text:
Permanent Matter?
My friend told this to me & now I am confused.

Isn't the amount of matter in the universe the same, no less, nor
  more, because nothing is ever lost, nor created, everything causes everything, and thus fixated and
  permanent?
If this is true, then how would that be possible if Dhammas are always
  changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha?

Please help! Metta to all!

According to physics matter is not permanent and once upon a time there was none of it. Clearly it is not permanent. Ask your friend how much matter there was at t = 0. .

A simple example, look at water, it's the same molecule but its state is constantly changing, it solidifies when it's cold, it liquefies when it's warm, and it vaporizes when it's very hot. Also, your friend needs to learn Physics again, it's not matter that stays the same, it's energy, and it's not even universal for it's bound within the constraint of an isolated system (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy).

The Venerable Buddha did not say everything is impermanent. The Venerable Buddha said:

277. "All conditioned things are impermanent"...
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory"...
279. "All things are not-self"...
Dhammapada

The element of Nibbana is permanent (SN 43.14-43).
The Laws of Nature (Dhamma Niyama) are permanent (AN 3.136).
It seems modern science says the law of conservation of energy has a permanent feature, as follows:

In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is
  said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither
  be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or
  transferred from one form to another.
Wikipedia

However, who knows if this scientific theory is true: How do people know the first law of thermodynamics is true?. It sounds like superstitious quibbling to me.

From MN147 the Buddha tells Rahula:

“Everything that has a beginning has an end.”

If we are born, we must die.
Matter can be born from energy (e.g., the Big Bang) and matter can die into energy (e.g., nuclear explosion).

Isn't the amount of matter in the universe the same, no less, nor
  more, because nothing is ever lost, nor created, everything causes
  everything, and thus fixated and permanent?
If this is true, then how would that be possible if Dhammas are always
  changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha?

All conditioned and/or compounded things are impermanent, in the sense that they would arise and cease, and also change. Only Nibbana is not impermanent. Everything else, including space, time, matter and energy are subject to arising, ceasing and changing.
Take gold for example. Gold atoms initially arose out of nuclear reactions in stars. Gold can be melted and molded using heat. Gold in its solid form can be dissolved in acid. This shows that gold is impermanent, arising, ceasing and changing. It is also compounded, in the sense that it is composed of subatomic particles like protons, electrons and neutrons. When gold is used to conduct electricity, it constantly replaces its electrons.
The total amount of matter is also constantly changing. Think about nuclear reactions in stars, radioactively decaying matter and nuclear reactors. Think of the burning of flammable objects. Think about decaying or digesting biological matter. Think about matter entering a black hole.
What about energy? Kinetic energy in a moving turbine of a windmill arose conditioned by another movement like wind. But then it ceases due to friction, and conditions the arising of other forms of energy like heat due to friction, and electricity due to electromagnetic induction. So, forms of energy too are impermanent, because they are arising, ceasing and changing. Forms of energy are also conditioned.
What about space? If you have 1 m3 of vacuumed empty space, is it permanent? If air or matter gets into it, then it's not empty anymore. According to quantum field theory, empty space is never truly empty, because quantum particles appear and disappear constantly. In cosmology, space in the universe is said to be expanding, causing galaxies to become further apart as time goes by.
What about time? Have you heard about time dilation? Time moves relatively a lot slower for an object that is moving closer to the speed of light. Therefore, time is conditioned.
The more we understand science, the more we understand that everything in the physical realm is impermanent, arising, ceasing and changing.
What about the laws of physics? Is that permanent? There is speculation among cosmologists that our universe may be one of many universes in a multiverse. They speculate that universes may be arising and ceasing like bubbles emerging and popping from a boiling soup. In each of these universes, the laws of physics may be different. So, even this could be impermanent.
Apart from Nibbana, it's almost impossible to find anything that is truly impermanent and unchanging for eternity.

According to Buddhism matter is like a wave:

it arises
it passes
arises again
passes again
arises yet again
passes yet again
...

