text:
A better translation of four elements
In English translation, the four elements are translated as

Earth
Fire
Air
Water

Instead, if they are translated as below

solidity - the state of being solid with hardness and softness.
Heat - the state of getting heat with hot and cold both identified as heat.
Force - the state of pushing and pulling, or state of supporting and pushing
Liquidity - the state of coagulating and flow or dripping

I am not a language expert but after studying four elements in Buddha's teachings and tipitaka the latter definitions seems more appropriate than Earth, Fire, Air and Water which have ambiguous meanings or are of less comprehensible.
Is it possible that we can have better English translation for Four elements since Earth, Fire, Air and Water seems limited in sense? What could be the better translation to understand the nature, characteristics and two opposite edges of four elements?

I don't think that's necessary.  At once, they're both metaphorical descriptions and literal representations.  E.g. earth implies solidity, but at the same time it can have the literal characteristics of the element as with the earth kasina being composed of clay.

If we're talking about translation, then those are very much the actual exact translations of the words that the Buddha used. If we're revising the wording beyond dictionary meanings, then we're not really talking about translation any more, but entering into realms of commentary and interpretive rendition.
The terms themselves are pruṭhavī-dhātu ("earth"), āpa-dhātu ("water"), teja-dhātu ("fire") and vāyu-dhātu ("wind"). Of these, only fire or "tejas" (Skr.) has a broader semantic field reaching into "energy", "efficacy", "heating faculty" etc. The rest of the terms used are rather literally the natural phenomena. Even while (an abundance of) specific words for solid, liquid etc. would exist.
The quad are abstract phenomena, represented with the four elements as their symbols/pointers, that each carry a large domain of connotations, typically also found in the characteristics of the physical elements. The elements' basic properties are outlined in any number of classical writings for the benefit of those keen on grasping their relevance and dynamics. (Further, their properties will in practice, if explored, emerge on spectrums broader than these basic vectors of examination, which have been traditionally deemed useful as meditation tools.)
In my personal view, it's not that hard to grasp that "water" implies more than literal h2o, etc. and simply get used to the olde "table of symbols". There will always be more to these phenomena than we can hope to convey in a single word. Entering into them through natural phenomena is rather useful, as they provide a commonly and immediately accessible concrete field of reference.
Given the choice of classic and concrete words/objects for pointers, even in the presence of more abstract alternative wordings, it's worth considering that such terms may have been chosen for reasons of sound strategy... factoring in both the nature's immediacy, and the Indic continuum of reference; of which only the latter's relevance is subject to contextual change.
As for your choice of alternative words: While "solid" and "liquid" are in tune enough with "earth" and "water", "heat" reduces the implications found in "fire", and "force" is rather broad for "air". Perhaps you were looking for something like momentum or impulse? There would also be a reduction there, given the implicit model of vital airs ("prana") generating the motions in our body; and, there's an "aerial" quality and distinct agency to it, beyond simple "push/pull/move" dynamics.

Updated with a link to an earlier Q/A on the elements; specifically see how MN 140 characterizes "fire" and "wind": https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140 (And note the general trend of focusing on the elements within the body.)

This is hard to translate as they possibly map into following modern concepts:

Earth - solid, gravity, attractive magnetic force, attractive electrical charges
Fire - temperature, energy, kinetic energy, potential energy
Air - gas, motion, waves, repulsive magnetic force, repulsive electrical charges
Water - liquidity, resistance, friction, viscosity

I believe these might have to be treated symbolistically, perhaps inline how science was taught in the time of Buddha.
Ref: Mahābhūta, Patthana Dhamma by Htoo Naing - Ch 3: Rupa, The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma - Ch 6 by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Rupa (Form) by Piya Tan, Abhidhamma in daily life - Ch 18 Elements by Nina Van Gorkom
Wikipedia give the following "better translation":

Earth - attractive forces,
Water - repulsive forces,
Heat - energy and
Air - relative motion

Medis gives:

The Earth element (pa.thavi dhaatu) = solidity
The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion
The Fire element (tejo dhaatu) = heat
The Wind element (vaayo dhaatu) = motion

Htoo Naing:

pathavi or solidity,
tejo or temperature,
apo or liquidity, and
vayo or movement or resistance

Bhikkhu Bodhi:

earth - support or foundation
water - fluidity
fire - heat
air - mortion

Superficially reading Piya Tan's translation difficult to narrow it down to one word hence giving a more detail quotation:

The earth element is essentially hardness, softness, roughness, smoothness, heaviness, lightness, and is so called because, like the earth, it serves as a support or foundation for physical phenomena.
The water element is essentially cohesion, stickiness (viscidity), thickness (viscosity) and
liquidity. Whatever karmically acquired liquidity or fluidity there is in our own body—bile, phlegm,
pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid, urine and so on—this is
called one’s own water element.
The fire element is essentially decay, heat, cold, oxidation, combustion, and digestion (metabolism). Whatever karmically acquired heat or warmth there is in our own body—such as that whereby one is heated, consumed, scorched, whereby that which has been eaten, drunk, chewed or tasted, is fully digested and so on—this is called one’s own heating element.
The wind element is essentially motion, vibration, distension, and pressure. There are 6
kinds of karmically acquired “wind” in one’s own body, that is,
upward-going wind (vomitting, hiccup, burping, etc);
downward-going wind (peristalsis when voiding and peeing);
the wind in the belly;
the wind outside the belly;
the wind in all the limbs; and
the in-breath and out-breath—
this (including peristalsis and muscular movements) is called one’s own wind element.

Nina Van Gorkom:

earth-element (solidity), appearing as hardness or softness
fire-element (temperature), appearing as heat or cold
wind-element, appearing as motion or pressure

S.N.Goenka in The Routine Duties of a Meditator: Sampajanna:

The most important one here is the cart-driver. He is compared with the mind; the oxen are compared with the element of motion (vayo dhatu). The other three elements (tayo mahabhutas) are caused by the mind.
Of these four elements, when walking, the element of kinetic energy (tejo), and the element of motion (vayo) are the leading factors and the element of solidity (pathavi) and the element of fluidity (apo) are just followers. When lying or sitting or standing, pathavi and vayo are leading factors and the remaining two are just followers.

Sutta such as MN 62 makes it clear the elements of earth, wind, fire & water refer to solidity, moisture, heat & movement/force.
I think 'elements' is a good translation for 'dhatu' because it fits with modern science.


text:
How to Focus consciously?
I have been trying to read while being conscious about myself or breathe but it seems impossible: I can think about only one thing at a time, and even if I do it "consciously" then I have to go through that thing over again.
So how do I practice the iOS Development (coding takes your entire attention), Which seems impossible to do consciously?
In other words, how do I focus while being aware of myself or breathing etc.

See also Software programming/Art and Buddhist Practice - Pursuing creative activity

Oh no, you are totally lost in your body as the "I"!

How to Focus consciously?

That is when you are doing that thing, you are totally lost yourself in the thing you're doing, the-thing-you-are-doing and you become one, that is Chan/Zen. This way, your Mind (Citta) is closer to 100% viable. Most of the time our Citta is few % here, few there, few in the past and few the future... If you could have your Citta unattached to anything you are doing but still "alive", that you are Chan/Zen master-the-great! Therefore, breathe is not you, limbs skin not, sensation cold or hot is not you... However if you recognize these, that means your Citta is not 100% together but divided, hence less the your focus. When you are 100% focus, i.e., the Citta is 100% in one thing absorbed, your breathe will cease... but don't worry, you will still be alive, not die, for human doesn't really sustain on oxygen by the breathe passing only through the nostril... medical has more to learn from the wise ancient people.
It's almost impossible for the Citta to focus on one thing 100%, so is not possible to be unattached in anything. Can you stop the mind from thinking, or observing, or aware of the self?
P.S.
However, after the training of 100% in grasp of the Citta completed, in this time you are raised to the Bodhisattva in quality, not just by the vow, to a certain level (there are roughly 10 grades in the ladder of qualification), than you can focus in many things at the same time yet each focus get 100%; thus you are multi-tasks capable and could have many vijnana-created-bodies (意生身). By that time, you could have many Ritesh(s), one is doing the coding, one training the breathe, one observing the body... one making a refreshing lassi for the coding one... etc. ;))

Thanks for the answer, could you elaborate the last line you said, Actually i was looking for exactly what you said in last line, How do i practice to attain this kind state

How to Focus consciously?

The Right Mindfulness is being equanimous towards the pleasant and unpleasant, which prevents craving and aversion from arising, while free from corruption of insight (free from Vipallasa, i.e., seeing the Three marks of existence), which prevents ignorance arising, within the 4 Frames of Reference. If unwholesome roots arise, deluded (with Vipallasa), hence creating fabrications  or based on external objects or conceptual objects hence not within the 4 frames of reference it is not right mindfulness.
If you are not equanimous and there is a pleasant sensation this leads to attachment and if there is an unpleasant sensation this leads to aversion and if neutral sensation, without insight into the 3 Universal Characteristics, this leads to ignorance. Hence, unwise attention is attention corrupted by Vipallasa and the experienced sensation is leading to the unwholesome roots. See commentary of Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta & Vipallasa Sutta by Piya Tan and Kīta,giri Sutta

For, one who perceives impermanence, Meghiya, establishes the perception of non-self. One who perceives
    non-self eliminates the ‘I am’ conceit. He attains nirvana here and now.”

Meghiya Sutta
Similarly of the other opposites of Vipallasa (3 universal characteristics) can be understood through, impermanence, or seeing arising and passing.
So simply put it what needs to be done is:

stay with the sensation in the body
be equanimous - displaces craving and aversion
know what ever experience is impermanent, i.e., arising and passing - displaces ignorance

Also see this answer.
If you mind wanders away and you lose attention get in touch with the sensation than are prevalent in the body and mind and establish your attention on the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness.
Once you experience a gross (easy to penetrate) sensation try to experience its subtleness (had to penetrate) by strongly focussing on it and trying to divide and dissecting it.

