text:
How to prevent self-deception?
I have recently attended my first Vipassana 10-day course. I observe the moral precepts fully, practice diligently and attempt to proceed wisely on the path. I came into contact with Vipassana because of my ex, who, both in showing me to the path and in harming me, has been my precious teacher. In harming me, in failing to observe the fourth precept and sila, in seeking passion as a distraction from his suffering and a confirmation of his ego, without apparently being aware of this and even if being aware, not changing his behavior, my ex has caused me concern with regard to my own attempts at leading a proper life. I know I am not in a position to help my ex, as he has harmed me (also, I tried and he reacted with hostility), so what I am left with is the striking fact that this amount of delusion is possible in someone who calls himself a serious Vipassana meditator, which worries me with regard to my own practice. If someone who has been practicing for over 10 years thinks they are aware and are everything but, what am I going to do? I have fled into passion as well, in a quest for distraction from suffering as well as from a need for guidance and affirmation of my own ego.
The obvious answer is to truly feel and accept painful feelings without reacting by fleeing into passion. But these impulses are strong and the mind is clever. What can I do to prevent this behavior? Can there be a mistake in the meditation practice itself that causes such obscurations to persist?
Additionally, I do hope to find a partner who observes truthfulness towards himself and others. How do I go about avoiding the blinding capacities of passion and idealistic desires in judging any such “romantic" situation accurately? I imagine working on one’s own mental and emotional hangups will diminish obscurations — how is one advised to go about this other than meditating?
I know these are big and difficult questions. Any and all input is appreciated.

This topic has advice about choosing a partner: Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

If someone who has been practicing for over 10 years thinks they are aware and are everything but, what am I going to do?

I think this issue you are raising is not really related to Buddhist meditation practices but to the individual. Some individuals, be they Buddhist or non-Buddhist, religious or non-religious, have a keen sense of not harming others & being responsible towards others. Others do not.
That said, about Buddhism, my impression is cultural Buddhism, both Western & Asian, is quite weak in its explanations of sexual misconduct to its lay followers since I get the impression monks don't want to put pressure on people by over-moralising. Therefore, it can be expected that people may practise Buddhist meditation for 10 years but have no real sense of the purpose of the precepts. In fact, there are enough Buddhist teachers that practise sexual misconduct.
Sexuality is a very strong emotion/drive thus many people struggle to manage it.

The obvious answer is to truly feel and accept painful feelings without reacting by fleeing into passion. But these impulses are
  strong and the mind is clever. What can I do to prevent this behavior?
  Can there be a mistake in the meditation practice itself that causes
  such obscurations to persist?

There are probably many suggestions to this question. One suggestion is to reflect on (think about) what benefit & what harm will come from impulsive fleeing into passion? Will impulsive passion really help yourself? Will it really help the other person involved in the impulsive passion? Or will it create more hurt, more confusion, more regret? Is it really something you really want to do?
Buddhist practises about wise reflection are described in MN 61 and MN 19.

Additionally, I do hope to find a partner who observes truthfulness towards himself and others. How do I go about avoiding the blinding
  capacities of passion and idealistic desires in judging any such
  “romantic" situation accurately?

As has been mentioned by Chris, the teachings in Buddhism about finding the right partner are not based in "romance". Instead, they are based on determining what your life goals & values are and then finding a partner that can fulfil/meet your life goals & values, i.e., a partner that shares your same goals & values.
This includes things many take for granted, such as having children. There are occasions when two people are together, romantically, for many years and suddenly one person raises their want for children and the other person objects to this. Ideally, the matter of having children should be sorted out before beginning the relationship.
Thus, Buddhism does not really recommend get "romantically" or sexually involved with a prospective life partner before determining whether that prospective partner is suitable. It may sound very unromantic & clinical but I assume it is like interviewing another person for a job. An employer does not employ a prospective employee until determining & assessing the suitability & qualifications of that person.
Often, this is how traditional cultures operated. Parents would get together & assess whether a partner was suitable for their son & daughter in marriage. The Buddhist approach is similar, i.e., more rational or cerebral rather than "romantic".
Once "romance" (sex) occurs, that itself starts to make the situation less flexible since two people become attached to each other sexually (with the various demands & expectations) even though they may not be suitable in terms of individual aspirations or temperament.
Thus, Buddhism encourages the development of 'metta' (friendliness; loving-kindness). We should learn to relate to all people as 'friends' first; putting their welfare first. In meeting a prospective partner, ideally, we put friendship first. We become friends for a significant amount of time before committing to romance.

I imagine working on one’s own mental and emotional hangups will diminish obscurations — how is one advised to go about this other than
  meditating?

This can be done by learning about & reflecting upon the Buddhist teachings about relationship. By doing this, we can learn about the mistakes we make in our past relationships & the way forward for the future.
For example, if we can see the necessity of the Buddhist qualities prescribed for a suitable partner, we can realise our previous partner never did have the qualities or abilities to fulfill our expectations. But doing this, we may stop blaming them & instead focus on our own choices.
The main teaching of the Buddha can be read in AN 4.55 however the link already provided explains the main relevant teachings of the Buddha.

In Buddhist thought, what does this keen sense of not harming others and being responsible towards others pertain to?

I am not sure of your question. I was referring to the different moral sensitivities of individuals, which could be related to genetics. The scriptures do state there are spiritual differences between individuals due to genetics, i.e., 'the elements' ('dhatu') that individuals are composed. Regards

Surely this cannot, however, be an excuse? So surely if one finds one is a person lacking in moral sensitivity, one needs to try harder?

I suppose this might be another question topic. I know individuals that continue to harm themselves and contribute to harming others without any inner personal realisation they are doing so.

I see. Meaning you can tell them and they can say "yes, I know" but don't truly realize? As would basically be the case with autism?

"so what I am left with is the striking fact that this amount of delusion is possible in someone who calls himself a serious Vipassana meditator, which worries me with regard to my own practice. If someone who has been practicing for over 10 years thinks they are aware and are everything but, what am I going to do?"
While this is disheartening indeed, we probably should not measure ourselves against anyone. Consider the following sutta:

[...] From there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, "Bhikkhus, I will teach the method of the forest. Listen and attend carefully, I will teach.
Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides in a certain forest stretch. When abiding there, unestablished mindfulness does not get established, unconcentrated mind does not concentrate, not destroyed desires do not get destroyed, and the not attained noble end of the yoke is not attained; as for the four requisites of life for the one gone forth, robes, morsel food, dwellings, and requities when ill, are collected with difficulty. That bhikkhu should reflect:
'I abide in this forest stretch, to me abiding in this forest, unestablished mindfulness does not get established, unconcentrated mind does not get concentrated, not destroyed desires do not get destroyed, and the not attained noble end of the yoke is not attained; as for the four requisites of life for the one gone forth, robes, morsel food dwellings, and requisites when ill, are collected with difficulty.'
Bhikkhus, he should not abide in that stretch of forest, he should leave it by night or by day.
-- MN 17 Vanapattha Sutta - Jungle Thickets

Thus, to evaluate progress, we can reflect on the things like:

does concentration comes easier then before or harder than before?
does unwholesome thoughts come more often or less often?
etc. (can go so far as all the seven enlightenment factors, five hindrances, etc)

The immediate lesson of the sutta above, on the other hand, is that the environment (work, duties, people, food, etc) we find ourselves in may enable or obstruct some aspects of our practice. While someone fully committed to the practice may just take the words above to heart and leave whenever the environment is unsuited, those of us who did not make such commitment might need to find a trade-off.
Another perspective to bring is that the Vinaya orient the sangha members to come forward whenever they transgress. Thus, we should expect people (even the ones we consider to be advanced) to make mistakes.
"But these impulses are strong and the mind is clever. What can I do to prevent this behavior? Can there be a mistake in the meditation practice itself that causes such obscurations to persist?"
Here's a few suttas describing how the Buddha handled these issues in his own mind:

[...] As I abided thus, diligent, ardent and resolute, a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. I understood thus: 'This thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna'. When I considered: 'This leads to my own affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to others affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to the affliction of both', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna', it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu  frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. [...]
But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

and:

[...] If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. [...]
If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation(*) of those thoughts. [...]
If while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind(**) (***).
-- Vitakkasanthāna Sutta, [Bodhi Trans.] MN 20

(*) "relaxing of thought-fabrication", per Thanissaro Bhikku
(**) "crush his mind with his awarenes", per Thanissaro Bhikku
(***) "crush unwholesome states of mind with wholesome states of mind", per Majjhima Nikāya Atthakathā


text:
If there is no "I", who or what is controlling my animalistic urges?
All sorts of impulses and urges in human and other beings are invoked by nature in order to sustain life. In my way of thinking, it is a rational "I" who attempts to control reacting to these impulses and urges. If there is no "I", how am I supposed to see or think of my acting self? Is this "citta" or the "empirical self"?
As I understand it "I" am not an unchanging thing but merely an accumulation of conditioning resulting in habits; a point of view to which modern science would likely not oppose. However, I have or am, then, still a mind (citta)? Is it this mind that has accumulated karma in this and past lives? And how is that, then, not, in a way, "me"?