While this happens there is also decay.
Impermanence here is that matter is not static. It arises and passes while decaying.

According to the law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. So the energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. Also, we have a very limited understanding of dark matter and dark energy, we don't know as of now, what happens to the matter which goes into the black hole. So saying that 'matter remains constant' is incorrect.
Saying that;

...Dhammas are always changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha?

You have to understand that every time the Buddha appears in the realm of Samsara the situation here is different, the audience of a Buddha will be different, what he will explain will be based on the time and circumstances, thus the Dhamma will be different and changing.
For an e.g. in the Heart Sutra the Buddha says to Ven Sariputta;
 >

... Nor is there pain or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path To
  lead from pain; Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment too is
  emptiness...

See the Buddha contradicted himself as now the audience is different.

As Dhammadhatu's answer pointed out, it's said that sankharas (not dhammas) are impermanent.

Three marks of existence
The three marks are:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

The definition of "sankhara" is complicated -- see e.g. Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth? -- but its meaning includes "a compound thing", "a thing that's put together composed of other things", "a thing that arises due to certain conditions".
An example is the human body -- made of different bits, happens due to certain conditions -- and is impermanent e.g. it lasts for a certain time and then disintegrates.
Sankharas can be mental too, i.e. things which -- having learned -- you put together or associate in your mind.

I don't know what physicists are saying these days (i.e. recently), about "matter in the universe" -- I think (i.e. what they say) that keeps changing too :-) -- have they theorised recently that there must be a lot of (unobservable?) dark matter (because otherwise their equations don't match their observations?)?
I don't think that has anything at all, really, to do with Buddhism though.


text:
Avoiding debates & looking into Planes/realms
What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, & I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the Poisons, but I keep getting into it?
Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a sense to their existence, or at least anything verifiable by experience to understand them better?
I believe the planes, I just was curious about that.
Metta to all!

What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove
  Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, &
  I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the
  Poisons, but I keep getting into it?

First, you need to understand that Religion is not Science. Science proceeds step-by-step by verifying objective reality, religion proceeds as a subjective experience. It is easy to avoid the debate, just don't go into it. Understand that it is essentially your mind and not you who wants to debate and prove everything right. It is your ego which hankers for arguments because such things as debates strengthen your ego.
As you keep getting into it then simply watch how the mind acts. Next time do not react but respond. And the right response is to ask your friends to meditate and look for themselves the realms or planes.

Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a
  sense to their existence, or at least anything verifiable by
  experience to understand them better?

If you consider Jhnanas as planes of existence then there obviously is a proof of so many Buddhist meditators. But that proof is not like an objective proof of physics, that proof is a subjective experience.
It is very much verifiable through meditations.
So next time you end up in a debate, ask your friends to sit in silence for 5 minutes and just be aware of your mind or breath.

The planes of existence can known as psychological states of mind therefore it is easy to prove them to others. People have hellish suffering; people behave like animals; people can be ungrounded rootless ghosts & addicts; people can live a godly life of wealth, power, luxury or bliss; people can be humane.
Planes of existence are depicted below. An explanation is: The Wheel of Life by Barbara O'Brien.

I'm not sure i understand the images relation to the topic, could you elaborate?

The 1st picture is the classic (Tibetan) depiction of Dependent Origination including five realms starting clockwise: human realm, hungry ghost realm, hell realm, animal realm, godly realm (from here https://www.liberationpark.org/images/wheel200.jpg). The 2nd picture is my modern interpretation of the same realms, clockwise human, ghost, hell, hell, animal & gods. The link is one person's explanation: https://www.learnreligions.com/the-wheel-of-life-4123213

@Dhammadhatu Why are asuras missing? Are they absent in some traditions?

Asura are included in the deva realm but, yes, some traditions separate them from the good devas.