(coding takes your entire attention), Which seems impossible to do consciously?

Generally when doing something like this your attention will be lost. Thinking creates sensation in the head and chest regions. If you cannot figure something you the frustration means you hear rate increases and breathing becomes heavy. Similarly when exited. Sometimes thinking too much gives a headache. If your figure something out, or your code works, you will feel happy, which gives a pleasant sensation. It is these sensation you should be looking at. This will require extra practice, but what is essential is you are mindful when you do you daily work. The training on the cushion or chair is just a booster or pre training for this.
Also additional information can be found in:

The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna
The Four Sampajanna
Why Vedana and What is Vedana?

So when i am writing code and my entire focus is in thinking the logic, should i try to observe sensation in body ?
equanimous in only difficult situation ?

I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to do that.  When you code, really code.  When you chop vegetables, really chop vegetables.  When you walk, really walk.  I know that may sound easy, but pay attention to all the times your mind gets sidetracked when you try to give your full awareness to one activity.  I can almost guarantee you that your focus on say, coding, is not nearly as good as you think.  Even within your development process, I'll bet that your mind is venturing to other parts of a program rather than the function you are currently working on.  Don't let it wander.
The important part of "work" meditation is to notice when your mind becomes unmoored; just the act of noticing is often enough to bring your attention back to the task you are working on.  To really work, you have to do it wholeheartedly.  When you try to hold two objects in your mind at the same time, all you are doing is fragmenting your attention.  Awareness is a limited resource.  You are absolutely right by saying that you cannot apply your mind to two things at the same time.  Almost by definition, attention cannot be parsed.  It has to be unified in its purpose.  If you find that your mind is becoming too scattered, remove yourself from the activity, calm your mind through a samatha practice (like breath awareness), then reapply yourself to the task at hand.
(Note: Zen answer, not Vipassana)

Thanks for the answer, I was looking for vipassana answer because concentrating our mind on anything doesn't makes our mind pure

Actually, according to the suttas, "purity of mind" is almost synonymous with the suspension of the five hindrances.  That's generally the goal of concentration meditation.  Of course, the goal of Buddhism isn't purity of mind - it's wisdom.  For that you need concentration and insight.  :-)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which place is good for vipassana meditation?
Please recommend good place for Vipassana meditation for in 2017.
Including

Availability of visa
it does not matter short 7-14 days or long (in months) Vipassana meditation course
If it is remote place better
It is not book fly and go vacation so manual work or queuing is ok
If it is a place that we need to ordain to be a monk before starting Vipassana meditation, I prefer.

These are two prominent places in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka offers 1 year residence visa easily if you have a recommendation beforehand. Normally in Sri Lanka, temperory ordination is discouraged and permanent ordination is possible at anytime.

Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya

Teacher- Ven. Udairiyagama Dhammajiva Maha Thero (U Dhammajiva
Sayadaw), Excellent knowledge in Dhamma, Pali, Burmese and English, Specialty in Mindfulness and emphasizes the value of mindfulness
Meditation Technique - Satipatthana meditation, Burmese Mahasi/Panditarama Technique (Vipassana) and Sri
Lankan Nanarama Method (Vipassana with Samatha)
Retreats - 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, 20 days and extensive periods are
allowed for serious practitioners and for the meditators who are
expecting the ordaination
Location - Mitirigala,Kirindivela, Sri Lanka
More Information - nissarana.lk (Official Website)

Sanghopasthana Suva Sevana

Teacher- Ven. Katukurunde Nyanananda Maha Thero (Bhikkhu Nanananda)
[A famous book author and a meditation master], Excellent knowledge in Dhamma, Pali and English, Advises not to be in a hurry but to practice Samatha also for aiding Vipassana, Slowly-Mindfully-Carefully. Appreciates dedication for practicing.
Meditation Technique - Both Samatha and Vipassana, Metta Meditation
and probably Sri Lankan Nanarama Method (Vipassana with Samatha)
Retreats - Any time is possible with prior notice. No allocated dates. special consideration for dedicated meditators and  dedicated practitioners who are expecting the ordaination.
Location - Kirillawala Watta, Dammulla, Karandana, Sri Lanka
More Information - http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net (Official
Website)

Additionally there are more meditation centers which are famous in different aspects. NaUyana Aranya in Melsiripura (Burmese Pa-auk system), Kanduboda M.C. (Burmese Mahasi System), Goenka centers in Kandy, Anuradhapura and Kosgama (Burmese Sayagi U Ba Kin system)

I can agree with this answer.

Following have a wide outreach:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

So there might be a place near to where you live.
Also you can try: World Buddhist Directory

Pa-Auk Forest Monastery, in Myanmar (Burma).
http://paaukforestmonastery.org/index.htm
However, you will have to develop access concentration before you can begin Vipassana (Satipatthana).
You may remain there for a period of months or years, even lifetime if you are able to renew your visa each year. You also have the chance to ordain after a few weeks or months, once deemed trustworthy.
At first you will be able to get a visa of 3 months and extend the visa for a 1 year period each time. Yearly visa is about 100$ US.
May you realize Nibbana and know true peace and freedom, friend.

Pa-auk teachers are tipitaka memorizers. It is the best advance meditation school because the teachers will taught the practitioners follow tipitaka&commentary in every step. We also can taught vipassanā first, but not recommend, The reason of samatha first is inside this link.
http://www.paauktawyathailand.org/main/index.php/en/about .
The reason from sutta:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22512/10100

If you are in the south-central United States, there is the The Southwest Vipassana Meditation Center in Kaufman, Texas. It is about an hour and fifteen minutes drive southeast from the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. https://www.siri.dhamma.org/

Blue Mountains Insight Meditation centre - Medlow Bath Australia. 1hr45min drive from Sydney Airport. Train station is walking distance to centre.
Individual rooms with share bathroom. Separate accommodation for men and women. Books out fast as they only have accommodation for about 20 people.

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:
To learn Tripitaka to academic level
Please recommend a place or university to learn Tipitaka in academic level.
Including

Availability of visa
Qualifications required
Internationally acclaimed in someways
Using English as a second language to study Tripitaka
Requirement of ordained monk or can learn as a layperson
Further studies after graduated, mastered or honored

Following may be good academic institution to learn Buddhism:

The Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka
The International Association of Theravāda Buddhist Universities
International Association of Buddhist Universities
Buddhist Universities and Colleges
Buddhist universities and colleges
List of Buddhist universities and colleges
Buddhist universities and colleges in the United States


text:
Do we have conventional knowledge of the present?
I read the discussion between Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita, and there's a reference to "no cognition" (anupalabdhi) of emptiness, as liberative, though I forget which one of the two were supporting it.
e.g. Garfield and Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara:

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
cognize, no cognition arises.

Or Eckel in To See the Buddha:

And obviously the heart sutra includes (emphasis mine):

No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.

Does anyone say that there is "no cognition" of the present, either at all times, or that only this "no cognition" has conventional validity?
Or, can we have conventional knowledge of the present?

could u explain "no-cognition"? name of the Treatise this discussion is recorded?

hey @Bhumishu米殊 seems to appear a fair amount in the indian literature. i think adding examples may hinder clarity, but will look into doing so

Your quote has it right: "The cognition... is non-conceptual" That is the word you need to grok to comprehend this statement.

hey, edited to clarify @Mishu米殊

The quote you give:

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
  of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
  cognize, no cognition arises.

Refers to wisdom directly realizing emptiness. Such a wisdom realizes emptiness in a non-dualistic manner. It is non-conceptual and explicit, since it realizes its object (emptiness) by way of emptiness appearing to it. Conceptual consciousnesses realize their object by way of a mental image appearing to them. Cognition arise (this wisdom is a cognition) but there is no acertainment of conventional truths (such as time, a table, persons, the basis of emptiness, and so forth).
By the way, Garfield is not the safest source.
Chandrakirti (same view as Buddhapalita) also talked about "non-seeing" and "non-cognition" or "non-perception." He does not mean that a buddha is free from cognition (that would contradict the typical Mahayana claim hat he is omniscient) but simply that non-existent do not appear to a buddha. A buddha is free from the appearance of true existence. It is not so much about "no cognition" as it is about "no cognition of something in particular."
It is explained in
Chandrakirti's Commentary on the "Supplement to Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle'.
Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

When said that they perceive it in the manner of non-perception, it
  does not mean that a buddha does not see anything at all. It means
  that he is not seeing any phenomenon arisen due to ignorance, that is,
  together with a false appearance of the conventional - an appearance
  of true existence. It is the omniscience realizing the final reality
  that perceives the emptiness, the absence of true existence. Since a
  buddha does not perceive what does not exist and knows all existing
  phenomena, when a truly existent conventional phenomenon were to
  exist, it should appear to a buddha, but it does not. What is not
  perceived by him is a non-existent. If it were existent it would
  appear to the Buddha. True establishment does not exist and therefore
  does not appear to the wisdom of a Buddha realizing the final reality.

so there's no sense in which the present is not conventionally established? that's a shame, oh well

No, there is no sense in which the present is not conventionally established. There are consciousnesses to which it does not appear, but that is another topic, though. Why would you need the present, or your car, or the moon, to be negated altogether?

:) cheers for the note, i really appreciate it

this is good: buddhas have omniscient knowledge of emptiness, so they do not have "no cognition (anupalabdhi) of emptiness"

Finally... let me try。。。
What is the use of discussing no-cognition as it defined as "the non-existence of a thing cannot be perceived by the senses for there is nothing with which the senses could come into contact in order to perceive the non-existence." wikipedia/Anupalabdhi
It negates the negated, i.e., the non-existence, the cannot be perceived. This is from Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (700AD) the Hindu philosopher. This rendered the whole sytax just as a don't-know. Now some scholars use it to fit into the Buddhist concept, or to explain the Buddhist concept, it is an error, IMO.

