditation practice saw concept of self has disappeared experience there is no control as a self. There after no viscera thoughts arise . What is tha

DD, you mentioned that the luminous citta must be experienced. So I assume that one has to be in the third tetrad of anapanasati in order to achieve sotapana?


text:
Is Vessantara Jātaka in conflict with morality?
Is there any convincing interpretation of Vessantara Jātaka that isn't in conflict with morality? Vessantara gave away his children to serve as slaves for no particular reason; it is not clear how not giving them away would hinder his own awakening.
I can see how one might argue from the Buddhist perspective that attachment to one's children and anger towards their oppressors is a bad thing. One can, however, protect one's children from oppressors in a completely detached way, without generating any attachment or hatred. Moreover, it's not that he just didn't resist; instead he actively looked for his children when they had run away, in order to give them away to Jūjaka.
All in all, Vessantara's behaviour caused a lot of suffering to his children for no reason whatsoever, and he not only didn't get condemned, but was even presented as the one who did the right thing. Is there any way to reconcile this story with morality?

At that time of the society husband is the sole owner of wife and children and he can give them away to anyone at will. To become a Buddha one needs to cultivate Dana Parami to the highest level. That includes the ability to give away anything you own. King Vessantara did not give away the children to be tortured. It was Jūjaka who decided to hit the children. So the Karmic consequences fall on Jūjaka. Not king Vessantara .
It was extremely tormenting for king Vessantara as you can see in the following passage:

What follow are the verses of the Great Being's lamentation.
"O when at morning or at eve for food my children cry, Opprest by
  hunger or by thirst, who will their want supply? [552] How will their
  little trembling feet along the roadway go, Unshod? who'll take them
  by the hand and lead them gently so?
How could the brahmin feel no shame, while I was standing by, To
  strike my harmless innocents? a shameless man say I!
No man with any sense of shame would treat another so, Were it a
  servant of my slave, and I brought very low.
I cannot see him, but he scolds and beats my children dear, While like
  a fish caught in a trap I'm standing helpless here."
These thoughts came into the Great Being's mind, through his affection
  for the children; he could not away with the pain to think how the
  brahmin cruelly beat his children, and he resolved to go in chase of
  the man, and kill him, and to bring the children back. But no, he
  thought: that was a mistake; to give a gift, then to repent because
  the children's trouble would be very great, that was not the way of
  the righteous. And the two following stanzas contain the reflexions
  which throw light on that matter.
"He bound his sword upon his left, he armed him with his bow; I'll
  bring my children back again; to lose them is great woe. But even if
  my children die ’tis wicked to feel pain 1: Who knows the customs of
  the good, yet asks a gift again?........"

Also read the passage where the son defends his father's actions

But the boy hearing this, could not stomach his father's blame; but as
  though raising with his arm Mount Sineru smitten by the windblast 1,
  he recited this stanza:
"How, grandsire, can he give, when none in his possession are, Slaves
  male or female, elephants, a horse, a mule, a car?" The king said:
[576] "Children, I praise your father's gift: no word of blame I say.
  But then how was it with his heart when he gave you away?" The lad
  replied:
"All full of trouble was his heart, and it burned hot as well, His
  eyes were red like Rohinī, and down the teardrops fell."

So you can see that he gave them away not because he didn't care, but it was a bond that he had to overcome. What's ironic is that they say that the Mara could trouble the Buddha so much under the Bodhi tree because king Vessanatara lamented a lot for this great gift he gave. In comparison, when Maithree Bodhisatta becomes the Buddha, Mara can only watch from afar. He cannot come close enough to trouble the Buddha.

By analogy, in modern society we have ownership rights, and I can give my property to anyone at will. If I happen to be an owner of a nuclear weapon, and a terrorist asks me to give it away to him, should I do it? By your logic, this would be a great way to cultivate dāna pāramī and a step towards buddhahood.

The key factor is the attachment towards what you own. A Bodhisatta on the level of king Vessantara would have zero interest in owning a nuclear weapon, much less being attached to it. So it cannot be compared to the bond between the father and children and wife and husband.