If the planes of existence are something to be taken literally (and not as a metaphor), and if one can only learn personally about such planes by developing psychic powers, then nothing we can say will be enough evidence for proving or disproving the existence of those places.
My personal view on this kind of matters is that I'll put aside (at least for now) anything that I cannot prove or disprove beyond doubts. Maybe my lack of experience and practice is an obstacle to know these things. In the meantime, I'll rather to focus on what I can know and verify personally: the training following the Noble Eightfold Path. Everything else might (or might not) eventually come; who knows...
Kind regards!

More on the planes of existence see: 31 Planes of Existence by Ven. Jinavamsa

anything verifiable by experience to understand them better?

This is possible. One has to do Samatha meditation to develop the 4 Jhana and then Abhinna. Then it might be possible to see other planes depending on how powerful your Jhanas are.

Your friends and family will never disprove Buddhist doctrine his way. They've exactly no chance of falsifying the planes of existence or impermanence. The only way would be to construct a falsification in metaphysics, and all a study of metaphysics will do is verify its plausibility.
Western philosophers have spent two thousand years trying to falsify the doctrine, albeit without knowing what it is, and haven't yet found another doctrine that even works.

Out of the 31 planes of existence, we are familiar with the plane of humans and the plane of animals.
Until the microscope was invented, we were not familiar with microorganisms. There is one possible hypothesis that the hungry shades or hungry ghosts are actually microorganisms (please see this question). So, it's possible that now we know this plane too.
In any case, the usefulness of Buddhism does not depend on other planes existing.
The Dhamma is useful in the here-and-now, to end the suffering that you are experiencing at this very moment.
Whether the 31 planes of existences are literal physical realms or metaphorical psychological realms, are not important to the practice and usefulness of Buddhism.
On the other hand, the usefulness of the religions your friends and family members belong to (based on your previous question), probably depends completely on the promise of going to heaven after death. If there is no afterlife, would those religions still be useful? If there is no afterlife, would belief in the tenets of those religions still be justified?
In comparison, if there is no afterlife, and if the 31 planes of existences are only metaphorical psychological realms, Buddhism would still be very useful in the here-and-now.
If you explain the usefulness and pragmatism of Buddhism in this way, it should put an end to your debates.
Also, ask them this question - could a religion or practice still be useful and meaningful, if there is no afterlife? And then prove to them that Buddhism will pass this test.

Unfortunately, even our most modern scientific instruments are still too primitive to capture concrete data to prove the existence of other planes/realms. Afterall, science still has no luck in capturing dark matter and dark energy. So the possibility of other planes and realms is made possible only by logical induction for now, sort of like the flat-landers analogy in Dr. Sagan's video (ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0 )

What should I do if a lot of my friends and family are trying to prove Buddhism wrong with the laws of impermanence or planes of existence, & I do not want to debate this with them as I do not want to arise the Poisons, but I keep getting into it?
Why are they trying to do that?
I won't (and can't) debate Buddhism at all. If someone asks me about something I can try to explain what I've understood, but it often and quickly turns to "I don't know" if they ask me something -- I don't know how to explain it to them, partly because of the way they're thinking.
It doesn't bother me much though -- doesn't mean that Buddhism is wrong, or that I'm wrong, or that they're wrong -- I'm not a monk or a Buddha, a trained teacher.
Also, on the topic of planes of existence, is there any proof in a sense to their existence
I'm not very interested in that topic.
That doctrine -- not to mention the doctrine of rebirth generally -- is one of the more colourful doctrines of Buddhism, so it's not surprising if they "pick on" that as a doctrine that's hard to believe or to understand.
One way to see it is to say that humans and animals definitely exist, the other planes aren't so visible but don't other religions teach that doctrine too (e.g. heaven and hell)?
Another way might be to say that they are different states of mind.
You can possibly take them as being states of mind in the present.