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to cognize, no cognition arises. --Garfield and Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara

The Buddha/Nagarjuna doesn't phase Emptiness in this way. If there are things? Ultimate nature? Cognition or to cognize is a conditioned faculty, same as the 5 Aggregates conditioned by the human body and mind as in an Ordinary (凡夫). The quoted phrase is produced by an academic mind conditioned by education with those technical terms in prescribed syntax.

Eckel in To See the Buddha...

Again, object, reality, knowledge, these terms in such way of a paragraph written doesn't relate anything to what the Buddha taught, although it claimed Buddha here and Buddha there in the sentences. It is an un-beneficial hard work to explain how it was not making sense, same as to explain why a 1 or 2 or any number is not a 0.

And obviously the heart sutra...

Your understanding the Heart Sutra is far from getting it. When in the Heart
Sutra it said:

No Suffering Samudaya Extinguishing Path, no knowledge also no attainment. {無苦集滅道無智亦無得}

It is not a negation to describe "Ultimate Reality", in your term. It is because "In Emptiness it has no [such and such]... "{是故空中無...}, for these are dharma(s){法}, i.e., the laws created by us. Not the laws in law books, but laws of nature, physics, E=MC", law of gravity... all are dharma(s) - 法[則] - laws, the products of the intellect/mind. Therefore the Buddha said all knowledge of this world are "games theories" {戲論}, i.e., we set the rules, then we play against these rules. The Heart Sutra, of import is the beginning, "Observe the Self-present Bodhisattva, when professing in deep Prajnaparamita..." {觀自在菩薩行深般若波羅蜜多時...}, this is the condition a Dhyana practitioner is able to enter, then it goes on to give more instructions and describe the experiences etc... This is a long explanation and belongs to another topic I believe. Of note is almost all translated the beginning as Avalokiteshvara, it maybe so or it could be not as so. There is another definite name for this Bodhisattva in Chinese yet here this could refer to Him, or refer to anyone as long as this person who is able to reach the Self-present{自在}, one who is free, totally at ease, free from any bondage or restrain, mindful and, present. (see, this is the perfect condition one should enter during meditation.)
To conclude, I thought your formulating this question is not so beneficial in understanding the Buddhist Dharma, Emptiness, or the philosophy you intended. For it is like saying, does the cow have horse face? {牛頭不對馬嘴}. With no offence, if it does irritate you, apologize for my commend of language, since English is not my mother tongue.

i'm a bit confused why my "understanding the Heart Sutra is far from getting it" when i didn't present any understanding of the heart sutra, and you talk about Garfield etc. being wrong without saying how or why seems more polemical than anything. but i appreciate your "trying" :)

i do agree thought that it's not obviously a means of understanding the buddhist dharma, though

@user3293056 As I read your question, you are using the Heart Sutra to third time emphasize your "reality", or "emptiness" that is a "Anupalabdhi" - no cognition. The HS is about Emptiness, yet Emptiness is not a question of no cognition or not. I explaint "Anupalabdhi" is not originated from Buddhist teaching, and  Bhavaviveka  or Buddhapalita or else not sure if their ideas are accurate or not. I won't bother to spend time in studying them, I will spend time to study the Sutras originally spoken by the Buddha.

hey :) i didn't mean that emptiness is "no cognition". my question was just what i asked at the end, is there no congition of the present. i'd be disappointed if not, but not because i would have misunderstood the dharma so much as something else

@user3293056 "is there no congition of the present" unfortunately I couldn't understand your question. Maybe my mind refuse to decipher "no congition", since this is a lousy concept - IMO. "present" is the time, now?

:) i'm a little disappointed that i am so bad at explaining myself. i'm more interested in using buddhism to find out what i can work out about 'death'. i really apologise if that's at all bad, if i come across as ignorant etc. because of that. thanks for the answer

@user3293056 no, no offence :) i do try to help if i understand, and i'm studying, not enlightened yet ;0

i'm sure you're doing great ;)

@user3293056 for "about death", i've just written something for this question[link] http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19217/buddhism-vs-advaita-vedanta it may of some use to you, hmmmm....

thanks i like the surangama sutra a lot, just trying to (over) analyse its conclusion, which you state i think eloquently ("deceased yet living after the body")

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


text:
Is there an API for Buddhist texts?
Does anyone know of an API for Buddhist texts along the same lines as this one for the Bible. I do some spare time software projects and I would like to hook up to Buddhist text API just as part of playing around with some new technologies. Currently I'm using the Google Books API for it.
What I'm imaging is that one could make a web request to a URL such as http://buddhisttextapi/dhammapada/verse/12 and you would get back the 12th verse of the dhammapada in whatever translation. So for the technically minded I'm interested in some kind of REST API - preferably under active development or at least with some decent documentation.
Many Thanks

SuttaCentral, for example, uses URLs which look like https://suttacentral.net/en/sn5.3 ... would that count as an answer or are you looking for something other than that?

@ChrisW Thanks but not really. That returns HTML which is human readable. You want machine readable so XML or JSON.

To machine-read any web site, I use Html Agility Pack, which converts an HTML document to XML. Looking at the format of that linked Sutta Central page, for example, I would extract the contents of the article element (or section.sutta or div#text elements).

@ChrisW I didn't know HAP can convert HTML to XML. +1

@ChrisW true but I just want the JSON or XML directly. I don't want to use the Agility Pack or any HTML parsing (like what is offered in google books). I'm using node.js and express for the server. The agility pack is purely C# isn't it. But thanks for the thought. The answer below gives a good to be fair so I'm happy with that

@Crab Bucket, how did suttacentral api work out for you?

SC has a API. E.g. : https://suttacentral.net/data?suttas=dn1,dn2
Also see: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/suttacentral-api-apps/1927/8
Also the data is in Github. E.g. https://github.com/suttacentral/suttacentral-data/blob/master/text/en/pi/su/an/an1/an1.21-40.html
Similarly you can download the whole Access to Insight website as files: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tech/download/bulk.html


text:
Previous gurus or teachers of the Buddha
When Gautama left his palace to become an ascetic, it is said that he found some Gurus he learnt from, and left further dissatisfied. Is there any mention of that period of the Buddha's life in the texts? Or did Buddha speak about these experiences?
I got this link : http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/13lbud.htm

This is found in the Ariya Pariyesanā Sutta, (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, etc.

Main two teachers were Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta, Alara Kalama taught to focus on 'nothingness' and Uddaka Ramaputta taught to enter the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception', also see This


text:
Buddhism accepts horoscope?
This can be a stupid question to ask as Buddhism is much superior than astrology. But my problem is in today's society the Buddhists are too much concerned with these horoscopes than any other religion just like it is a part of Buddhist teachings. Why is that? Is there a truth behind it or any connectivity with Buddhism ?

Is this topic a duplicate of What is the relation between Astrology and Buddhism?

It is a good question that you asked & not at all stupid @ Iresha Rubasinghe, but I was too busy last week to get to answer it. Today India has lost the Order of the Gautama Buddha. In the present-day Sri Lanka a great many who identify themselves as ‘Buddhist’ are really Hindus. It is because they have made the Triple Gem impure by worshiping Hindu “Demigods”, by believing in horoscopes, following auspicious times according to asterism, auspicious signs, horoscopes, malefic effects believed to come from planetary objects, and the twelve houses of astrology.
None of these abide with Buddha’s teachings. They even have a higher regard to being vegetarian than observing the Five Precepts to the letter. Then there are those who erroneously think “... even though we have a strong desire to put an end to rebirth, it depends on our parami ...” This is another distortion of the Saddhamma. I hope that you are one of the very few people who would stay in the finger tip, without getting caught to any of these trappings.
People cling onto all these types of beliefs or are only get ready to realize the Dhamma when they attain Buddhahood are following ignorant ways without respecting the Buddha or His teachings. If they consider what the Buddha had taught us properly by learning the Dhamma, these types of ignorant and short-sighted views will never be spread throughout the society.
In the Buddha's time there is an example on how a wise person recognized the teachings of the Buddha properly. There was a Brahmin called ‘Vangeesa’. He once went to the Gautama Buddha and told Him that he has the ability to tell about someone’s afterlife,  and that he needs a person’s skull to do that. The Buddha asked one of the Bhikkhus to bring a skull of a dead person. The Brahmin took the skull, chanted a charm (a Mantra) and tapped it few times. He then revealed where that dead person was reincarnated. The Buddha also confirmed that it was so.
The Brahmin then told the Buddha that he could reveal the rebirth of anyone just by tapping the skull of a dead person. The Buddha asked the Bhikkhu to bring one other skull and gave it to the Brahmin. Vangeesa Brahmin did his chanting again and tapped on that skull, but this time it was different. He could not find where that dead person was reborn. He tapped again, again, and again. But still, he could not get out of any information about the person that the skull was belonged to. He was anxious and told the Buddha, “Oh, Lord Buddha! This is so strange. My predictions were never gone wrong before, and I never came across any skull that I could not recognize the rebirth of the dead person. But, my talent became useless in front of you. I can’t guess the birth place of this person even if I tap on to this skull so many times.”
The Most Compassionate One, the Buddha, told him “dear Brahmin, this skull belongs to an Arahant.” The Brahmin was thrilled about the fact that the Gautama Buddha was teaching a way to overcome rebirth. He expressed his loyalty to the Buddha and his need to follow the Dhamma that the Buddha was teaching. Then, the Buddha told him to let go of what he was taking for granted and to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Accepting Buddha’s advice, Vangeesa Brahmin became a Bhikkhu. He became an Arahant after following the noble path.
People who take refuge of the Buddha with proper understanding know that there is nothing more important than the Dhamma of the Buddha. So please remember that a person who takes refuge of horoscopes cannot become Shraddhānusārī (one who has unflinching faith in the triple gem.). People who take refuge of asterism or auspicious signs, or the ones who live spending their time praying to other gods cannot be easily convinced otherwise of their wrongful attachments and devotions to the astrology, auspicious times, and the likes which consume their energy. Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in his essay “A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence” ahd this to say:

” … Spiritual eclecticism — omnipresent in the West today — is governed by the opposite logic. It aims to amalgamate, to draw into a whole a sundry variety of quasi-religious disciplines: yoga, spiritualism, channeling, astrology, faith healing, meditation, I Ching, special diets, Cabbala, etc. These are all offered to the seeker on a pick-and-choose basis; everything is valid, anything goes. This eclecticism often reveals a longing for genuine spiritual experience, for a vision of reality more encompassing than pragmatic materialism. It fails because it tears profound disciplines out from their context in a living faith and blends them together into a shapeless mixture without spine or substance. Its psychological mood is that of a romantic, promiscuous yearning for easy gratification rather than that of serious commitment. Owing to its lack of discrimination it often shades off into the narcissistic and the occult, occasionally into the diabolical.”