You might find it useful to read the answers to this topic: How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

Awareness ! Is always present but consciousness dictates certain I am mental phenonminon... So at a certain level the I am concept can dissipate and awareness would still be there another term for this is being awakeful.

The "I" is a survival function of the (unenlightened) human mind & is actually created by the very impulses & urges it seeks to control. (Or otherwise this type of "I" is also created by social or religious conditioning).
For example, sexual urges arise due to hormones & other physical & psychological mechanisms and then, a short time later, the mind thinks: "I feel sexual". Thus, the urge occurs before the "I". The "I" is a product (result) of the urge rather than the producer (cause) of the urge.
A child (not conditioned by its parents or religion about right & wrong) does not attempt to control its impulses & urges. A child simply follows its impulses & urges. It is only later, when the child or adult learns through experience that some of its impulses & urges lead to harming itself or are dangerous that it tries to control its impulses & urges.
However, in reality, it is not the "I" that is trying to control the impulses & urges that have lead to hurt, pain & suffering. In fact, it was not really the "I" that experienced pain & hurt. Instead, it is simply the 'citta' (mind-heart) that experienced hurt & it is simply the wisdom of the citta through feeling hurt that seeks to control impulses & urges. That is why enlightened minds (cittas) do not need an "I". Such enlightened minds are guided by wisdom (i.e. neurological sensitivity) only.
It is like breaking a leg. First the pain of the broken leg arises and, a short time later, the mind thinks "I am hurt". The "I am" is not required for the mind to feel the hurt. The mind itself knows the hurt & the "I am" is extra or the commentary.
That said, this business of "I" is very deep. It is natural for the minds of people to develop the "I". Since months after child birth, most feelings, sensations, urges & impulses have been deemed by the mind to be "I am". This is all part of natural human development. Generally, a mind without a development of "I" (to give it personal & social boundaries) will have some kind of mental illness.
The best Buddhist explanation about the "I" is probably 'Anatta and Rebirth' by Buddhadasa.
The citta (mind) certainly accumulates 'kamma'. An example is a drug addict, which accumulates addiction or craving symptoms for a drug. The drug addict decides to break the addiction and successfully enters into 'cold-turkey'. This shows the person is not the accumulated kamma of drug-addiction since the drug addiction (accumulated kamma) can be broken & cleansed.
Similarly, the teachings (AN 6.63) state the Noble Eightfold Path is the path for the ending of accumulated kamma. Accumulated kamma is also something conditioned & subject to impermanence & change when the conditions that created it are removed.
This is why the teachings (AN 3.61) also state what we experience is not due to past lives but to how the mind responds to (internal & external) sense experience/stimuli in the here-&-now.
For example, a certain kamma in the past may have once hurt us (the mind-heart). But if there is a change in attitude or response towards that kamma, such as regarding that kamma as a "lesson" rather than "hurt", that kamma will stop hurting us.
That is why the teachings state "old kamma" ought to be viewed as the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind (since "old kamma" is only sense stimuli arising in the present).
Therefore, accumulated kamma is not something fixed & static but something that people can learn from, i.e., a teacher.

Thank you. I have four more questions:

The Buddhadhasa text says there is no rebirth or reincarnation in Buddhism; then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"? And is the Dalai Lama not believed to be the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama?
If everything about us acts in and of itself, there is not really any such thing as free will the way we understand it?

If everything about us is anatta and there is no rebirth, then if we commit suicide it will not be our consciousness which will witness the further suffering in the universe, and we will not in fact be reborn and suffer more because we killed ourselves?
If death were not an end to my consciousness, I could see how me killing myself would be of no consequence. But if my consciousness dies with my body, then does that not imply suicide would be an independent act out of free will?

@AlexiaL This site is designed as a question-and-answer site (with one question at the top of each page, which defines the page's topic), and not as a discussion forum. People can't easily answer your four new questions, if you post your question using comments, for many reasons including because there's a limit (600 characters) on the length of people's comments (i.e. comments are necessarily short). What I'm saying is, unless you're only asking for a minor clarification to an existing answer, please post new or follow-on questions as new questions on one more new pages.

I picked up on some truth ...when questioner said is there no free will ? Think of an enormous chess board there are unlimited moves on the square board made for all levels if players ...although it's only a board game it lead me to think that I'm using ulimeted free will on a fixed sqare science would say parameter or quadrant nevertheless I'm leaning towards there is limited free will .

Anything part of a being or if you take the the being as a whole this is not self. If you take your eyes this is not self as there are people without eyes. Likewise even the mind cannot be taken as self as you cannot control your mental feelings / emotions and thoughts. So you cannot take this as self.
Even if you take something as an action is it really done by yourself. If so was the volition the self or your body which was instrumental in doing is the self or is the result of the action the self. In each case none of it you can call self.
Sum total of your past Sankhara give result to the arising of the aggregates. The Sankhara of this moment along with what is there not creates the next. So Karma of Sankhara is not self and you cannot control it as if you own it.
Likewise if you analyse there is nothing worthy of call yourself.

Looking at the many aspects of mind and wondering whether they are self or not self at a metaphysical level can lead to a trap of continuous doubt about anatta. It can be better/more skillful to ask if it fits with criteria which the Buddha described for not-self.
One criteria given in the anatta-lakkhana sutta is that something which is not controllable is not-self.

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

Ask yourself "Is the controller or animalistic urges controllable?", if not then it is not-self.
The second criteria in this passage is that a self would not lead to affliction (dukkha). Instead of asking "Is X a self?" ask yourself "Does self-view of X lead to dukkha?".

The sutta does not state "lead to dukkha". The Pali is "ābādhāya" which means "illness, sickness, affliction, disease", which is different to "dukkha" (suffering). Also, the sutta does not state that animalistic urges are uncontrollable. This would be contrary to the teachings about sense-control, etc. The sutta only states the illness & sickness of the five aggregates are uncontrollable, similar to the Buddha who died from physical sickness or the reputed arahant monk Ajahn Chah who spent his final years with a neurological brain/mind disease. The sutta at the end states craving can be ended.

Thanks for correcting about ābādhāya/dukkha. I don't see why this teaching about why the aggregates are not self can't be used as a reason for why other things are not self. Also, it's clear that we don't have full control over our urges, I cannot say "May my urges be thus, may my urges not be thus"

All that is clear is that you personally do not have full control over your personal urges. It is best to not speak for others. A Buddha has no urges.  What you proposed in your post may certainly be a skillful means to detach/not-get-involved with urges but it is not necessarily true or the best method. Regards

@Dhammadhatu I appreciate comments like this where you identify the merits and problems of an answer. When you only point out what is wrong it can lead people to think that there's nothing of value in an answer.

Is it not the purpose of Buddhist dharma to see the I am concept Ego as an illusion or not permanent ...so I'm not sure. What the question is about. As noted poster sees I am in analysis and is depending on the ego to understand non ego or parts of Buddhist teachings

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How is rebirth to be understood?
I have some questions regarding this Buddhadhasa text saying there is no rebirth in Buddhism.
Is rebirth not what enlightenment is supposed to bring an end to? Is there no rebirth because rebirth is actually to be understood in a moment-to-moment manner unrelated to the end of life (rebirth as pertaining to the condition of willing no more)? Then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"? I thought I also heard him imply the rebirth of our consciousness in the context of suicide being a bad idea for this reason.

Buddhadhasa text saying there is no rebirth in Buddhism

The Buddhadasa text states 'birth' is the mental birth of the 'self' or 'I' thought and that there is no 'rebirth' because each time the conditioned 'I' thought is born it is a brand new 'I' rather than the same 'I' being reborn.
For example, is the 'I' you sense yourself to be today the same 'I' as when you were 4 years old?
Buddhadasa concluded there is on-going 'ego-birth' for unenlightened people but not 'rebirth'.

Is rebirth not what enlightenment is supposed to bring an end to?

The Pali scriptures state enlightenment brings about the end of the "I-conceit" (MN 22); the end of 'I-making' & 'my-making'.
The Pali scriptures (very end of MN 38) states 'birth' ends while the mind remains conscious, which supports Buddhadasa's view that 'birth' refers to the birth of the 'I' concept.
SN 22.81 also supports Buddhadasa's view.

Is there no rebirth because rebirth is actually to be understood in a moment-to-moment manner unrelated to the end of life (rebirth as
  pertaining to the condition of willing no more)?

According to Buddhadasa, yes.

Then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"?