The Gates of Paradise
A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin. "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head."
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
To reach 1st jhana, do we have to let go, or do we have to put some effort?
Recently, I've been reading a lot about the different methods and perspectives for reaching the jhanas.
For a long time, the only method I've been using is to "let go" everything, and to use the breath as a kind of anchor for the eventual and sporadic distraction. But I never felt anything like joy or rapture.
A few days ago, I found a meditation instruction where the instructor tells that effort and will can be used to give rise to joy and to expand it throughout the body. An as soon as I started doing that, I felt and important qualitative difference in the kind of feelings arising.
Is this application of effort compatible with "letting go"?
What do the suttas tell us about this?
Kind regards!

Elsewhere I believe Dhammadhatu mentioned that even Stream Enterers haven't reached Jhana yet. The reason why once-returner and even more so non-returner can enter Jhana is because they have less hindrances to let go. The latter for example only must let go sleepiness and restlessness.

The method you cite first is correct.  Do not pursue the second.  Any authentic feelings of joy and rapture will arise of their own accord.  Anything forced or willfully attained is not jhana.  The first stirrings of jhana will invariably catch you by surprise and will seem to come out of no where.  We cannot force them to arrive.
If I had to guess, I'd say the main reason why you [and really most people] aren't experience jhana is that you haven't been sitting enough.  Outside of a retreat setting, daily 90 minute sits is really the bare minimum for effective samatha meditation.  Any less than that and the mind just isn't quelled enough for jhana factors to present themselves in any kind of stable way.  To be terribly honest, you are also highly unlikely to find full absorption outside of a retreat setting.  It usually takes at least three days of 10+ hours a day of sitting for the mind to release its hold on the world and the grosser manifestations of the hindrances.  Only afterwards is the mind prepared for jhana practice.

"There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...

Jhana / Right Concentration (samma samadhi)
One should quite withdraw from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities. To do this one must put effort to develop Vitarka-vicara on a chosen object exclusively. The Jhana factors that follow automatically.
This is not comparable to "letting go" (viraga) which is more Vipassana oriented results due to Nibbida. When one focuses on and objects one temporarily suspends sensuality. Vipassana totally eradicates it. Therefore Vipassana also leads to Jhana when one develops viraga, but suppression of sensuality and unskillful qualities is sufficient for the 1st Jhana.

Thank you for your answer, kind sir! How should I interpret this part: "He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.". To do that, should I use will power and effort? Kind regards!

This automatically happens when one is focused exclusively on one object and one enters the 1st Jhana.

Thanks again! What do you think about what Ven. Ajahn Sona tells (starts at 5:17) in this introduction to breath-meditation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdSalC1yZFY

I am not too familiar with Ajahn Sona's teachings. Also, I don't want to comment on what has been said. I would think it is best to stick to fundamentals. I would recommend is directly go to the Sutta. Anapanasati Sutta

For additional references also see: The True Power Of Kanni Meditation－The Essential Guide To Anapanassati & Vipassana, Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life, Knowing and Seeing

responding to user 000's answer:

The method you cite first is correct. Do not pursue the second. Any
  authentic feelings of joy and rapture will arise of their own accord.
  Anything forced or willfully attained is not jhana. The first
  stirrings of jhana will invariably catch you by surprise and will seem
  to come out of no where. We cannot force them to arrive.

That is completely wrong. Meditation is a subtle art, and both viriya-sambojjhanga (vigor/energy awakening factor, equivalent to right effort, right exertion) and passaddhi-sabojjhanga (pacification/relaxation/letting go of all tension in mind and body) are active before, and through all the 4 jhanas. See MN 78, and study the 7sb awakening factors.
Blissful aspects of Jhana can hit you suddenly and seem to come out of nowhere, as user 000 described, but piti, pamojja and mudita are active things you do to engender joy and bliss. Piti-sambojjanga (rapture awakening factor) is to be developed (bhavana), just like samadhi.
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-miseducation-of-piti-in-theravada.html

Eh.  I wholeheartedly disagree and think that pursuing that method is to set yourself up for failure.  Whenever I run into difficulty entering jhana, it generally comes from too much directed effort.  Emphasizing that from the beginning seems just about the worst possible course of action I can think of.  Don't get me wrong, there still is effort...but the kind of effort that steers a boat, not of the sort that moves the vessel.