"stay in the finger tip"? Is that an idiom?

@ChrisW ... In  SN 13.1 Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his finger nail, said to the monks… “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize the Nibbāna is like this small amount of soil on my finger tip.”  when compared with the great earth.

@Saptha Visudhdhi Thank you so much sir for great explanation as always with so many facts and references.

@Iresha Rubasinghe, another bit of advice... Be genuinely faithful towards the Triple Gem. Be wise, brave, and dignified. Do not bow in front of other false views. Those who grasp every belief as true, slip away from the truth. Sadly we live in an unfortunate time where the Asura Forces are far greater and stronger. So to overcome these we need the assistance of Davas who are well established in this path. To tell you, do not to rely on astrology or horoscopes, but seek the protection of Dhamma, even when it comes to finding your life’s partner. Seek assistance of these other Devas for this.

Yes sir, it's really hard to argue with people as the majority support towards these other beliefs and they are quite blind in seeing the reality. And the saddest situation is now this astrology is quite binded with Buddhism by people as majority believe in them.

Never argue with another on such matters. It is a grave mistake. It is because the protective fence that was there in the first 1000 years of Buddha’s time is not there anymore. Today the world is influenced to a greater degree by Asura Forces. One example is that though I knew my wife-to-be in UofM, she said only if her father is satisfied with my horoscope will she marry me. So I had to comply. Keep the practice of Dhamma very close to your heart. Do not share details of your practice with lesser people – even if they are your loved ones.

Horescopes did exist at the time when the Buddha was born but they aren't mentioned often in the Buddha's teachings. One mention of horosopes is in the
Samaññaphala Sutta, this sutta lists many types of fortune telling as wrong-livelihood for monks.

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills, bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

Horoscopes existed in many cultures, the reason why it remained more prevalent in Buddhist countries is more down to speculation. It depends both on Buddhism and on other religions' attitude towards horoscopes. Some reasons might be:

The idea of seeing peoples' future is very present in Buddhism which gives credibility to the idea of seeing others' fortunes based on astrology.
In other religions it may be offensive to predict peoples' fates because it is believed that only God has the ability to do so.
The Buddha didn't say that predicting the future is wrong livelihood for lay people (probably because only holy men did such things in the Buddha's time)

There is truth to all these quasi-sciences because they are based on principles in astronomy, science, and medicine. Many benefit from it in small ways which can be cumulative.
Although it is divergent from the focused, intensive practice towards Buddhahood, it is quite complementary to handling one's issues--should one be a fast learner and not spend too much time with them.
The end result is one can make better decisions for one's life which will in turn allow one the better environment and life to Practice, free from qualm and issues. Everything will just fall in place and one can also challenge oneself and be prepared when an encounter with a particular person might be predicted to be dysfunctional.
Just like how in Buddhism there are different meditation methods (variations really) for different temperaments, the various temperaments in astrology have distinct differences that can inform oneself on the best for people of a certain nature.
That being said astrology is very complicated and other personality typing, Myers-Briggs, palmistry, and other idiosyncrasies, can often play heavily into it and balance things with a person one would think as one's enemy... so maybe it is all pointless!
Ultimately, astrology has nothing to do with Buddhism and spending that time that would be spent on regular Buddhist cultivation would be a mistake and depending too much on it is a mistake because karma is one of the things that Buddha said is too deep and pointless to muse upon--to instead just try one's best and cultivate.


text:
Can Buddhism help me find my passion?
I have been trying to find my passion for last many years, to be honest I do not even know how should I try to find my passion.
Though I have been practicing meditation for last couple of years (not punctually though), but I think meditation doesn't help me find my passion.
If any one have read "POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY - HAPPIER BY TAL BEN-SHAHAR"
In short the book talks about 4 type of Burger:
1 RATRACE: means those who eats a vegetarian normal burger and suffer for anticipated gain in future, which never happens.
2 NIHILISM: This burger is both bad in taste and not even good for health, means worst living style.
3 HEDONISM: This burger is only tasty but not good enough for health means i like watching videos on YouTube but it doesn't have any future.
4 HAPPINESS: This burger is both tasty and good for health means one loves doing something and also have a bright impact on future.
So everyone want to eat the 4th burger, Can anyone help me find.

down vote ? anger hatred rises, watching it feels better :)

The "passion" you talk about sounds like a craving for something which you haven't defined. Your question seems to be asking, "I crave something (I crave something to feel passionate about), but I don't know how to find the object of my craving. Can Buddhism tell me how to find what I crave?"
I think that basic Buddhism teaches one to recognize that "craving" as the source of dissatisfaction.
If your craving were for the sense-pleasure or the feeling-pleasure of an addictive drug (cocaine for example), I think that Buddhism would recommend that you seek less of it rather than seeking more.
The "happiness" you mention at the end sounds to me like it might be Sukha. I think there are several sources of sukha (i.e. several conditions, several types of activity which condition sukha), for example such as listed in the Pali literature section of that Wikipedia article.
Someone once lent me a book, titled The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness, which I recommend. It organizes, summarizes, and references suttas which contain practical advice for laypeople. There are a lot of them! It has various chapters: about earning, saving, and spending money; having good relationships with people; making good decisions; and so on.

I have ordered the book as soon as you posted the answer, today i will receive the book, If i have any query in the book, i will ask a question and hope you will help, Thanks @ChrisW

Usual disclaimer - this is a Zen answer, not a Vipassana answer.
The short answer is yes, but I think the reasons for me saying so may disappoint you.  It's basic Buddhism to say that our dissatisfaction in life comes from craving.  I agree with ChrisW in that I think the passion you are seeking is just another manifestation of that craving.  That is not a slight against you.  The Buddha was not stating the obvious when he first declared the noble truths.  After almost 2,500 years, it's pretty obvious that people still haven't caught on.
What Buddhism offers - especially in the way of meditation practice - is another way of engaging the world.  We often see our lives as an unfolding narrative.  We imagine the characters who come into it and the events that transpire to be a meaningful, cohesive story.  We add further artifice when we throw our expectations into the mix and think things like "I must find a passion in my life!", "such and such must happen by the time I'm 40!", "I want to be such and such kind of person!", etc. According to Buddhism (specifically Zen), these expectations are a source of immense unhappiness; our belief that life has a sense of narrative cohesiveness is also a complete illusion.  Rather than searching for something or expecting our life to play out in a predetermined way, our practice asks that we simply sit and watch it unfold without forcing it.  I think it's profoundly presumptuous to believe that we can forge a better life for ourselves than that which grows naturally simply from our wholehearted being in the world.  We miss so much happiness when we try to force the world to conform to our expectations.  We set ourselves up for misery when we try to become the people we think we ought to be.  The way of Buddhism is to be what Christian author C.S. Lewis calls "surprised by joy".  Don't look for it; it will find you.
Meditation practice develops that hands-off approach to living in microcosm.  It equips us with the tools to just be with the universe.  Rather than relying on desire and expectation to reveal a passion to you, sit down on the cushion and let it come all on its own.  If it never appears, who cares?  At the end of a life of sincere practice, the wisdom you find and the joy you discover unexpectedly will more than make up for it.

+1 Up-vote for this answer, But if one do not crave for more money or crave for Nirvana, How can one get there.
More over I honestly do not want to sit on this chair and code for rest of my life.
Kindly explain.

LMAO!  Sit - as on a cushion!  :-P  And let's use a metaphor from baseball.  Obviously, you can't just stand at the plate.  You're there to get on base.  If you swing at everything he throws and try to force the issue, you aren't very likely to get a hit.  Most likely you ground or strike out.  The best hitters in baseball swing at the best pitches.  If their pitch doesn't show up, they don't swing.  When it does, the put everything into it.  You've just got to wait for your pitch.  And even if everything life throws is lousy, if you practice, you'll still walk to first after four pitches.

I still having trouble getting the essence out of it, But I have purchased "The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness" which is recommended by Chris in accepted answer, I have start reading it and find out that what Sutta's were actually suggested by Buddha to layman were mixed and this book will help me find what Buddha has to offer for layman's life

Sounds good! :-)


text:
What is awareness?
I understand that there is no self; yet there seems to be a never changing deeply seated, unfindable awareness attached to a human body that observes the sensations that arise and pass away.
This awareness continues to observe the body, life after life. It sits quietly as the body reacts and reacts until it discovers meditation and begins to stop the cycle. What is the nature of this awareness?
I can't make sense of the apparent contradiction that there is no self, yet this 'awareness' has to follow a series of rebirths until this 'individual' is purified, at which time they are fully liberated.
I understand that there is no self. There is nothing definable about the self which makes perfect sense to me. But there is most definitely an awareness. What is this awareness? Is every living creature in the universe a unique awareness with identical properties? Are we all the same awareness? If so then why are we dealing with karma as discrete individuals?