This is a common idea in cultural Buddhism & Hinduism, which also probably explains why Buddhism became extinct in India (since both doctrines became essentially the same).

I thought I also heard him imply the rebirth of our consciousness in the context of suicide being a bad idea for this reason.

Yes, this is also a common idea and possibly a beneficial idea, namely, to discourage people from committing suicide. However, there are no references in the Pali suttas I have read where the Buddha was pre-occupied with this concern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following discussion supports Buddhadasa's viewpoint:
DN 15 is the only discourse from thousands attributed to the Buddha, I am aware of, which makes an unclear inference that consciousness is 'reborn' (i.e., enters into a mother's belly).
Why DN 15 is unclear & considered by many scholars, including scholars that believe in reincarnation/rebirth, to be unauthentic is because it contradicts the many other reported discourses on the same subject.
In the many other discourses, such as MN 43, SN 22.79, MN 9, MN 148, MN 18, SN 12.2, SN 12.67, SN 22.56, SN 22.82, MN 38, SN 22.53, etc, it is written that:

consciousness is (only) mental cognition (MN 43, SN 22.79);
there are only six types of consciousness (SN 12.2; MN 9; MN 148);
consciousness arises in dependence on sense organs & sense objects (MN 148, MN 18, MN 38);
consciousness is caused by the mind-body (SN 12.67, SN 22.56, SN 22.82);
for consciousness to arise without the body, feelings, perceptions & mental formations is impossible (MN 38; SN 22.53).

In summary, similar to DN 15, the idea the consciousness is reborn in the form of a 're-linking consciousness', 'stream of consciousness', 'mindstream', 'storehouse consciousness', etc, are all ideas created after the passing of the Buddha by different & various Buddhist schools. These terms about a 'rebirth consciousness' commonly used by Buddhists have no source in the original teachings.
The Pali scriptures actually state that "beings" ("sattā") or "men & women " (itthī vā puriso vā) are 'reborn'. To quote:

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away
  [fall] & reappearance [rise] of beings (satta).
Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to
  living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a state of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

In SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, a "satta" ('being') is described as a 'view' ('idea') about the totality of the five aggregates born from attachment & craving. To quote:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being'.
SN 5.10
'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
SN 23.2

Therefore, based on the words attributed to the Buddha, what is 'reborn' appears more likely to be the 'self-view' or 'I-thought' based on all of the five aggregates rather than only consciousness being 'reborn'. In MN 38, the Buddha is reported to have heavily criticized & admonished a monk for holding the view that consciousness is reborn. To quote:

As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another.
Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?
This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions.
And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
  grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
  produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
  harm & suffering.

In conclusion, the ideas of people such as Goenka, which are also held by the majority of Buddhists, seem to have next to no basis in the original Pali scriptures. Where as the ideas of Buddhadasa at least seem to conform with a diligent (rather than superficial) examination of the original Pali scriptures. Further, the ideas of Buddhadasa can also be verified by meditative insight (where as the ideas of Goenka cannot), which conforms again with MN 38, which states:

Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves.

Thank you. So can this "self-view" or "I-thought" ever be reborn into a new body? What I am asking is: did the Buddha see his "past lives", or is this also popular belief?

This would be another question for the forum & is again the various different answers expected are dependent on interpretation of the language of the scriptures. Please note, however, that the literal term: "past lives" does not exist in the scriptures. The term is literally "past homes" or "past dwellings" (pubbe nivasa). Regards.

In my understanding rebirth is a continuation of the process of causality of actions in the way that the aggregates are generated to reap the results of the past actions. This generative process of aggregates continues until one reaches the state of an arahant when his actions are not influenced by greed, hate or delusion and do generate new kamma so no new aggregates to experience the result.
Like it is said in MN 135

"Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race? For short-lived & long-lived people are to be seen, sickly & healthy, ugly & beautiful, uninfluential & influential, poor & rich, low-born & high-born, stupid & discerning people are to be seen. So what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race?"

Why is a person born ugly? Or handicapped?
This is the result of actions to be reaped by this new set of aggregates that has been generated.

Student, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement."

This is an impersonal process thats why there is no 'I', aggregates arise and are destroyed and arise again and are destroyed and so on and they are chained, or linked by actions. So past lifes would be past aggregates that commited action that resulted in new aggregates.
The 'I' part is a construction of the mind, a story that we use to give meaning to things but is meaningless. The story that links out memories is somehow part of the I. Someone who lost his memories has no longer the same I that was conditioned by them.
To cling is to give meaning to things, we sometimes give excessive meaning to trivial things and we suffer because someone said something trivial.
So no meaning to the seen, heard..., just seen, heard .. equals freedom from I.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html
As an example about consciousness transfer that is in the pali canon is the transfer of a flame from a candle to another candle. Is it the same flame? This was not said by Buddha but by an arahant that answered a kings question.

I didn't read the whole thing but this part of the text that I'm basing my answer on

Now we come to the third question which they will ask: When there is no attā, then what is reborn?
  What or who is reborn? Forgive us for being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and
  crazy.4
  In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is no place for it in Buddhism. If you
  ask what will be reborn next, that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now, there is no
  soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So
  there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not
  occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but
  there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person,
  one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get
  reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it
  is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly,
  constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."

Normally to distinguish between Hindu ideas and Buddhist ideas of afterlife we use reincarnation and rebirth as different terms.
Reincarnation is often used to describe a soul (self) being born again in another life like Hindus and other faiths believe.
Rebirth is used as a word in Buddhism to describe the aggregates constantly changing and coming together to continue existence. There is no self involved in this process.
This quote sounds like he's talking about the term rebirth:

But the birth of different things is happening all the time

But then he insists that the term rebirth involves a self.
In the text it appears that he has decided to use both terms "rebirth" and "reincarnation" to describe a process with a self and the term "birth" to describe a process without a self. His conclusion sounds controversial but he has just chosen to use words differently to most sources.

Thank you! That clarifies things. Is it normally considered that consciousness is transferred to some extent after life ends, i.e. that it is "my" somewhat same consciousness that will experience "my" following lives (seeing as how the Buddha could eventually recall his past lives, they must have happened to some level of "him" or his consciousness)? I hope this question is not too long for the comments, otherwise I will repost it as another question.

As far as I've seen it is common but not universal to consider all aggregates except form as transferring to some extent. There is an idea called the "mindstream" which exists in some schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

Buddhadasa has said "birth" (jati) refers to the mental birth of the self idea & there is no "re-birth" because each self idea is a new self idea arising from a new sense contact. It is not the same self idea that is "re"-born therefore there is no "rebirth". Instead, there is only "birth" occurring over & over again for unenlightened beings or minds. For example, the self or "I" my mind took itself to be when it was 4 years old is obviously not the same self or "I" my mind took itself to be when it was 14 years, 24 years old, etc. Buddhadasa is referring to a conditioned impermanent self.

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


text:
Is Karma different for accidental killing than intentional killing?
Ever since I have started following Buddhism, I have stopped killing any type of insects but during the course of time I have accidentally killed few insects when I had no intentions of harming them like
1) While using touchscreen a tiny insect of few millimeters in length came between my screen & finger.
2) Accidental killing mosquito in sleep as they bite us.
3) Ants come under my feet whenever I am busy going from A to B (Here I mean totally immersed in work mode where you don't have time to think of anything else.
So is Karma different for such types of incidents because I never intent to harm such beings, forget about killing them or will I get the same punishment for intentional killing?

The background story to the first verse of the Dhammapada is of an arhat killing insects accidentally, because he's blind.
The verse says,

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

I think we're meant to infer that if you don't act with an evil mind (or act without an evil mind), that if the killing is accidental or unintentional, that's not as bad as intentional killing.

Something similar is found in the monastic rules (page 29):

In analyzing offenses for the purpose of determining penalties, the
  Vibhanga divides an action into five factors: the effort, the perception under which
  it is made, the intention motivating it, the object at which it is aimed, and the
  result. In some of the rules, all five factors play a role in determining what is and
  is not a full offense. In others, only two, three, or four play a role. For example,
  under the parajika rule forbidding murder, all five factors have to be present for
  a full offense: The object has to be a human being, the bhikkhu has to perceive
  him/her as a living being, he has to have murderous intent, he has to make an
  effort for the person to die, and the person has to die.
If any of these factors is missing, the penalty changes. For instance, object: If
  the bhikkhu kills a dog, the penalty is a pacittiya (i.e. a less-severe penalty]. Perception: If he cremates a
  friend, thinking that the friend is dead, then even if the friend is actually alive but
  severely comatose, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. Intention: If he accidentally
  drops a rock on a person standing below him, he incurs no penalty even if the
  person dies. Effort: If he sees a person fall into the river but makes no effort to
  save the person, he incurs no penalty even if the person drowns. Result: If he
  tries to kill a person, but only succeeds in injuring him, he incurs a thullaccaya [which is another less-severe penalty].