Try actually reading the suttas. If you want to disagree with the Buddha's way of teaching meditation, and come up with your own, that's your business.

"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation..." AN 9.41

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


text:
What is the deep sound that buddhist monk make during meditation called
I have often noticed buddhist monk make deep sound, something that feels might be coming from the naval or sometimes the throat. I want to know more details about the sound. What is the origin and if there is a specific name to it. Is it same as the "om" of Hinduism?

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_chant

Tibetan monks are noted for their skill at throat-singing, a specialized form of chanting in which, by amplifying the voice's upper partials, the chanter can produce multiple distinct pitches simultaneously. Japanese esoteric practitioners also practice a form of chanting called shomyo.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone_singing#Tibet

Tibetan Buddhist chanting is a subgenre of throat singing, mainly practiced by monks of Tibet, including Qinghai (Khokhonor) province in the Tibetan plateau area, Tibetan monks of Nepal, Bhutan, India, and various locations in the Himalayan region. Most often the chants hold to the lower pitches possible in throat singing. Various ceremonies and prayers call for throat singing in Tibetan Buddhism, often with more than one monk chanting at a time. There are different Tibetan throat singing styles, such as Gyuke (Tibetan: རྒྱུད་སྐད་, Wylie: rgyud skad) – this style uses the lowest pitch of voice; Dzoke (Tibetan: མཛོ་སྐད་, Wylie: mdzo skad), and Gyer (Tibetan: གྱེར་, Wylie: gyer).

In Theravada meditation, there is no sound making during meditation.
In some forms of Pranayama, which is a Hindu technique, Bija Mantra sounds are made. Sometimes Gayatri Mantra is recited.


text:
What is citta in the four frames of reference?
I am trying to understand the four frames of reference. I could understand the body. I could comprehend the sensations (to be honest not completely). I could not understand the mind (citta).
This has been my observation. I'm sensitive to noises. I feel irritation (sensation) and anger generated towards the person who created it, and the mind stays angry and continues to in that way. Is this what citta is ? That which continues to be in that state even after the sensation that caused it ceased to exist ?

Good question. I asked the same question in Dhamma Wheel and did not receive a satisfactory answer or perhaps I could not understand the answers given by others. https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=32386&p= In my opinion, Cittanupassana covers Samatha aspect of meditation and Dhammanupassana covers the Vipassana aspect of meditation.

Also see What is the meaning of “dhammā” in the context of the four satipaṭṭhāna?

Citta is mind. In Four Frames of Reference, it means your overall state of mind:

"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.

If you feel a strong emotion in your body immediately after the noise - that is vedana (what you called "sensation"). The state of anger generated towards the person is a kind of aversion.
But this is not complete awareness of citta yet. In order to see the entire citta you need to expand your awareness further.
In this case, the reason you feel irritated when the noises happen, is because in your mind (in your citta) you have established a certain intent, a certain desire, or a certain expectation, -- an expectation of a quiet environment conducive to concentration. This expectation serves as a background or counterpart to noise, it is what the noise is compared with - and since the noise and this expectation are obviously in conflict - you get irritated and angry, because of the mismatch. Now, this expectation of quiet environment probably comes from an even deeper intent, for example, you may be trying to achieve a certain state that you have read about in a book. Etc.
At every moment of time we have a certain frame of reference inside of which we are operating. This frame of reference is made from some concepts. Most of the time, we are not actively thinking about these concepts but they stay "on the periphery" of our minds. These peripheral framing concepts are maintained or renewed through a mechanism known as "upadana" in Buddhism. The way it works is, every time we hear, see, or think about something connected with these concepts, we "feed" them, so they keep staying on our (background) mind.
Now this is a more complete picture: you have read about some state in a book, now you keep thinking about that state, you wanted to attain a similar state, you think that in order to attain this state you need to concentrate on something, and therefore you see all noises as enemies, getting in the way of you attaining your state. Therefore you get irritated and angry. (Your situation may be different, I'm making this stuff up, but you get the idea. You need to learn to clearly see your "background intent" - in every case, not just in this case.) On top of this, you may have some preconceptions about noisy people, that identify them with being sloppy, uncultured, uncaring etc.
So your complete state of mind at that point includes all of that - from very high-level mental frameworks - to very specific thoughts and sensations.
This entire configuration, when you take all of it at once and look at it "panoramically" has a certain flavor or a certain taste. It can't always be described in words, but it is something you can experience if you look at all of the above all at once.
That panoramic assessment of the all-inclusive quality of your mindstate is what we're after in this meditation. This panoramic awareness of the entirety of one's mind, including its implicit frames-of-reference, is called cittanupassana or simply vipassana.