The observed is the observer. All is impersonal phenomena.

there is no self; yet there seems to be a never changing deeply seated, unfindable awareness attached to a human body
  that observes the sensations that arise and pass away.

Yes.

This awareness continues to observe the body

Yes.

life after life.

Evidence for this?

It sits quietly as the body reacts and reacts until it discovers meditation and begins to stop the cycle.

Stops the cycle of ignorantly regarding life as 'self'? Yes, it can, as described in SN 22.99.

What is the nature of this awareness?

It knows, it cognises (MN 43); it arises dependent upon sense organs, sense objects (MN 38) & the mind-&-body (SN 22.82) ; that is all that can be said about it.

I can't make sense of the apparent contradiction that there is no self

A mirror does not have a 'self' yet a mirror reflects. Awareness/consciousness is similar.
For example, 1st the mind sees an object and, afterwards, the mind thinks: "I like that object". The seeing or awareness of the object occurs prior to the idea of "I". Awareness operates without a 'self'. The idea or thought construct of 'self' arises after awareness. There can be awareness without 'self' thoughts.

yet this 'awareness' has to follow a series of rebirths until this 'individual' is purified, at which time they are fully liberated.

No. The Pali suttas do not refer to a 're-birth' of awareness or consciousness. Instead, the Pali suttas refer to the 're-birth' of the ignorant 'self' concept. To quote:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form to be a 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now
  what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
  the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication (of 'self') is born of that.
SN 22.81

The craving that makes for re-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

I understand that there is no self. There is nothing definable about the self which makes perfect sense to me.

OK.

But there is most definitely an awareness.

Yes.

What is this awareness?

Knowing, cognition; like a mirror reflects.

Is every living creature in the universe a unique awareness with identical properties?

Whenever there is some communication, there must be some awareness (however that awareness may not be fully reflective, like human awareness can know emotions but not act upon those emotions). For example, some plants know when an insect lands on them and they close up to eat the insect. These plants must have some awareness, however primitive.

Are we all the same awareness?

No. Now, my awareness is looking at a certain pink flowered tree outside my window. Since your awareness is not, the two awarenesses are obviously not the same awareness.

If so then why are we dealing with karma as discrete individuals?

Kamma is unrelated to awareness. In Pali, awareness is called 'vinnana', which refers to 'knowing' or 'sensing'. Where as kamma is related to intention (cetana) or thinking ('sankhara khandha').
The mental impacts of kamma (actions) are stored in the citta (mind-heart). For example, if a man gets angry at his wife and then feels regret the next day, the feeling of regret is related to the faculty of mind called 'citta' ('mind-heart') rather than 'awareness/consciousness'. Awareness only knows; only reflects.
Why human life has a 'citta' or an 'intelligent conscience', again we cannot say. It is probably just a survival mechanism.

Thanks for your response. I have some comments: It is not obvious that we are 'not' the same awareness. There is no evidence that the same being is not compartmentalizing its mind into billions of multiple awarenesses that are isolated from each other. This is far fetched, but only one of millions of ways that this could be achieved. The fact is, there is no way of knowing that we are discrete beings.

It seems to me that my understanding of self is not what Buddhists understand as self. For me, 'Me' or 'Myself' has nothing to do with my body, mind, 'soul', emotions, memories, knowledge, etc. "I" am what's left over after removing all of this. Even as a small child, before I ever heard of the Buddha, I never thought of myself as any of these things. I was the unlocatable thing seemingly somewhere in my body. It seems to me that no one knows exactly what this is; only what it isn't.

also, just to clarify, are you saying that we don't have past lives/rebirth?

What is awareness?

The totality of awareness includes the following for 6 Sense Bases and the 5 Aggregates:

“internal” (ajjhatta) = physical sense-organs, or our person;
“external” (bahiddhā) = physical sense-objects, or another person;
“gross” (olārika) = that which impinges (the physical internal and external senses,
with touch = earth, wind, fire);
“subtle” (sukhuma) = that which does not impinge (mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness,
and water);
“inferior” (hīna) = undesirable physical sense-objects (form, sound, smell, taste,
and touch), or the sense-world;
“superior” (panīta) = desirable physical sense-objects (form etc), or the form and the
formless worlds;
“far” (dure) = subtle objects (“difficult to penetrate”), or distant objects, other
universes;
“near” (santike) = gross objects (“easy to penetrate,” or things close by, or anywhere
in this universe).

...

As regards the terms “internal” (ajjhatta) and “external” (bahiddhā), it should be noted that they
have two applications:
(1) the aggregates (khandhā) composing a particular “person” are “internal” to them, and anything
else is “external”;
(2) the sense-organs (ayatana) are “internal,” but their objects—which may include aspects of
the person’s own body or mind, which are “internal” in the first sense—are “external.”

In the commentarial tradition (including the Abhidhamma), “gross” (olārika) refers to the
nature of the five physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body), while “subtle” (sukhuma) refers to
the nature of the mind. The physical senses are said to be “impinged on” while mind does not function
that way.

Adapted from Piya Tan introduction on Dutiya (Aññathatta) Ānanda Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta
You should clearly see the world, person, 5 Aggregates, 6 Sense Bases are  impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. [Maha Taṇha,sankhaya Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta] All experiences fall into 3 categories (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) which are also impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, subject to vanishing, subject to fading away, subject to ending. Dīgha,nakha Sutta
Also your awareness should be the right awareness.

And what, bhikshus, is right mindfulness?
Here, bhikshus,
a monk dwells  exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing the body in the body,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;
a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing feelings in the feelings,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;
a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing the mind in the mind,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world;
a monk dwells exertive, clearly knowing, mindful, observing dharmas in the dharmas,
   removing covetousness and displeasure in the world.
This, bhikshus, is called right mindfulness.

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta similar passage in Sacca Vibhanga Sutta
"removing covetousness and displeasure in the world" means you are to be equanimous without getting attached to the pleasant or averse to the unpleasant. You have to see impermanence also to remove ignorance. For more on this see this answer.
In addition if awareness is there in the present moment like that of in a surgeon, ballet dancer, gymnast, acrobat, stuntman, racing drive this does not help. Any of these activities require awareness but this is not exactly the awareness in line with the Buddhist goal. This is because:

such a person does not see the 3 marks of existence in the conditioned. Also see Vipallasa Sutta
such a person is not free from the unwholesome roots, i.e., reacting to pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations. Kīta,giri Sutta

More on this see this answer also.

This awareness continues to observe the body, life after life

This question has been asked before in the past:

it is this same consciousness, not another, that runs and flows through the rounds of births

Maha Taṇha,sankhaya Sutta
There are other religions and philosophies which have this view but in Buddhism the observing consciousness is also not self and in consistent though it appears to to be consistent in early stages. [Sampasadanīya Sutta] For more information see this answer.

Thanks! This is helpful information. It is a lot to take in.


text:
Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta
I understand that Advaita practitioners believe that we have an eternal self (consciousness) that is one with everything but that we are under an illusion that we are separate and through enlightenment we can realise the truth.
Theravadin Buddhists on the other hand believe that there is no 'self' but that we are under the illusion that there is one because we are too distracted to see that what we call self is nothing more than a bunch of impermanent processes i.e. the 5 skandhas.
I have issues with both beliefs.
With Advaita it doesnt matter how many Rupert Spira videos I watch I just dont see any evidence of anything living on beyond the death of my brain. Unless some penny drops and I finally get it somehow, my view won't change any time soon. Sure there is the sense of an observer when we sit and watch the thoughts etc but there is no proof that this is an 'eternal self' and not just some process of the brain being able think about thought.
With Buddhism I have begun to grasp the concept of Annatta because it kind of makes sense that all these different things are arising and passing however I have failed to hear any clear explanation about rebirth.  If there is no self then what is it that is reborn?  I know this question has been asked a zillion times but all I ever hear from Buddhists is that lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing.  If this illusion of self is not what gets reborn therefore I will not even remember my past life then why does it even matter at all? Also what do Buddhists believe about the observer of experience? They teach to sit and observe what is going on internally so what do they believe is observing? Nothing? Nothing is observing something?  The Advaita school of thought say that Buddhists are overlooking the truth. That the reason they think there is no self is because the self cannot look at itself just as eyes cannot look at themselves.

If Ignorance towards lust ,anger , laziness etc. is there , this ignorance is responsible to cling towards new body .When Ignorance is gone completely & only awareness with detachment  remains , clinging towards new body stops. It's Ignorance that clings towards rebirth not awareness.

Your question seems to compare Theravada with Advaita and there will be important inconsistencies. A comparison with Mahayana would reveal no inconsistencies. Ultimate knowledge would be implausible if those who explored Consciousness and Reality claimed to discover mutually inconsistent facts and truths. .  .

'Re-birth' is merely the re-arising of the 'self-belief' or 'self-concept' (in this life). To quote:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form, feeling, perception, thought fabrication &/or consciousness to be a 'self'. That assumption is a thought fabrication. Now
  what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
  the coming-into-existence of that thought fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That thought fabrication (of 'self') is born of that.
SN 22.81

The craving that makes for re-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

This 'self-belief' or 'concept' is a thought that is known or observed by 'consciousness'. Just as consciousness is not the thought of a 'dog' or 'tree', consciousness (which observes) is not the thought of 'self', 'I' or 'me'. The thought is a separate thing to the consciousness.
There is no evidence of anything living on beyond the ending of the activity of 'the' brain (not 'my' brain). The totally lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing was not an analogy spoken by the Buddha. Buddhism teaches the five aggregates are impermanent. When the activity of life (the aggregates) ends, that's it. If the mind can fully realise & accept all life ends, it will be at peace. That is all that needs to be done. Please read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta and the Maggavagga and be free from doubt.