While usually we understand an "action" to be equated to its effects (e.g. the act of killing would be the act of "turning" a living thing dead),  in Buddhism, intention is often equated with action, as per the sutra AN 6.63:

cetanāhaṃ bhikkave kammaṃ vadāmi
Intention, I tell you, is kamma (action)

Thus, wholesome and unwholesome actions are not simply judged by it's effects. They are also not judged solely by one's intention, but generally also by one's (lack of) wisdom (i.e. by one's ignorance of the workings of dukkha).
In Buddhism, it's not a dilemma a well-intended person doing something foolish (both the intention and the foolish act are distinguished).
Nevertheless, I think one is ultimately not really accounted for what lies outside the touch of the senses and the consciousness of the sensed data (as exemplified in @ChrisW's answer). Thus, killing a living being by stepping on it without having sensed it was there is not quite considered an act of killing.

Sinful Killing/Intentional Killing
You can determine yourself whether it is intentional killing or not by checking as follows.

Before physically kill any living being, do you or don't you have intention to kill.
In the process of killing (like pressing [on insect], hitting, cutting, thrusting) you know yourself (you are aware of) doing killing.
After the killing is done you see the living being is killed (or injured) and you are pleased to see that happens (you justify that it is killed and right to kill).

Any of three is happened on your mind? You committed "Killing" karma. It is subtle point that you break the first precept or not by completing three steps above. But it is bad Karma if you did any one of the three steps and you should expect reflection of your deed. Sometimes the state of mind and transition of mind during killing process was very fast and one or all of the steps seems not happened. But careful analysis might show it happened very fast in your mind. The most important point here is let bygone be bygone. Do not let the notion that you committed killing linger in your mind. You need to move on. You need to determine yourself you will not break first precept in future. Every end of the day you didn't do killing you should have notion and keep that notion with pleased yourself to multiply good karma.

To add to the already good spread of answers here,  carelessness is something to be avoided.  Stepping on an ant can still add up,  especially if throughout the week it becomes ants.
If you can avoid it,  but do not avoid it,  you are in some sense complacent.
Now if there is the situation where one was completely unaware of the situation and did not see the bug until it was too late...  Well that is different.
But if the sidewalk is flowing with ants,  and one knows this,  one should watch their step as they traverse the path...  And maybe put ones phone away for the few minutes of travel,  and try to just be, and observe  things as they are.

Monks have habits ... even rules ... to avoid accidental killing: filtering water before drinking it, for example, and not digging in live earth.

@ChrisW true indeed,  I tailored this to a layman's perspective.

Yes,
if you killed someone but you had no intention of killing or hurting them and it happened accidentally, then you did not break the precept.
Intention determines all karma

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


text:
Computers and Buddhist monks, offering computer to monk makes bad karma to both monk and donor?
Yes, in this information age, computer is like essential part in normal people life. But for monks, does it apply same way like that? Or computer can make harm than good to a monk?
Does a book is better than electronic book on computer (in term of donation and uses by monk)?
Typewriter (or more basic pen and book) is more distract-free than a computer?
In this cruel world of advertisement, it is almost impossible a monk can avoid some explicit content while browsing internet. And internet and computer can be a great deal of wasting precious time of a monk if improperly used. Monks are not allowed to use/manipulate money but money is required to use a computer (buying softwares/applications/electronic books etc). Piracy is another serious potential issue for a monk who uses computer (it could lead to end of monk's life if stealing is involved).
So is it better not to offer a computer to a monk or is there any chance that computer cannot make any harm to donor and monk both? If there are more harm than good, why do we need to care to offer a computer to a monk?
If you are a monk and using computer but you are almost free from the harms that I described above, please let me know how this can be achieved? Please include do and don't if possible. It is expected that practices are Vinaya-complied uses of computer.

Are you asking everyone's opinion? Good answers are usually based on references, or on personal experience. What kind of personal experience would someone need to answer this question? Are you looking for opinions from everyone who has ever used a computer? Or only from monks (who, if they are users on this site, are presumably using a computer in some way)?

Isn't it a bit rude to say that it's impossible for a monk to avoid advertisements for pornography while browsing the internet? And, as well as rude, I think it's untrue: the sites I browse (including this one) don't advertise pornography. So may I delete that sentence from the question? Saying "it is almost impossible a monk can avoid" says that any monk with internet access will not avoid pornography.

I really, REALLY WISH people would not use the term "Buddhism" when they mean a very particular FLAVOR of Buddhism. Vajrayana and to some extent Mahayana Buddhists, including Zen, would consider this a silly question, as it doesn't relate to their path, and they don't even have the idea of 'sin', which is another word I never think should be used in any sentence containing the word "Buddhism".

You start off asking about computers but then move on to using the internet. I do not see using a computer meaning that one is using the internet. Maybe this should be changed to ask about internet usage rather than computer use, since computer use does not imply internet usage.

In western monasteries isn't not uncommon for monks to use computers to teach the dhamma online or write books. However, a monk wont own the computer, you'll be giving the computer to the sangha.
You shouldn't have to worry about whether a pen or a computer is more of a distraction, the monk should be able to handle his own mind and distraction. If he knows that a computer is too distracting for himself then he will use a pen.
As for the Vinaya, you may want to search for terms "piracy" and "pornography" in Thannisaro Bhikkhu's book The Buddhist Monastic code I.
Piracy isn't against the vinaya but if a monk wanted to avoid piracy then unintentional stealing is not against the Vinaya. Accidentally seeing pornography isn't against the Vinaya but staring lustfully at a woman's parts (without intending on emitting semen) earns the lowest punishment- a dukhata.

I understand your answer indicates offering computer to Sanga instead of individual monk and proper administration on computer usage of monks.

[Note: This is/was a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Book of zen kōans
I am looking for a book of kōans that contains things like the following:

Nasreddin Khodja commanded his disciples, when he sneezed, to salute him by clapping their hands and crying out: "Haïr Ollah, Khodja," that is "Prosperity to thee, O Master!" Now it came to pass that on one of the days the bucket fell into the well [...] he descended, caught the bucket, and the boys were already pulling him up, when, just as he was drawing near the edge of the well, he chanced to sneeze. Whereupon they, mindful of the master's behest, let go the rope and, clapping their hands in high glee, cried out in chorus: "Haïr Ollah, Khodja," Nasreddin was precipitated violently into the well, bruising himself against the sides. [...] "Well, boys, it was not your fault, but mine: too much honour is no good thing for man."

And:

A  farmer’s horse ran away. His  neighbors gathered upon hearing the news and said sympathetically, “That’s such  bad luck.”
  “Maybe,” the  farmer replied.
The horse  returned on his own the next morning, and brought seven wild horses with it.  “Look how many more horses you have now,” the neighbors exclaimed. “How  lucky!”
  “Maybe,” the  farmer replied.
The next day, the  farmer’s son attempted to ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his  leg. “How awful,” the neighbors said. “It looks like your luck has turned for  the worse again.”
  The farmer simply  replied, “Maybe.”
The following  day, military officers came to town to conscript young men into the service.  Seeing the son’s broken leg, they rejected him. The neighbors gathered round the  farmer to tell him how fortunate he was.
  “Maybe,” said the  farmer.

And:

An elder monk was addressing his students with a large staff. He asked the first student, "What is the Buddha mind?" The first student answered as well as he could, and said "To know the Buddha nature in all things." The elder monk hit the first student in the head with the staff.
He went to the next student, and asked again: "What is the Buddha mind?" The next student answered "non attachment," and the elder monk hit him with the stick, too.
He asked the third student the same question, and the third student did nothing but quake in fear. That student got a knock on the head as well.
The process continued until one of the elder monk's students, before the elder monk had even finished his question, grabbed the stick out of his hand. That was the correct answer.

And:

A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."

Is there such a book? If so, what is its name?
I would like to read more of these types of enlightening little stories.
I don't like kōans that are heavy on doctrines.

Two of the ones you quoted are new to me (and two are not).
There's a collection of 101 such stories here: http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

These koans, or parables, were translated into English from a book called the Shaseki-shu (Collection of Stone and Sand), written late in the thirteenth century by the Japanese Zen teacher Muju (the "non-dweller"), and from anecdotes of Zen monks taken from various books published in Japan around the turn of the 20th century.

I think this is a well-known collection; I don't know whether you consider it "heavy on doctrines".

This is a great collection that I do not consider "heavy on doctrines". Thanks for sharing!

I just noticed that your first quote isn't a Buddhist koan: it's one of the tales of the "Mullah Nasreddin". There are anthologies of those (see e.g. the Wikipedia article, and several more listed here).