Besides Jūjaka was asking the children to help out his wife. Not to commit genocide.

Pretty much anyone who owns a nuclear weapon has a pretty strong attachment towards it and would feel strong aversion against giving it away to a terrorist. The problem I see with your explanation is that it's ad-hoc: if we act according to the logic of the explanation, we will end up doing clearly immoral things.

Anyone who owns a nuclear weapon would not be a Bodhisatta like king Vessantara. There's a big difference between giving your children to help out an old woman and helping to commit genocide.

Why would a Bodhisatta even own a WMD in the first place? :)

If a bodhisatta could have become a king in ancient India, in the modern world it could become a president, too. And some presidents have direct control over WMD.

A Bodhisatva at the level of king Vessantara would have immediately neutralized such a weapon if he did inherit it. He wouldn't see a weapon of mass a destruction as a useful gift to give away.

Oh well, let's say we have president Vessantara with a lot of plutonium in his nuclear power plants, and Kim Jong-Un is kindly asking him if he could use some of his plutonium, swearing that he is only going to use it for energy production.

He would still see the potential to create WMDs and wouldn't give it away unless he's sure that it isn't going to be used to commit genocide. The point is he wouldn't give away plutonium not because of his attachment to it. By the way, Kim Jong-Un is developing weapons only because US cannot stop meddling with their country and doing war drills in their seas.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Can we define craving without mentioning self?
Namo Buddhaya.
According to the Mahayana Pratityasamutpadavibhanganirdesa Sutra, there are three cravings: craving for the sense-realm, craving for the form-realm, and craving for the formless-realm. But I couldn't find any definition of craving itself in the scriptures.
I am trying to understand what is craving by reading or finding the examples of craving.If you give examples of craving then you will find that craving can not be defined without mentioning self or I. For example I want ice cream , I am good , I am bad, I am good because of this, I am bad because of this, I love music, I want to watch movies, I want to travel etc...
Therefore it seems to me that non-understanding of anatta is at the root of craving. In other words if I declare the aggregates as worthless then then there will be revulsion and dispassion which is nothing but the end of craving. Further I can say that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving.
I have two questions in this regard:

Can we define craving without mentioning self?
Is it true that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving?

Your questions are often mixed up based on what you are studying. The causes difficulty in answering your questions. In Pali, there are three becomings: sensual-becoming, form-becoming and formless-becoming. As for the three cravings, in Pali, they are generally craving for sensual, craving to be & craving not to be. You should provide a link to what you are referencing to make answering your question easier. Its seems like you are posting Mahayana sutras yet want a Theravada answer.

@Dhammadhatu ok. I will surely posts more links in question. I am not looking at Buddhism as Thervada or Mahayana as of now.

When the thought arises: "I want ice cream", the "want" is fueled by craving (tanha) but the arising of the idea of "I" is attachment (upadana) and becoming (bhava) rather than craving (tanha). The Mahayana sutra you are studying says:

There are four attachments: attachment to sense pleasures, attachment to views, attachment to virtue and practice, attachment to
  self-theories.

The Pali suttas distinguish between craving and becoming, as follows:

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

For self-identification or suffering to arise, craving alone is not enough. As described in MN 44, above, for self-identification or suffering to arise, the craving must lead to new becoming (bhava). The idea of 'I' or 'I exist' is becoming.
Here, suttas such as SN 12.12 and MN 148 clearly explain the idea of "I" arises after the arising of craving and that there can be craving without the idea of "I". Therefore, craving can be defined without mentioning self, as follows:

Venerable sir, who craves?
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One craves.’ Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me,
  ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does craving come to be?’ this
  would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling
  as condition, craving comes to be; with craving as condition,
  clinging; with clinging as condition, becoming…. Such is the origin
  of this whole mass of suffering.’
SN 12.12

It follows the non-understanding of anatta is not at the root of craving; even though the realisation of anatta, together with the realisation of impermanence (anicca) & unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), will end craving.
If the mind realises the aggregates as 'worthless' (as described in SN 22.95) there will certainly be revulsion and dispassion which is nothing but the end of craving. However the realisation of the aggregates as "worthless" is not 'anatta'. It is 'unsatisfactoriness' ('dukkha'). In other words, ideas of "I" could still possibly arise even though the aggregates are declared as worthless (asāra).