This is a question that will live on in your mind unless you douse it yourself by some belief or another.
Why I say this is that, Buddhists are going to read the texts and say "this is what Lord Buddha said", according to some translation by someone. Advaita people will say something else according to some interpretation. And you will sit here and kill yourself by thinking about this over and over without a proper answer. And this will be never ending.
Unless you are doing this for a particular philosophy course or something where you need an answer to a question, I'd suggest you be okay with not knowing. Because the frame of reference from which you are asking this question about "self" or "no-self" is yourself, and this is a loop. Your mind cannot know what is beyond itself. The mind is a mere accumulation of thoughts and memories from the past. There is nothing original or new about it.
Don't jump to an answer yet because that will be a belief. It is not in your experience.

But the Advaita people seem to think they know from the talks I have listened to.  They claim that through self enquiry you can come to realise that you are eternal consciousness.

Alright, so? Let them think they know. What is the truth? Somebody's belief or your experience? Do you want to know?

@TitsianaBooberini - is this not exactly what Buddhists believe? Did not the Buddha practice self-enquiry?

The Surangama sutta is proof that Buddha was positing a concept which is veritably Advaita!
In his conversation, with King Prasenajit, and in his previous conversations with Ananda and group, he does prove the existence of an unchanging presence of awareness -- an awareness that knows all the changes, but is itself free from changes of any kind!
in Advaita Vedanta, this unchanging awareness at the background of all our experience is known as "Brahman"! It's not a "self" in the sense of the term that it's not a thinking, deciding entity -- thinking and deciding are mental processes that take place in the presence of awareness!
Even consciousness, unconsciousness, all take place in the presence of awareness -- that is why Buddha gave so much importance to The Cessation state or Niroddha Samapatti -- because in this state, when all perceptions and thoughts have ceased, one still is aware -- the presence of awareness is still there, otherwise "who" or "what" experiences Nirvana -- how is the experience of Nirvana possible without an awareness being present there to acknowledge it?!
This is what the Buddha meant when he said that he teaches "the path to the deathless" -- "This is the unborn, undead, unfabricated awareness" -- and Nirvana is the proof of it!
Think about it, Folks -- how can cessation state be permanent, or deathless? It's just a temporary state which the meditator experiences, and then one again returns back to the ordinary consciousness -- it is not cessation that is permanent, but rather it is the awareness, that is present in cessation when all contents have disappeared, which is referred to as Deathless here. Because, irrespective of the contents of the mind, whatever state of jhana mind may be in, there is always a presence of awareness that knows all of these states -- even unawareness is registered as a discontinuity between experiences, in the presence of same awareness!
Now, dependant origination applies to everything else in the Conditioned world -- every Conditioned entity arises and passes away, and its arising and passing away are based on causes and conditions! Emptiness in Buddhism refers to the lack of any absolute self-nature of dhammas. Now think about it -- how can the existence of any object be confirmed without the presence of an awareness field in which its perception takes place? How the existence of an object can be inferred, other than the perception of it? And what perceives it, if not the presence of awareness?!
All confusions that have taken place between Vedanta and Buddhism is because of the difference in language and dialect -- Buddhism defines terminology differently from that of Vedanta -- e.g in Buddhism, "Consciousness" means Mind. Vijnana (consciousness) actually is the reaction in the chitta field, which is caused by any of the six senses. Now in Advaita, consciousness means the ultimate subjective presence of awareness that watches the activities of the mind -- according to Vedanta, senses are observed by mind, and mind is observed by consciousness!
Apart from different words, Buddhism relies on a different causation model called pratityasammutpada or dependant origination, but Advaita uses the idea of Vivartavada or principle of superimposition!
One last thing,here some people mistake the "observer self" that is encouraged in Buddhist practises of Vipassana, for the "Witnessing consciousness" in Advaita! They are different things -- the "observer mind" in Buddhism, which is used for mindfulness practises, is actually the trained mental faculty of observation: it's not the consciousness! Similar practises exist in Vedanta, by the name of Sakshi bhava, where the aspirant is asked to develop the attitude of a detached witness to his/her thoughts, emotions, actions and senses, so as to gain greater insight of how these processes operate!

I share your view. Some paragraph spacing would have made this easier to read.

Advaita practitioners believe that we have an eternal self (consciousness) that is one... we can realise the truth.

"one with everything", do you mean one eternal self for every one of us, i.e., we are all one eternal self; if everyone enlightened, i.e., there will only be one thing left, the eternal self? Since not familiar with Advaita concept thus ask for clarification.

Theravadin Buddhists on the other hand believe that there is no 'self'...

Purely a personal opinion, the Theravada School is incomplete, from a Buddhist practitioner's point of view. To remark is, especially if one reading articles on the internet in English about the Theravada School's teaching based on many Pali translated English (modern) Sutras formed the view believed that's what Buddha taught, they could be inaccurate; upto this moment these views and the analogies behind them have a lot to be examined and verified, or even updated.

I just dont see any evidence of anything living on beyond the death of my brain.

One do not die after dead, this the Buddha has used an analogy to make King Prasenajit and others realized the fact:

...佛言。大王。汝見變化遷改不停。悟知汝滅。亦於滅時。知汝身中有不滅耶。波斯匿王
  合掌白佛。我實不知。佛言。我今示汝不生滅性。大王。汝年幾時見恒河水。王言。我
  生三歲慈母携我。謁耆婆天經過此流。爾時即知是恒河水。佛言。大王。如汝所說。二
  十之時衰於十歲。乃至六十日月歲時念念遷變。則汝三歲見此河時。至年十三其水云
  何。王言如三歲時宛然無異。乃至于今年六十二亦無有異。佛言汝今自傷髮白面皺。其
  面必定皺於童年。則汝今時觀此恒河。與昔童時觀河之見有童耄不。王言不也世尊。佛
  言。大王。汝面雖皺而此見精性未曾皺。皺者為變不皺非變。變者受滅彼不變者元無生
  滅。云何於中受汝生死。而猶引彼末伽梨等。都言此身死後全滅。王聞是言信知身後捨
  生趣生。與諸大眾踊躍歡喜。得未曾有。──《楞嚴經》

It reads as below in English:
...Buddha said, "Maharaja, you see that all are transforming and changing incessantly, thus realized that you would decease. Also during the decease, do you know that in your body there has the not obliterated?"
King Prasenajit holding his hands in prayer replied the Buddha, "I indeed don't know."
Buddha said, "I now show you the no originated-obliterated quality. Maharaja, how old were you when seen the water of River Ganges?"
The King said, "When I was three years old my loving mother took me to visit Deva Jivaka passing by this flow, at that time I have known it was the water of River Ganges."
Buddha said, "Now you are lamenting your gray hair wrinkled face, the face must be more wrinkled than at childhood. That by now you observe this River Ganges, as in the past as a child observing the river this seeing has the difference of young or aged not?"
The King said "No, World-honoured One."
Buddha said "Maharaja, although your face wrinkled yet this essence of seeing has never wrinkled. The wrinkled is change, the not wrinkled not change; the change is to be obliterated, that the unchanged essentially is not originated and obliterated, how so in it do render to your living or dead? Whilst still quoted those such as Makkhali [Gosāla], and said the same that after this body died all annihilated?"
The King heard this, truly knew that deceased yet living after the body. With the rest of all rejoicing in jubilation, obtained the never have had before.
The above is quoted from the Surangama Sutra translated into English, by me :]. Surangama Sutra has been disparaged by many, both in the Chinese language source and others. Here I will bypass to tangle in examining its authenticity. IMO it's the Buddha's Sutra as solid as the rest. It's said that this is the 1st Sutra to disappear at the ending of Dharma time; the last is the mantra "Namo Amitabha". If you read this conversation between King Prasenajit and Buddha, you will get that there is the essence (of you) that will never die, as King Prasenajit. I got it when reading this part. Since I'd known the non-dying in me in other experience, I was not as exhilarated as the King and others, only slightly gladdened. Hopefully it works for you, and brings about the same effect ;). Else try to contemplate few more times to get it.

...the concept of Annatta... what is it that is reborn? ...Nothing is observing something?...

Wow, I'll leave this to later maybe, since my answer is so long now, and not sure if I could produce an accurate answer... I'm reading the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, hopefully I could come up with some more "prajna" to answer your question ;].
========
*Below is my own exercise, for the convenient of writing, just disregard.*
========

...佛言。大王。汝見變化遷改不停。悟知汝滅。亦於滅時。知汝身中有不滅耶。

...Buddha said, Maharaja, you see that all are transforming and changing incessantly, thus realized that you would decease. Also during the decease, do you know that in your body there has the not obliterated?

波斯匿王合掌白佛。我實不知。

King Prasenajit holding his hands in prayer replied the Buddha, "I indeed don't know."

佛言。我今示汝不生滅性。大王。汝年幾時見恒河水。

Buddha said, "I now show you the no originated-obliterated quality. Maharaja, how old were you when seen the water of River Ganges?"

王言。我生三歲慈母携我。謁耆婆天經過此流。爾時即知是恒河水。。

The King said, "When I was three years old my loving mother took me to visit Deva Jivaka passing by this flow, at that time I have known it was the water of River Ganges."

佛言。大王。如汝所說。二十之時衰於十歲。乃至六十日月歲時念念遷變。則汝三歲見此河時。至年十三其水云何。

Buddha said, "Maharaja, as you said, during twenty was weaker than at ten years old, nonetheless at sixty; days, months, hours and moment by moment that's changing. That when you were three-year-old seeing this river, up unto at thirteen how so the water?"

王言如三歲時宛然無異。乃至于今年六十二亦無有異。

The King said, "Clearly has no difference as at three years old. Even by now at sixty-two there has no difference."

佛言汝今自傷髮白面皺。其面必定皺於童年。則汝今時觀此恒河。與昔童時觀河之見有童耄不。

Buddha said, "Now you are lamenting your gray hair wrinkled face, the face  must be more wrinkled than at childhood. That by now you observe this River Ganges, as in the past as a child observing the river this seeing has the difference of young or aged not?"