I think it's important to point out that what you are citing aren't koans per se.  Excepting the third one you've quoted, these would be better labeled as stories or parables.  A koan doesn't try to convey an intellectual lesson but rather attempts to point out either an obstacle a student is wrestling with or a characteristic of the enlightened mind.
Every koan (literally a legal case) can be separated into two parts.  First, there is usually a little story that may or may not make much sense to us intellectually.  A example that will be familiar to most is the Buddha holding up a flower on Vulture Peak.  The second part of the koan is called the turning phrase.  This phrase expresses the "essence" of the koan.  A teacher usually provides you with that.  I mean, you really can't tease out the essence of a koan until you've answered it, right?  ;-) (And I'd say that even after you answer it, you still might not understand its essence!)
The turning phrase is probably the most important part of the koan.  It's what the student would apply their mind to in meditation - saying that phrase on every out breath.  I'd even go so far as to say that it's what makes the koan what it is...and it's the reason why the sources you quoted don't quite pass muster as an official koan.  The turning phrase is both the vehicle for entering mushin (e.g. one-pointed attention on emptiness) and the place where insight occurs.  In the example of Buddha holding up a flower, the student would say "flower" on every out breath.  As the student did this, their mind would become collected and blank.  As their mind settled into mushin, they would then begin to explore what the word "flower" was really pointing at.
Three of the best known koan collections are the Mumonkan, The Blue Cliff Record, and the Book of Serenity.  If you are interested in learning more about koans, I cannot recommend Sekida's translations of the Mumonkon and Blue Cliff Record highly enough.  They're the best available in English and his footnotes are indispensable.  If you are interested in practicing Zen and really want to learn what these koan things are all about, you absolutely must work with a teacher.  Zen is very much an oral tradition of live transmission.  You can't go it alone.

The Gateless Gate is a classic koan compilation.

That article says to "see also" two further collections: Book of Equanimity, and Blue Cliff Record.

There is  a YouTube channel / site where actual Zen masters will read out  koans for a crispy treat the gateless gate is really good and if you can track a copy of " the Zen bible " that has a mixture of study and story.. Also our of Zen ...the gospel of Buddha has very early stories similar to koans ..one such story is of a mother grieving for only son ....it's titled story of mustard seeds.. Just. Google this info and enjoy :: edit just go into Google ...then YouTube type in Zen talks ...the Zen bible is also on Google it's in my very congested room it would take me a day to retrieve please understand I use Google plus input topic and there you go...

What's the URL or title of the YouTube channel? What's the title or author of the "the Zen bible"? The story of the mustard seed is here (it's not exactly a Zen koan).

If we are being pedantic ...is there any reason why you haven't got instant dharma on Google ?? As for mustard seed I said it's like a koan ie a story

If I could guess what you were referring to by reading https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube%20zen%20talks and/or https://www.google.com/search?q=%20zen%20bible then I'd edit your post myself; but what you wrote isn't specific enough for me to use Google to find what you were referring to.

See also How should we deal with Google questions? which is part of the Stack Exchange FAQ.


text:
Six Senses and Four elements
The six senses are arises from NamaRupa in PaticcaSamuppada. NamaRupa paccaya Salayathana. So basically all 6 senses are a combination of Mentality(Nama) and Form (Rupa - which is a combination of the four great elements).
How is the mind (6th sense) created from the Form? As in from the 4 elements? Is it created from unseen molecular level 4 elements?
Is it somewhat similar to Light? Where light was considered as an energy but later it was considered as both energy and particles as well?

In case of the mind-sense(the stream of Bhavaangha cittas), the object received by the sense is a thought itself. There's no physical element involved. That's why Arupa beings only have the mind sense.
'Energy' is a concept. There's no such thing according to Buddhism. Even sunlight is said to be containing the pure octad. Anything physical is Rupa and the rest is Nama.

PaticcaSamuppada is about how ignorance pollutes/taints the elements & senses leading to the creation of suffering rather than about how the elements & senses are physically or neurologically created, as shown in the following quote:

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. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
SN 22.18

Therefore, when 'nama-rupa' is polluted & controlled by ignorance (remaining unchecked), this will lead to the sense organs being polluted & controlled by ignorance.
PaticcaSamuppada is about psychology rather than about biology.

True. But PaticcaSamuppada also tells that Ignorance is the reason why we are still in the sansara right? If so, If ignorance is the main reason and the chain starts and goes on, cause of nama rupa the 6 six senses arises. If the 6 six sense arises and are caused by nama rupa then formation is also cause by it right? Which means the cause of all 6 including the mind is an effect of the cause nama rupa. My question is the mind an effect of the rupa?

You seem to be saying life itself on this planet Earth is 'samsara' rather than 'samsara' being something happening within the mind internally, i.e., the mind spinning around in thoughts & egoism due to the spinning around of ignorance & craving. As for PaticcaSamuppada, as i gave my opinion, it is not about how the mind & body come to be biologically.

For a biological explanation, AN 3.61 states the six elements are the cause of nama-rupa (mind-body). SN 22.82 states nama-rupa (mind-body) is the cause of consciousness. Buddhism does not answer the question 'is the mind an effect of rupa'? All Buddhism states is nama & rupa are interdependent; that they cannot exist without each other. That said, if one is to follow logic, it is most likely nama is an effect of the rupa since when people have brain injuries the nama can malfunction. In SN 12.61, it is said the rupa is more permanent than nama, which supports an argument nama comes from rupa

Another argument that supports the view that nama as an effect of rupa is the description of the 'cessation of perception & feeling' in MN 43, which is compared to being close to a dead body (corpse) but not quite. In this meditative state, the mind completely becomes unconscious & inactive & the breathing completely stops yet what remains active is the life force & heat of the body. This shows the mind can totally stop functioning but the body remains alive.

No no. I understand that Earth life is not samsara. I'm just having a difficulty understanding the transition here. You said that the "Buddhism does not answer the question 'is the mind an effect of rupa'? ". I guess if we think about the paticca Samupaddas, cause of namarupa the six senses arises. Each of the senses has it's own version of nama rupa. Ex: When we take the eye,(Mentality aspect/ Nama) we have feeling of the eye, perception of the eye, thought(cetana) of the eye, contact of the eye, Manasikara of the eye.

And the form "eye" (the materialistic aspect/ Rupa) is caused due to the four elements. Same version is there for the mind as well. Mind - feeling,perception, cetana, contact  and manasikara which is the nama aspect. my confusion was what is the rupa aspect of the mind?

Also another question that arose from your comments. Now we have the "mind" sense if the six senses. Then is the Nama the same mind as well? If we call Nama the mind then how is that same mind included in the six senses? Could you please clarify that part as well my friend

Rupa = material. Nama = immaterial. They depend on eachother, that is all. The word 'nama' means 'mental inclination' ('namati'). When nama is influenced by ignorance, its feelings, perceptions, intentions, contact & attention 'incline' towards seeking gratification thru the six senses.

An easy way of viewing it is 'nama-rupa' is that which experiences Dependent Origination. Nama-rupa experiences ignorance, the sankhara, consciousness, itself, the sense bases. contact,...etc....to suffering. When nama-rupa is mindful, it can turn back Dependent Origination by calming the sankhara (samatha) & ending ignorance (vipassana). If nama-rupa is not mindful, it becomes overwhelmed & controlled by ignorance, thus using its feeling, perception, intention, etc, to create more feelings, cravings, attachments, becoming, egoism, suffering, etc.

There are six elements. 4 physicals(relate to Mass), space(relate to Dark matter) and consciousness(relate to time).

“‘Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements.’ So it was said. And
  with reference to what was this said? There are the earth element, the
  water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element,
  and the consciousness element. So it was with reference to this that
  it was said: ‘Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements.’(Dhātuvibhaṅga)

The Buddhist explanation about these phenomena (patichchasamuthpada) is.

The teaching of interdependent co-creation is based on an
  understanding of the twelve causal links (davadasa nidana) producing
  what is called the cycle or the wheel of existence (bhavacakra). What
  this means is that there are twelve causal steps in the arising and
  passing away of phenomena in general, and understanding these steps
  helps the seeker to free themselves from the bonds of worldly karma.

Namarupa.

Name and Form (namarupa, characterization) – this term is used in
  Buddhism to mean that feature of a thing which defines one object from
  another. There is, in other words, a discriminative movement here.
  Objective 'characterization' – the distinction of a thing – derives
  from the particular focus of perception that has arisen from whatever
  specific force of creation we are referring to. You see, from the
  Buddha's point of view, everything existing arises from a mental state
  of knowing; that is, from awareness. Awareness is key to everything.
  Nothing exists in a state where they is absolutely no awareness of it.

Salayathana.