An example is there in the paticca-samuppada itself.

Vedana Paccaya Tanha

Feeling gives rise to craving.
So in reality there's no "I like icecream".
It should be

liking arises due to taste
liking arises due to sight
liking arises due to sound etc.

There's no practicing Anatta. You practice mindfulness and the Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta natures are revealed. Practicing the noble eightfold path leads to the cutting off of craving and cessation of suffering. Mindfulness is a part of the noble eightfold path.

You have explained what gives rise to craving but you have not defined what is craving? Give me examples of craving.

craving is the liking itself. Liking for sights, sounds, smells, tastes etc. are examples

Ok. You are saying liking arises.No self is involved.It is a fact that liking can not be separated from what is liked.I like a girl. You say I do not exist. Based on that it is obvious that the girl also doesn't exist. Now you are saying that only liking arises and no self arises. That is impossible because you are separating girl from the liking of the girl. That can not happen. You are making arising causeless.

Girl is not real. What you call a 'girl' is just sights, sounds, tactile sensations etc. Liking is different from what is liked. Ex: sound(physical) is different from the liking(mental) that arises due to sound.

I referred to SN 12.12 in my answer, which explains what Sankha Kulathantille sought to explain. Craving arises before the idea of "I". Also, the idea of "a girl" is "birth" ("jati"), i.e., the production (abhinibbatti) of ideas  of "beings"  (sattānaṃ) from the superficial appearance of the aggregates (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo). Dependent origination is something very subtle. There are twelve conditions. The idea of: "I like & want a girl" spans the five conditions of feeling, craving, attachment, becoming & birth. It is not merely the one condition of craving.


text:
Was the Buddha a vegetarian?
Was Sakyamuni Buddha a vegetarian? I've heard that he ate some pork and got poisoned by it when he died? Yet the precepts say that he was vegetarian.
Which one is correct?

This question depends on which Buddhism. Chinese Mahayana is vegetarian and say the Buddha was as well and died eating Pigs delight , or rotten mushrooms.

The Buddha was not a vegetarian.
The precepts call for no killing, but it does not say that meat cannot be eaten.
A clarification on this can be found in MN55:

Thus have I heard: At one time the Lord was staying at Rājagaha in
  Jīvaka Komārabhacca's Mango Grove. Then Jīvaka Komārabhacca approached
  the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a
  respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance,
  Jīvaka Komārabhacca spoke thus to the Lord:
“This is what I have heard, revered sir: that they kill living
  creatures on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and that the recluse
  Gotama knowingly makes use of meat killed on purpose and specially
  provided for him. Those who speak thus, revered sir: ‘They kill living
  creatures on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama
  knowingly makes use of meat killed on purpose and specially provided
  for him’, now, are these quoting the Lord's own words, revered sir,
  not misrepresenting the Lord with what is not fact, are they
  explaining in conformity with Dhamma, and does no reasoned thesis give
  occasion for contempt?”
“Jīvaka, those who speak thus: ‘They kill living creatures on purpose
  for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama knowingly makes use of
  meat killed on purpose and specially provided for him’, these are not
  quoting my own words, but are misrepresenting me with what is not
  true, with what is not fact. I, Jīvaka, say that in three cases meat
  may not be used: if it is seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed
  on purpose for a monk). In these three cases I, Jīvaka, say that meat
  may not be used. But I, Jīvaka, say that in three cases meat may be
  used: if it is not seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed on
  purpose for a monk). In these three cases I, Jīvaka, say that meat may
  be used.

Regarding the Buddha being poisoned by pork, please see this answer.

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