王言不也世尊。

The King said "No, World-honoured One."

佛言。大王。汝面雖皺而此見精性未曾皺。皺者為變不皺非變。變者受滅彼不變者元無生滅。云何於中受汝生死。而猶引彼末伽梨等。都言此身死後全滅。

Buddha said "Maharaja, although your face wrinkled yet this essence of seeing has never wrinkled. The wrinkled is change, the not wrinkled not change; the change is to be obliterated, that the unchanged essentially is not originated and obliterated, how so in it do render to your living or dead? Whilst still quoted those such as Makkhali [Gosāla], and said the same that after this body died all annihilated?"

王聞是言信知身後捨生趣生。與諸大眾踊躍歡喜。得未曾有。

The King heard this, truly knew that deceased yet living after the body. With the rest of all rejoicing in jubilation, obtained the never have had before."

My person does not know how it would be possible to draw a lasting border between this and that ...-ists, as views are not possible to freeze, but slippery they decay. How ever...
Well instructed disciples of the Buddha do not waste much of their time with their identity, self, whether there is a self or not, but focus simply on suffering and the end of it. To best do so, they usually cut off whatever might be grasped as own, unuseful refuge, whatever might bind, seeing it as not real and secure. Doing that way systematical they overcome suffering, birth, oldage and decay.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or to entertain for sufferings sake but as a tiny door to escape from this wheel)

And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as established in this world and established in the next.
...
And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as both unestablished in this world and unestablished in the next.

Sampasadanīya Sutta (Quoted from Piya Tan's Translation of DN 28)
It may appear at early stages there is and observer. But later on it becomes apparent that even "the observer" is not unbroken stream or permanent hence not self.

Craving arises at any of the six viññāṇas of the sense doors. As a description of mind, the four aggregates of viññāṇa, saññā, vedanā, and saṅkhāra generally suffice. Deeper Vipassana separates them. Before that stage is reached however, philosophies start because, despite the experience of arising and passing, the observer—which is viññāṇa—seems to remain and it is not divided or dissected. It is viewed as eternal soul: je viññāya te āya ye āya te viññāya (Whatever is viññāṇa is soul and whatever is soul is viññāṇa). However at a deeper level it does become separated: eye viññāṇa cannot hear, ear viññāṇa cannot see, any or all of these viññāṇas can stop, and when mind viññāṇa also stops, nibbāna comes.

Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka
Also see this answer which has further elaboration. Numerous philosophies about viññāṇa is the soul arises since the observers meditation is not developed enough to see the observations / observer is not continuous and impermanent.
In Buddhism both extremities of there is a self and here is no self is rejected. Better rendering in English is not/non self. For more information see this answer and this answer.

Anatta is non-self, which is neither 'self' (brahmanism) nor 'not-self' (annihalationism). Nothing is annihalationist and whilst the 'sphere of nothingness' is one of the last states the mind experiences before cessation, it is not the goal and is 'wrong view'.
The Buddha observed that empirical experience lacks these extremes like 'nothing' and 'everything`, 'always', 'never'. In my mind, I see it as whenever you draw a border or concrete dividing line between two concepts, you create a construct that does not appear in experience - every 'thing'  is correlated to every other 'thing',. There is no 'solid' base to stand on within experience.
No permanent soul or substance transmigrates within Buddhism. The Buddha simply saw the consequence that Anatta has fo 'the all' and all within it - regularity (for a modern scientist, on average). And even then this is still an essentialist definition. Because rebirth is a construct that concerns 'the all' (there is never a concrete barrier to block where a person, 'soul', goes within the Buddhist universe, so it can't be though of with regards to only a fraction of experience), it can't be based on relational constructs.. But these are the only constructs we can know conceptually, as they are the only ones we experience. If Existence is 'infinite' and effectively has all states present at all times, then somewhere or other, a being dying with X Kamma, will always be succeeded by a being born into conditions fitting X Kamma. Rebirth is to be understood or not understood fully by a mind that has had long and persistent training in Jhana imo..

Annihalationism is a 'self-view'. Refer to these links: https://suttacentral.net/en/iti49  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html https://suttacentral.net/en/dn1

thanks and agreed, I just wanted to separate Anatta from strict non-existence, which is just as much of a view as anything else (MN74 for me is the favourite for a look at nihilism!)

When one annihilates all delusion of self, all defilments are overthrown, and one rests in Liberation, there is nothing to be reborn. There is no "eternal" - which is only a notion of time unending. Advaita is the idea that an eternal self reincarnates throughout the universe. However in Buddhism the "ultimate" mystery is Emptiness which although the mind powerfully moved by it, ultimately is inconceivable, unknowable. This Emptiness is the essential nature of everything, but it lacks a "self" nature. Emptiness is beyond any concept of time and space, birth and death, being and non-being. So, it isn't a self that reincarnates in Buddhist conjectures, but something else. Normally this is where the concept of Karma is introduced. Karma operates something like Fate, it too is unknowable, except to the few with special insight into paranormal insights into reality. Why does it matter at all? Because one lives dealing with karma arising all the time, we don't know where it comes from, and that which is our karma becomes our life. One cannot merely step away from this.

It is said that buddha upon enlightenment could see past lives and all other knowledge. Rishis also attained this level. Therefore buddha merely wanted people to be able to attain such wonderful state, that was kept hidden from them and him or lost. Krishna that vedas was lost and he came to teach the knowledge back to humanity. During Buddhas time this knowledge was lost as well, again. This is why it is so easy for hindu to see buddha as reincarnation of vishnu. Before regressing into sophistry, I would like to point out that logic and discernment is very important, as well technique to obtain enlightenment.  The technique buddha propounded are in the vedas. It is not different. Just like sankhya and yoga are not different, so is buddhas teaching and many rishis and acharyas are not different.

Advaita Philosophy was popularized by Acharya Shankara , who succeeded in convincing Indian Buddhists , that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism.You may refer to the book " Shankara Digvijay--traditional life of Shankaracharya" ,written by Madhava-Vidyaranya ,published by the Ramakrishna Math , Chennai ( Madras) , India and available at Ramakrishna Mission Centres.Shankaracharya lived in the second half of Seventh Century AD (aroud 650 to 690 AD ).He succeeded in convincing Indian Buddhists , that Buddhism was a branch of Hinduism and succeeded in integrating Buddhism to Hinduism. Shankara also portrayed the Buddha as the Ninth Incarnation of Vishnu . Those Buddhists , who did not integrate with Hinduism ,were later (around Tenth Century AD) , slaughtered or converted to Islam by force , by the Muslim Invaders.  Shankara's Philosophy is known as Advaita Vedanta Philosophy. But over the years ,it has undergone many modifications , by different preachers ,trying to popularise the idea in their own ways.  Latest attempt at popularisation of Advaita Vedanta ,was by Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) ,who also founded the Ramakrishna Mission. Hinduism has many Books of knowledge ---the Vedas  ,the Upanishads ans the Six Schools of Philsophies. The Vedas popularise worshiping different powers of Nature --like the Earth ,Sun ,Air ,Fire ,Lightening ,Sky etc. symbolised as Gods. Upanishads are philosophies of Individual Teachers -who tried to popularize the concept of One God --Creator ,Sustainer and Destroyer of the  Universe .They also  tried to integrate Individual Consciousness to Universal Consciouness and to Space and Time--assuming the existence of a set of Universal Laws. The Six Philosophical  schools ,attempt to integrate the ideas of Upanishads , into a self consistent logical system. They are --(1)Shaankhya (2) Yoga (3) Nyaya (4) Vaisheshika (5) Purva Mimansa (6) Uttara Mimansa (Vedanta).Advaita Vedanta has evolved out of Vedanta . Literally Advaita means Not Two-ordinarily accepted as One or Zero.So the Universal God , can be One or Zero( Shunya or Space).In this philosophy , Existence and Non-Existence , are treated as two sides of the same coin.It assumes three sates of consciousness -waking , sleeping (dreaming) and deep sleep (unconsciousness ,coma or memory less)--all to be TRUE . And tries to INTEGRATE them to a SUPER_CONSCIOUS state--called the Ultimate Reality. For a beginner, trying to understand Advaita Vedanta and its links to Buddhist philosophies ( or Tantra) , I would suggest going through the works of Swami Vivekananda.

I don't think this answers anything. This looks like just a copy paste from Wikipedia or something though I haven't confirmed.


text:
If hatred rises, How far I am to Nirvana?
I saw in Indian T.V. serial Buddha saying that if hatred rises then know that you are far from Nirvana, is it true?
 Is there any other way Buddha described a way where one can see his current position in the journey to nirvana?

I saw in Indian T.V. serial Buddha saying that if hatred rises then know that you are far from Nirvana, is it true?

When you attain Nirvana both unwholesome or wholesome roots do not arise, you have also have eliminated the Five hindrances. Therefore, if any roots or hindrances appear in your mind then you are not in Nirvana. If there is a increase of roots, particularly unwholesome roots and then this can be viewed as moving away from Nirvana, hence moving away from Nirvana may be the right way to put it. Hatred has the root of dosa and also linked to Ill Will (vyāpāda). More on this see The Roots of Good and Evil, by Nyanaponika Thera and The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera

Is there any other way Buddha described a way where one can see his current position in the journey to nirvana?

There are many measures of progress but the most reliable is equanimity as if this is present then unwholesome roots of aversion and craving does not arise. More on this see this answer and this answer.