Six Sense Fields (sadayatana) – the six sense fields or "objects of
  sense-perception" are rudimentary at this stage. They subliminally
  consist of visible form or what amounts to light vibrations, as the
  sense-field of seeing; sound vibrations, as the sense field of
  hearing; scent or odour vibrations, as the sense field of smelling;
  taste vibrations, as the sense-field of tasting; tangible vibrations,
  as the sense field of touch; and internal mental phenomena in general,
  as the sense field of mental-consciousness. In other words, each
  'perception' must have an object in the form of the perceptional field
  of vibrations that will impinge upon the six sense organs, and which
  those organs then relay to the brain. It is actually from 'name and
  form,' the distinguishing characteristic of things, whence these
  fields arise. Without having their specific character differentials,
  it would not be possible to distinguish one field from another.

For more refer this.
Right view. from Kaccanagotta

At Savatthī. Then the Venerable Kaccanagotta approached the Blessed
  One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:
  “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘right view, right view.’ In what way,
  venerable sir, is there right view?”
“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon
  the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one
  who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom,
  there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one
  who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct
  wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.....

For Theravada explanation Dhathuvibanga sutta of The Exposition of the Elements

The subtle most level of mind is understood to have
no defining characteristics(2)
no origination (3)
no cessation (4)
absence of defilement (5)
not undefiled (6)
no decrease (7)
no increase (8)
Those are 7 of the 8 profound emptiness (Tsongkhapa).  The 1st is that all things are empty.
the three doors to emptiness:
1 and 2 are emptiness, the thing itself
3, 4, 5, 6 are signlessness the cause of emptiness
7, 8 are wishlessness the result of emptiness
So the answer to your question is that the mind is not created it is understood to always have existed.  Also see mindstream.


text:
What enters the mind of an idle Buddha?
What enters the mind of a Buddha when left idle? Suppose a Buddha were confined to a hospital bed or prison cell. One cannot remain within the conditioned states of jhana indefinitely. If one is unconditionally content, even in states of pain, it would seem there is no need to reflect or contemplate anything. Can you cite specific examples from the Buddha's life?

From parinibbana suttha

16: The Gracious One’s Sickness

Then the Gracious One, after living near Ambapālī’s Wood for as long
  as he liked, addressed venerable Ānanda, saying: “Come Ānanda let us
  approach the little village of Beluva.”
“Very well, reverend Sir,” venerable Ānanda replied to the Gracious
  One. Then the Gracious One together with a great Community of monks
  arrived at the little village of Beluva. There the Gracious One lived
  near the little village of Beluva.
There the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Go, monks, and
  undertake the Rains Retreat in the vicinity of Vesālī living like
  friends, like companions, like comrades, and I will spend the Rains
  Retreat right here at the little village of Beluva.”
“Very well, reverend Sir,” and those monks, after replying to the
  Gracious One, undertook the Rains Retreat in the vicinity of Vesālī
  living like friends, like companions, like comrades. But the Gracious
  One spent the Rains Retreat right there at the little village of
  Beluva.
Then while dwelling for the Rains Retreat, a heavy affliction arose
  for the Gracious One, and continued with strong and death-like
  feelings. There the Gracious One dwelt mindfully, with full awareness,
  and without being troubled. Then this occurred to the Gracious One:
  “It is not suitable that I, without having addressed my attendants,
  without having given notice to the Community of monks, should attain
  Final Emancipation. Having energetically dismissed this affliction, I
  could live on after determining the lifespan.”
Then the Gracious One having energetically dismissed that affliction
  lived on after determining the lifespan. Then the Gracious One’s
  affliction abated. Then, the Gracious One, having risen from that
  sickness, not long after rising, departed from the Sick Room and sat
  down on the prepared seat in front of that Room.
Then venerable Ānanda approached the Gracious One, and after
  approaching and worshipping the Gracious One, he sat down on one side.
  While sitting on one side venerable Ānanda said this to the Gracious
  One:
“I have seen, reverend Sir, the Gracious One comfortable, I have seen,
  reverend Sir, the Gracious One bearing up while sick, and my body,
  reverend Sir, became faint as it were, and although I could not see
  straight, and things were not clear, it appeared to me, reverend Sir,
  that the Gracious One was sick, but it was some small comfort that the
  Gracious One would not attain Final Emancipation until the Gracious
  One had spoken regarding the Community of monks.”
“But what, Ānanda, does the Community of monks expect of me? The
  Teaching has been taught by me, Ānanda, without having made a
  distinction between esoteric and exoteric, for the Realised One there
  is nothing, Ānanda, of a closed teacher’s fist in regard to the
  Teaching.
To whoever, Ānanda, this thought occurs: ‘I will lead the Community of
  monks’ or ‘I am the instructer of the Community of monks’ let him
  speak, Ānanda, regarding the Community of monks. But to the Realised
  One, Ānanda, this thought does not occur: ‘I will lead the Community
  of monks’ or ‘I am the instructor of the Community of monks’. Then
  why, Ānanda, should the Realised One speak regarding the Community of
  monks?
I, Ānanda, at present, am old, elderly, of great age, far gone,
  advanced in years, I am eighty years old. It is like, Ānanda, an old
  cart, which only keeps going when shored up with bamboo, just so,
  Ānanda, I think the Realised One’s body only keeps going when shored
  up with bamboo.
When the Realised One doesn’t pay attention, Ānanda, to any of the
  signs, when all feelings have ceased, he lives having established the
  signless mind-concentration, and at that time, Ānanda, the Realised
  One’s body is most comfortable.
Therefore, Ānanda, live with yourself as an island, yourself as a
  refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the
  Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge. And how, Ānanda, does a
  monk live with himself as an island, himself as a refuge, with no
  other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a
  refuge, with no other refuge?
Here, Ānanda, a monk dwells contemplating the nature of the body in
  the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and
  sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of
  feelings in feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing
  avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the
  nature of the mind in the mind, ardent, fully aware, and mindful,
  after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells
  contemplating the nature of things in various things, ardent, fully
  aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the
  world.
Thus, Ānanda, a monk lives with himself as an island, himself as a
  refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the
  Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge. For whoever, Ānanda,
  whether at present or after my passing, lives with himself as an
  island, himself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching
  as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge, those
  monks of mine, Ānanda, will go from darkness to the highest—whoever
  likes the training.”
The Second Chapter for Recital is Finished.

http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta4/39-Moggalana-Samyutta/01-Moggallanasamyuttam-e.html

A Buddha would meditate or, as was posted, not reflect on or contemplate anything. The scriptures do report the Buddha often disappeared for periods of solitude (eg. SN 54.9).
Otherwise, a Buddha might use psychic powers to teach people (eg. AN 6.55).

From the Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1):

Then, while he (Buddha) was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose
  in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to
  see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation
  delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment.
  For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment,
  enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising
  are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of
  all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending
  of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach
  the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be
  tiresome for me, troublesome for me."
As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at
  ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.
Then Brahma Sahampati, having known with his own awareness the line of
  thinking in the Blessed One's awareness, thought: "The world is lost!
  The world is destroyed! The mind of the Tathagata, the Arahant, the
  Rightly Self-awakened One inclines to dwelling at ease, not to
  teaching the Dhamma!" Then, just as a strong man might extend his
  flexed arm or flex his extended arm, Brahma Sahampati disappeared from
  the Brahma-world and reappeared in front of the Blessed One. Arranging
  his upper robe over one shoulder, he knelt down with his right knee on
  the ground, saluted the Blessed One with his hands before his heart,
  and said to him: "Lord, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the
  One-Well-Gone teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in
  their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma.
  There will be those who will understand the Dhamma."

From the Tapokammasutta (SN 4.1):

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Uruvela on the bank
  of the river Nerañjara at the foot of the Goatherd’s Banyan Tree just
  after he had become fully enlightened. Then, while the Blessed One
  was alone in seclusion, a reflection arose in his mind thus: “I am
  indeed freed from that gruelling asceticism! It is good indeed that I
  am freed from that useless gruelling asceticism! It is good that,
  steady and mindful, I have attained enlightenment!”
Then Mara the Evil One, having known with his own mind the reflection
  in the Blessed One’s mind, approached the Blessed One and addressed
  him in verse:
“Having deviated from the austere practice
  By which men purify themselves,
  Being impure, you think you’re pure:
  You have missed the path to purity.”
Then the Blessed One, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,”
  replied to him in verses:
“Having known as useless any austerity
  Aimed at the immortal state,
  That all such penances are futile
  Like oars and rudder on dry land,
By developing the path to enlightenment—
  Virtue, concentration, and wisdom—
  I have attained supreme purity:
  You’re defeated, End-maker!”
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, “The Blessed One knows me, the
  Fortunate One knows me,” sad and disappointed, disappeared right
  there.

Agree on this ...it has always been an aim of mine to be content  in any situation the term grounded in dharma also comes to mind .

after his enlightenment, the Buddha could have spent the rest of his life in idle non-doing but did not. He continued teaching the dhamma until its end when he was no longer given a choice. Why? Is non-doing alone not sufficient for sustainable contentment?