OP: What is citta in the four frames of reference?
There 3 references to this. One from the Mahā Satipaṭṭḥāna Sutta and Satipaṭṭḥāna Sutta. Another called the 18 Mental Exploration found in Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta / Titth’ayatana Sutta / etc. And also the 3rd triad in doing Anapanasati found in Anapanasati Sutta / Mahā Rāhul’ovāda Sutta / etc.

And how, bhikshus, does a monk dwell observing the mind in the mind?
  Here, bhikshus, a monk,
(1) understands a lustful mind as 'Lustful mind',
  or, he understands a lust-free mind as 'Lust-free mind'.
(2) Or, he understands a hating mind as 'Hating mind',
  or, he understands a hate-free mind as 'Hate-free mind'.
(3) Or, he understands a deluded mind as 'Deluded mind',
  or, he understands an undeluded mind as 'Undeluded mind';
(4) Or, he understands a narrowed [constricted] mind as 'Narrowed mind'.
  or, he understands a distracted mind as 'Distracted mind';
(5) Or, he understands a great [exalted] mind as 'Great mind',
  or, he understands a small mind [unexalted mind] as 'Small mind [Unexalted mind]'.
(6) Or, he understands a surpassable mind as 'Surpassable mind',
  or, he understands an unsurpassable mind as 'Unsurpassable mind'.
(7) Or, he understands a concentrated mind as 'Concentrated mind',
  or, he understands an unconcentrated mind as 'Unconcentrated mind'.
(8) Or, he understands a liberated mind as 'Liberated mind',
  or, he understands an unliberated mind as 'Unliberated mind'.

Mahā Satipaṭṭḥāna Sutta
There are 18 mental examinations:

one explores a form that gives rise to pleasure,
   one explores a form that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
      one explores a form that gives rise to equanimity.```

```(2) On hearing a sound with the ear,
one explores a sound that gives rise to pleasure,
   one explores a sound that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
      one explores a sound that gives rise to equanimity.```

```(3) On smelling a smell with the nose,
one explores a smell that gives rise to pleasure,
   one explores a smell that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
      one explores a smell that gives rise to equanimity.```

```(4) On tasting a taste with the tongue,
one explores a taste that gives rise to pleasure,
   one explores a taste that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
      one explores a taste that gives rise to equanimity.```