It is hard to say what "far from nirnava" means since nirvana isn't easily compared to other states of mind. We could say that you are close to nirvana if you reach one of the four stages of enlightenment. Freedom from hatred only occurs at the final stage when you become fully enlightened; however, an Anagami is free from ill-will so any hatred would not cause him to wish harm on any being.
These stages of enlightenment are one measure of progress on the path, although they are very advanced levels of progress.


text:
Can / how do we know what death is?
This question may read a little philosophical, Buddhist, and personal.
I've been a little obsessed with death for a very long time, and feel like I have zen answer. Less interested in "the path" (I would like to practice zazen) than whether my conclusion is sound, though to an extent, if it is, I can go on my way. As well as whether it conflicts with any zazen practice. A Buddhist friend keeps telling me I'm afraid and trying to outsmart death, and they say nobody really knows, which I definitely sympathise with, but equally I believe I'm right.
So how can we know what will happen to us at death? Do we ask a teacher, ourselves, not ask about it, not worry about it, or something else entirely?

'Death' happens to a 'person', 'self-entity' or 'self'.
When the mind is free from thoughts of 'self', it will know 'death' only happens to a 'self'.
It will also know when the mind is free from 'self', there is no 'death'.
The 'termination of life' is not the same as 'death'.
These things the mind can know when entering into 'emptiness' (śūnyatā - 空).

i liked this answer, thanks, it's actually a lot clearer and less enigmatic thank it may 1st seem

Being a Dhamma Skeptic, you may not believe in what is been said about what lies after death, but you cannot deny that — men, women, children, lay or ordained,
past, future, no matter what their level of being—are subject to aging, subject to
illness, subject to death, separation. Does it not give you a sense of samvega: a sense of dismay over the nature of the human condition because everybody is subject to these same problems, but no one has shown us how to deal with
aging, illness, and death, and we don’t have much training in that. The skills we have developed in life are not very helpful for dealing with aging, illness, and death when they come.
The death scares us the most because of the unknown factor. This fear is further aggravated because of our attachment to the body, our attachment to sensual pleasures, our memories and understandings that we’ve harmed others, and the fear that after death we’re going to be punished for it. And another fear is in not seen the true dhamma, and in having doubts about the true dhamma.
If you can learn to overcome these four fears of death, then you yourself will be able to find the answer that you seek. So you will have to sort through your attachments to the body,
sort through your attachments to sensual pleasures, and learn to focus on the
positive things you’ve done. It’s even better if you gain a dhammaeye, a vision of the
true dhamma. That’s when you can overcome your fear of death. It is at that time that you will come to know the answer to this question, as only then would you will accept the given answer.


text:
do you know consciousness?
Language can be a confuser here so feel free to switch consciousness with knowing or awareness. I just ask because many of the texts I read speak early on the path to realization that knowing the Self means knowing what the Self is NOT.
so i know I am not my name. my body, my memories etc...
Essentially they seem to say if can know a 'thing' then you are not that thing. Recently I wondered if I was consciousness since it seems to be the one thing I do not know.
The 2 basic truths that we can all accept seem to be:
truth of being:   I am
truth of knowing: I know I am
So some may say 'I know I am conscious' or 'I know I am in a state of consciousness'. But I am not sure if statements like that are simply another statement of the basic truth of being.
Or I suppose another might say "I know that I know" or "I am aware that I am aware" but to me this seems like semantics and at the base level is simply saying "I know" or "I am aware"......not the actual EXPERIENCE of "knowing of knowing/conscsiousness/awareness". So I wonder if I could be my consiousness?
Are being and knowing of being inextricably bound together and dependent OR is it possible, in a non-referential void reality for example, to be and not know being? I will post that as a separate question if I must.

you are using the term "consciousness", yet i think you are touching the edge of the concept of Tathāgatagarbha(如來藏), or related luminance(光明) often talked about in Tibetan Buddhism.

'Being' ('selfing') and knowing ('consciousness') are not inextricably bound together.
In Buddhism, consciousness is delineated into six types, such can be summarised as:
(i) seeing;
(ii) hearing;
(iii) smelling;
(iv) tasting;
(v) touching; &
(vi) mental cognition (knowing the mind's thoughts, feeling, moods, etc).
Imagine a mosquito suddenly bites. First, there is consciousness of the touch sensation then, a moment later, the mind thinks: "A mosquito has bitten me".
The touch consciousness arises 1st, by surprise, without any willfulness. Later the mind creates the idea of "me" or "I".
Therefore, 'knowing' & 'selfing' are not inextricably bound together because knowing occurs before & independent of the thought of "me" or "I".
This is why consciousness experiences many things the 'self' does not want to experience. If 'self' & 'consciousness' were bound together, the self could decide where to direct consciousness and thus avoid ugly sights, unpleasant sounds, bad smells, etc.
This is why you define or identify yourself as nothing apart from what the mind is consciousness of.
You were not born with pre-existing ideas of "my mother", "my father", "my house", "my body", etc. Instead, what happened is the mind first sees, hears, smells, tastes or touches its mother and eventually, later, the idea is formed: "my mother". Similarly, one first day, a small child looks into a mirror and develops for the first time, the idea of "me" or "my body".
In MN 64, the Buddha taught a new born child has no idea of 'self', 'me' or 'I'.
In SN 12.12, the Buddha described 'becoming', 'being' or 'selfing' only happens after consciousness, feeling, craving & attachment have occurred.

but that is consciousness based on a sensory reality....what i wonder is it possible for consciousness to simply exist as being....to know that it is being....it has no senses or thoughts...the infant has only emotional not verbal thoughts but does our sense of being come only with learning of language?

Initially confusion may arise that there is an observer and that observer is me. If you closely examine "the observer" you will see that "the observer" is not permanent and continuous. A good account on this can be found in Khemaka Sutta where a saint but not yet an Arahat could still have this residue. If you are then an Arahat then all I-making and mine-making notions and view are no longer there. Sampasadanīya Sutta also mentions that some mistake consciousness as self through knowing the rest of the aggregates are not self but considering consciousness as self. In deeper meditation this notions also vanishers. More on this can be found in this answer, this answer, this answer.
Consciousness is what know and gives arise to the notion of I and mine. If something was mine it should tray the way you want it. Say there is a glass which is my glass. My glass should no break. But when it falls it does break. You may have to nothing that this body is me, but if so can you cure disease on command: "My fever should stop at once!". This par may seem logical but "It is I who know", "It is I who feel", "It is I who experience" is difficult to stake off. Now look at in this angle. If you know, feel or experience something which does not give pleasure, is it worth identifying it as "mine". If the experience is mine and unpleasant you should be able to either get rid of it or make it pleasant or neutral on command. Similarly of pleasant experiences it is not possible to prevent change or such experience ending on command or will. So what you know or experience is not self. As it is consciousness which experiences it is also not worthy of identifying as self. Also if you have done any meditation you will not consciousness itself is not under control: "I will be only conscious of sensation on my upper lip". You will notice that your mind wanders away to other objects.
Also since it is consciousness which feels you cannot observe consciousness, i.e., observe the observer. This also leads to the notion of "I am the observer". But as mentioned above, in deep meditation, you will notice consciousness is not continuous and there are 6 types of consciousness (there is no single unified core as the observer), therefore it is not worth identifying as self. Eye consciousness can only see and not anything else. If this was mine, you should be able to make you hear through your eyes. Consciousness is not continuous and not controllable, hence again not self.
Also following might be of interest: “Me”: The Nature of Conceit, Atammayatā by Piya Tan

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta lists consciousness as one of the Dhatu (Elements). It is because of this you know the arrangement of other 4 primary elements in space (also an element). Also consciousness just knows, experiance or cognise only. It does not store anything. Sañña the recognising part of the mind is what contains memories and brings up past experiences and also give it an evaluation good, bad or neutral. Whatever experienced by consciousness is contribute to perception and view. This is brought up later, triggered by another experience, which gets cognised. In addition,

Using Vipassana he developed the lokuttara jhānas, leading to nibbāna, and introduced the "ninth jhāna," which he called saññā-vedayita-nirodha: where saññā and vedanā stop. So long as saññā functions, however feebly, it will produce a reaction, a saṅkhāra. Saññā must be totally eradicated to experience the stage of viññāṇa as viññāṇa.

Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka

I knew language would confuse here. I am not talking of consciousness as the mind-self. forget the I here. I mean consciousness purely as the space into which all experience enters. the nothingness which is filled with everything. Like the clear lake which reflects the moon. I may not have control of my consciousness because I can be infinite being experiencing finite being. That can be my entire reality.

I updated the answer.

Only a well-developed mind in following the true teachings of the Supreme Buddha can truly understand the real existence of the so called self. In an earlier post I have given sutta references to this. Reading this you will come to see that apart from our consciousness there is no “self” within us. This mind itself can not be perceived as the self because it is ever changing and for that matter is moving faster than matter. In its active/passive sense the mind can be taken as consciousness. Being mindful is the way to develop one's mind. That is the purpose of meditation. The purpose of meditation is to achieve uninterrupted mindfulness, and only mindfulness produces Enlightenment.
Consciousness (vinnana) is not a single item and cannot move by itself from place to place.There are other concomitant parts such as feeling (vedana) perception (sanna) and Volitions (sankhara). So what you call as ‘SELF” is only this “Panca-upadanak-khandha”.
Once you start meditating exactly the way that is shown in the Scriptures (the first two parts of the Tipitaka) and as your mind gets more and more acquainted, it will be able to unravel its attachments to body, feelings, perceptions, thought-constructs, and consciousness. Its identity-views — seeing these things as the self — will fall away. This is the way to freedom. The moment this transcendent discernment arises, you'll be free. You'll be able to disentangle yourself from all the conventional truths of the world that say, 'person', 'self', 'man', 'woman', 'us', 'them', and so on.

Where is your "consciousness" when you are in a cinema watching the movie?
Where is your consciousness when you are having a dream while sleeping?
Where is your consciousness when you are on the road and driving?
Etc etc etc..
In all cases, one note that the outside world is controlling one's consciousness and there is little control from inside.
Buddhism says it is not true one has little control of one's consciousness. In fact by following the Path, one can realise that one can fully controlled ones consciousness and not let the outside world affect it. The path eventually leads to enlightenment which is helping others to reach enlightenment too.