Buddha did Arahata Phala Samapatta (Extinguished, emptiness and neglecting any sankhara needed to be maintained, in brief Buddha was in the state of leaning Nirvana), in between his daily routines and his discourses on Dhamma.
When people are in aversion each other Buddha stayed with Metta, when people are in vain with debate/disagreement Buddha stayed with Upekkha. Buddha looked for people with sufferings to discourse Dhamma with Karuna Samapatta in every morning.


text:
What do Buddhists do to prevent sexual desires?
Does Buddhism do anything to prevent sexual desires?
Do they do anything to lower sexual desires?
Prevent eating certain foods or something similar?

Yes, they do something to lower sexual desire. Sexual desire is a form of sensual desire which is the first of the 5 Hindrances to meditation practice. The commentaries to the Satipatthana Sutta list 6 antidotes for sensual desire:

Learning how to meditate on impure objects
Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure
Guarding the sense doors
Moderation in eating
Noble friendship
Suitable conversation

The first two methods refer to the practice of Asubha Bhavana (the meditation on the foulness and impurity of the body), which explicitly counteracts sexual lust and is one of the Four Protective Meditations. In this technique you examine your own body by looking at  each of the 32 body parts individually. The purpose is to see the sign of the unattractive nature of the human body.

"And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body hemmed by the skin and full of manifold impurity from the soles up, and from the top of the hair down, thinking thus: 'There are in this body hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, fibrous threads (veins, nerves, sinews, tendons), bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, contents of stomach, intestines, mesentery, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, solid fat, tars, fat dissolved, saliva, mucus, synovic fluid, urine.'
"Just as if, O bhikkhus, there were a bag having two openings, full of grain differing in kind, namely, hill-paddy, paddy, ...; and a man with seeing eyes, having loosened it, should reflect thinking thus: 'This is hill paddy; this is paddy, ...' In the same way, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on just this body hemmed in by the skin and full of manifold impurity from the soles up, and from the top of the hair down, thinking thus: 'There are in this body: hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, ...' - MN 10

A very good practical guide is in the video series of Bhikkhu Bodhi's course of the 4 protective meditations

Ways to prevent sexual desire are described in the Bharadvaja Sutta.
Here, the best method for developing the "lifelong chaste life, perfect & pure, and make it last entire lives" is advised to be development of 'loving-kindness & compassion' ('metta-karuna'), namely:

'With regard to women who are old enough to be your mother, establish the attitude you would have toward your mother. With regard to women
  who are old enough to be your sister, establish the attitude you'd
  have toward a sister. With regard to women who are young enough to be
  your daughter, establish the attitude you'd have toward a daughter.'

When 'loving-kindness & compassion' (which require wisdom) are not strong enough for "unruly" minds, the next method the Bharadvaja Sutta prescribes is the (theoretically popular although less effective) method of 'asubhaṃ' (loathsomeness) found in many suttas (together with metta & compassion), such as in MN 62, MN 118, etc, as follows:

Asubhaṃ rāhula bhāvanaṃ bhāvehi. Asubhaṃ hi te rāhula bhāvanaṃ bhāvayato yo rāgo so pahīyissati.
Develop the meditation of the unattractive [loathsome]. For when you are developing the meditation of the unattractive, lust will be
  abandoned.

In general, during the Buddha's time & also today, men & women left/lost interest in the family life to become monks & nuns because they reflected upon the burdens & problems of the family life.
From a strict Buddhist perspective, sexual promiscuity is not an alternative to the family life because sexual promiscuity is regarded as harmful. Here, there are basically two sexual choices, particularly for a man: (i) serve or be the support for a woman, in her needs & wants; or (ii) celibacy.
Therefore, when the harm, burdens, obligations, disadvantages & unsatisfactoriness of sexuality are reflected upon, in addition to what is truly loving & compassionate for others, sexual desire reduces, is brought under control or even disappears.

To provide my perspective on this question "Many Buddhists do not, indeed recognize they cannot, prevent sexual desire.. they prevent attachment to sexual desire fulfillment. This can be accomplished through renunciation, meditation and right action. Any statement that 'desire' is to be conquered should be restated as 'attachment' is to be conquered."
All of these suttas that prescribe visualizing the objects of those desires as disgusting or unattractive merely subverts, but never addresses, the attachment, nor the desire in and of itself. In fact, taken to extreme, such practices often cause one to develop a new desire even more powerful than the original, but in the opposite direction. Hence, you are running in place, achieving nothing, if you do not recognize the desire itself cannot be conquered.
Renunciation is not about rejection.. it is about contemplation. A desire arises, we watch it rise, we discover its roots and the roots of our attachment to it through non-action. But rejecting a desire, or subverting it, is contrary to the entire point of Attainment. You can certainly engage in rejection as part of your path, but believing that rejection is anything other than acceptance is the wrong idea.
Also, I think we REALLY need to be more specific as to WHAT school of Buddhism we are talking about when we answer questions like this.
It is true that according to some paths, including some aspects of the original interpretations of the Eightfold path (which, by the way, some argue was distorted from the Buddha's intentions by charismatic ascetics.. I am neutral on this) what you say about sexual desire and sensual pleasures is correct.
It is also true that there are paths that acknowledge sensual pleasure as a part of the path, and advocate a different route to mastery over desires. We could even say that these paths might be more in line with what Ananda believed to be so (that would be a stretch, but it is defensible).
The idea that sexual desire is harmful is an absolutely horrible way to talk about this situation. Even within the most renunciatory path, it must be admitted that desires are not a target for elimination, but attachment TO those desires. We must admit to everyone and ourselves that renunciation has nothing to do with eliminating desire.. but with eliminating attachment.
It must also be admitted that we need to look at any sutta with a liberal dose of grains of salt. These things were written in the Bronze age (in general) and any particular advocacy of behavior during that time must be put in context with that age, otherwise its utility is lost. Foe example, it could be argued that any renunciation of sexual pleasure was primarily advocated so as to help monks avoid entanglements, which would be brought about by pregnancy.. most especially considering how the predominant culture treated such a situation (aka if you abandoned a pregnant woman you were dooming her to suffering). With modern birth control, there may not be a need for this proscription, as worded, anymore.
When you say (or anyone says, including those sayings in the suttas) that desire needs to be conquered, you immediately setup dissonance that is impossible to satisfy. This is useful to a Religious Organization, but has no bearing on Enlightenment or Attainment, unless a school's intention is to enlighten through dissonance, which is a common thread in some.
In any event, It is attachment that is the enemy, not desire. Which is why the translation of 'taṇhā' is so important. And it is why I sincerely think that we must  stop fetishizing the suttas as somehow 'inviolable' or as some sort of unerring guide to life.
We are thousands of years away from the events and sayings in the suttas.. they are useful and wise, but not perfect, nor even directly applicable to our daily lives. It seems to me that our job is to extract meaning and intent from all of it, not to slavishly follow proscriptions established in a time of <1% literacy.

I don't get the point about literacy in your posts all the time...you don't need to be literate for survival or to do many things, we're all born illiterate. Being literate by itself doesn't help with much, it's just used for communication, preserving a thought or idea...the actual achievement of arahantship doesn't rely on literacy much just like the achievement of most other things. So why do you keep emphasizing literacy a lot in your posts?

Because I am trying to point out that ancient culture was primitive by comparison to our own, and that being an adult who is illiterate, and totally uneducated, means that subtle concepts will be lost on you, and you will be a slave to superstition, most certainly for the 100,000 years we were around without telephones or internet.... thus the drive in the suttas to teach through experience and dissonance. This is no longer true today, given the world's overall 80%+ literacy rate.  However people are looking at the suttas as "true". They are not, and were not intended that way.

Ok...so how you define primitive? Why is illiteracy primitive? Like I said you don't need to be literate for survival or to achieve arahantship, it's debatable if literacy is actually good or bad since reading causes nausea and headaches and obviously our brain was never specified to be literate. Many resources are wasted on literacy.
Illiterate people can understand and learn the same things orally, with images, or videos.
The difference between literate and illiterate is oral vs. written. Someone can have false views or sayings "written down"...how does it make it better?

I am talking about how things are. There is no absolute to compare to, and I am not sure your comment about illiteracy not being "bad" is relevant, since literacy has created a world where people are warm, well fed, and healthy as compared to 2000 years ago. If there is anything we can look at as a "good" in modern life, that is it. Since the suttas were designed for a world not like ours, they need to be reinterpreted to fit modern culture. Buddhism never stayed static, nor was it supposed to. I am saying we need to move it towards a new modality that fits with modern culture.

To my understanding ...Buddhists and not celebent monks would experience sexual desires at appointed times in life such as adolescent boys and girls post legal age of 16 in Victoria Australia ...however to ACT on these impulses would be dangerous for untrained minds .perhaps Buddhist would have an advantage as mediation gives insight into behaviour of  desires / craving and one can observe rather than react in ignorance .  nut shell yes I believe Buddhist can do and only by choice react or dismiss such thoughts on sex .

Its not a sin in Buddhism to have a high sexual drive.
You cannot prevent sexual desiveres unless you attained nirvana. Even monks get sexual desires because we cannot control our mind.
You said Buddhists so I assume you mean un ordained people like you and me, not monks (who have much stricter code). Unordained people have to live by the five precepts. We had to say this verse before school starts back when I was in Srilanka and we said it in pali but the translation is and some words I don't know the exact words:
1 I will not kill, harm any living things.
2 I will not steal or take anything that isn't mine
3 I will not have wrong sexual relations. Sex isn't banned or even restricted in Buddhism.
4 I will not gossip or say things that will hurt other people.
5 I will not take any alchohol/cigarette/drug substances (I don't know the exact translation from Pali to Sinhala in this much less the English translation  for the 5th but you get the idea)
So these are the five things normal people should follow to live a happy life. Having lived in a traditional Buddhist country before moving for college, I can say that well sex isn't a taboo unless you're cheating etc. The mind cannot be controlled unless you attain nirvna so until then its normal to feel sexual desires, hate, jelousy etc. There are no rules for unordained people in Budddhism. Instead a set of guidelines to follow and people can choose to follow them or not. Bad karma will have bad results and good deeds will have good results


text:
How cognition can be explained in Buddha's Abidhamma?
Cognition, how it happens on one's mind? Is there any comprehensible English explanation about it?

According to the Abhidhamma, a single cognitive experience consists of 17 continuous thought moments. Here is a useful Abhidhamma manual which explains those 17 thought moments. Look for the "Mind in its passive and active forms" section.


text:
Why didn't Buddhism become Popular in India in Lord Buddha's time?
In Ancient India when Prince Siddhartha became Lord Buddha, Buddhism started. After that so many people in India followed Buddhism.

As per this Map in India shows very little stats having Buddhism, so my question is if Buddhism is a very good religion why didn't it go all over India, Why is Buddhism not popular in India in Lord Buddha's time?

No radio , no TV, No facebook, no flashmob...

even in that time Gossiping had..!!!

The people with more gossip had less time to transfer the dharma than that with less gossip... just the same as today... ;-)

Also I don't know whether there was a common/standard language? Neither English nor Hindi in those days. People don't know whether Pali was a vernacular (local to one kingdom), or whether it was derived from a non-standard form of Sanskrit. And/or I don't know whether everyone understood Sanskrit, but the vedas were already a thousand years old by then and so my guess is that it was a literary/scholarly/religious language (e.g. like the Latin language has been, in the West).

From the Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1): the Buddha thought that it would be too hard to teach the dhamma and considered not doing so.

Then, while he (Buddha) was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose
  in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to
  see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. .....
  And if I were to teach
  the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be
  tiresome for me, troublesome for me."

Reading on, Brahma Sahampati requested the Buddha to teach the dhamma, saying that there would be those (with little dust in their eyes) who would understand it.

Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of
  compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened
  One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and
  those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those
  with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those
  hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world. Just
  as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born and
  growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water,
  without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level
  with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand
  without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with
  the eye of an Awakened One, the Blessed One saw beings with little
  dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and
  those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those
  easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger
  in the other world.

So, from the Buddha's perspective, not many would be qualified to truly understand the dhamma when he first taught it. This would explain why it does not become wildly popular in his time.
Like some other religions, Buddhism got adopted by the masses due to being endorsed by the rulers who have accepted it.

Okay, let me start by saying I'm not a super religious person but having lived in Srilanka, right next to India and a Buddhist country qualifies me to answer this.
Indians at the time of Gautama Buddha were mostly Hindus and had a caste system where the Brahmans, the teachers of Hinduisms were on the top and the poor was at the very bottom. The poor literally had to jump in to the drains when people of higher castes were traveling on the same road. The Buddha, however, opposed the caste system and he was very ambiguous about the creator deity Brahmans and Eternal self Atman and rejected them both.
So, there were somewhat of a tension between hindu brahmins and buddhist monks. The Buddha however did not deny the existence of gods (devas) and said that the did exist in other worlds that is better than our world but are subjected to the same samsaric sufferings as humans. They too die but they have much larger life spans compared to us. Humans can go to these heavens if they do enough good deeds and when it runs out, they will be reborn depending on their karmas.
Buddhism attained prominence as it was supported by Royal courts and virtually disappeared from India after the fall of the Guptas. By the 8th century Shiva and Vishnu.
However, Emperor Ashoka who ruled most of India from Afghan mountains to Bangladesh was greatly responsible among other kings for spreading Buddhism around the world. He created Nalanda a huge library containing Buddhist documents and even some Hellenic people turned to Buddhism during his reign as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan. He sent his own son and daughter to Srilanka with a branch from the tree that the Buddha attained Nibbana and ordained the king and the royal court at the time.
Troops from the Muslim Malmuk Dynasty later destroyed Nalanda, along with a huge number of Buddhist scriptures and eventually the Boh tree the Buddha attained enlightenment was cut down. The one in Srilanka is still there and is the oldest tree in the island. Events like these and Hinduism coming back to the royal courts gradually decreased the number of Buddhist followers in India.

There was an empire in India, which was at least partly Buddhist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire

The emperor became Buddhist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Buddhist_conversion
According to Wikipedia, the Maurya Empire started in 320 BC; and Siddhartha Gautama died in about 400 BC plus or minus a few decades; so, that empire started (only) about 50 or 100 years after the Siddhartha Gautama's death.
The pilgrimage sites on the map you quoted are places associated with Siddhartha Gautama's life (after which, the "popularity" of Buddhism extended beyond those places).

so my question is if budhism is very good religion why it didn't went all over the india, Why Buddhism not became Popular in India in Lord Buddha time?

Actually, the Buddha traveled extensively around the territory and he is said to have had the most followers along with the Ājīvikas and the Jains.
After his death, popularity increased much more, particularly with imperial support by Ashoka, who not only helped build monasteries and raising pillars with Buddhist ethics content around the empire, but also financed missions to spread Buddhism beyond.
Later on, though, Buddhism declined in India, presumably through many forces. Among them, I've seen:

Lost (and lack) of support from royalty (later favoring Brahmanism).
Buddhism persecution during the Shunga Empire.
War and invasions (some of which destroyed buddhist universities, particularly big ones such as Nalanda).
Schism within the buddhist sangha.
Lack of engagement of monastics with laity (one of the criticism drawn in the Mahayana/Hinayana polemics).
Socio-economical circumstances driving interest of the public to Brahamanism -- and ability of the latter to incorporate and mix buddhist elements.

During The Buddha's time, he was just another teacher in India, there were many others teachers and dhammas already existing in India.
I can't find the suttas detailing the number of followers The Buddha had during his time but probably still at least 10,000 (including lay followers).
In ancient times that's how things start off, they only become popular later on. The majority of people all around the world were illiterate prior to the 17th Century so transmitting information was done primarily orally and verbally.
Spreading ideas in ancient times was much more difficult, and still in modern times it would be difficult. Scientology for instance only gained popularity later on in time.
Christianity and many other religions also started off very small and only gained popularity much later on in time.
There are a few hypotheses to explain why Buddhism didn't gain popularity in India later on:

Caste system (The Buddha was against it, seems to be only found in India or regions near India)
Buddhism was never in India anymore popular than Jainism was in India (Jainism is also unpopular in India in modern times)
Buddhism was prosecuted and forcefully exterminated from India
Vedantist teachings lead to the decline of Buddhism in India

But in reality Buddhism still lives on in India since post-Buddhist Hinduism seems to have copied or integrated concepts from Buddhism, same with post-Buddhist Jainism.
It is also possible that Christianity was influenced by Buddhism since Buddhism was popular among the Greeks for some time.

I think the premise of your question is incorrect. During his lifetime the teachings of the Buddha were very popular, including amongst the mercantile classes and several kings, and after his life it spread across India. The reason for the subsequent disappearance of Buddhism in India is the Muslim invasions and also the subsequent success of Hinduism, which incorporated many Buddhist teachings but in a more populist form. Some scholars also think that the popularity of Tantra in later centuries weakened Buddhism.

Here's a nice detailed article on that:
DECLINE AND FALL OF BUDDHISM in India

To define popular in India in Lord  Buddha's time would be hard ..as people were struggling to survive ( general masses ) ..and new thoughts of do nothing ...life is suffering etc were concepts only the mystics could adhere too .. Sometimes even  today the messenger and message fall in deaf ears but sure enough when concerned with dharma / Buddhism it's about accepting the real state of life how many even today want to know this detail when there is so much else we could be doing .