```(5) On feeling a touch with the body,
one explores a touch that gives rise to pleasure,
   one explores a touch that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
      one explores a touch that gives rise to equanimity.```

```(6) On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pleasure,
   one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
      one explores a mind-object that gives rise to equanimity.```

Thus there are six mental explorations with regards to pleasure; six mental explorations with regards to pain [displeasure]; six mental explorations with regards to equanimity.
‘The 18 kinds of mental explorations should be understood,’ thus it is said in this connection.

See: Titth’ayatana Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Anapanasati Sutta
OP: This has been my observation. I'm sensitive to noises. I feel irritation (sensation) and anger generated towards the person who created it, and the mind stays angry and continues to in that way. Is this what citta is ? That which continues to be in that state even after the sensation that caused it ceased to exist ?
When you hear the sound you get irritated, i.e., the latent tendency of aversion rising. You keep thinking about the sound and the person who made it keeps you angry. Continued thinking about the incident is mental proliferation.

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

the latent tendency of lust,
the latent tendency of aversion,
the latent tendency of views,
the latent tendency of doubt,
the latent tendency of conceit,
the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
the latent tendency of ignorance.

This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
What needs to be done to quickly get rid of the anger is:

Know you are angry

(2) Or, he understands a hating mind as 'Hating mind',
  or, he understands a hate-free mind as 'Hate-free mind'.

Mahā Satipaṭṭḥāna Sutta

Know the feeling

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Know that the feels are impermanent so do not cling onto them

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Observe the mind

(C) The Third Tetrad: Observing the mind
(9) He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe in experiencing the mind.’
He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe out experiencing the mind.’
(10) He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe in gladdening the mind.’
He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe out gladdening the mind.’
(11) He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe in concentrating the mind.’
He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe out concentrating the mind.’
(12) He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe in freeing the mind.’
He trains himself thus: ‘I will breathe out freeing the mind.’

See: Ānâpāna,sati Sutta, Mahā Rāhul’ovāda Sutta

"Citta" means "mind-heart". If the mind-heart has irritation & anger, this is the citta with the irritation & anger.
In its general sense, citta meditation or cittanupassana is described in the Satipatthana Sutta. In its finer details, cittanupassana is explained in the Anapanasati Sutta.
The Satipatthana Sutta says:

And how does a mendicant meditate observing an aspect of the mind?
It’s when a mendicant knows mind with greed as ‘mind with greed,’ and mind without greed as ‘mind without greed.’ They know mind with hate
  as ‘mind with hate,’ and mind without hate as ‘mind without hate.’
  They know mind with delusion as ‘mind with delusion,’ and mind without
  delusion as ‘mind without delusion.’ They know constricted mind as
  ‘constricted mind,’ and scattered mind as ‘scattered mind.’ They know
  expansive mind as ‘expansive mind,’ and unexpansive mind as
  ‘unexpansive mind.’ They know mind that is not supreme as ‘mind that
  is not supreme,’ and mind that is supreme as ‘mind that is supreme.’
  They know mind immersed in samādhi as ‘mind immersed in samādhi,’ and
  mind not immersed in samādhi as ‘mind not immersed in samādhi.’ They
  know freed mind as ‘freed mind,’ and unfreed mind as ‘unfreed mind.’
And so they meditate observing an aspect of the mind internally, externally, and both internally and externally. They meditate
  observing the mind as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as
  liable to both originate and vanish. Or mindfulness is established
  that the mind exists, to the extent necessary for knowledge and
  mindfulness. They meditate independent, not grasping at anything in
  the world.
That’s how a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the mind.

The Anapanasati Sutta says:

Bhikkhus, whenever a bhikkhu (9) trains himself: thoroughly experiencing the mind I shall breathe in ... shall breathe out; or,
  (10) trains himself: gladdening the mind I shall breathe in ... shall
  breathe out; or, (11) trains himself: concentrating the mind I shall
  breathe in … shall breathe out; or, (12) trains himself: liberating
  the mind I shall breathe in ... shall breathe out; then that bhikkhu
  is considered one who lives constantly contemplating mind in the mind,
  strives to burn up defilements, comprehends readily and is mindful,
  in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the world.
Bhikkhus, I do not say that Anapanasati is possible for a person who has straying mindfulness and lacks ready comprehension. Bhikkhus, for
  this reason that bhikkhu is considered one who lives constantly
  contemplating mind in the mind, strives to burn up defilements,
  comprehends readily, and is mindful, in order to abandon all liking
  and disliking toward the world.

If the mind is angry at a person and the mind acknowledges: "I am angry; the mind is angry; there is anger", the Satipatthana Sutta gives the impression this is citta meditation (cittanupassana).
But the Anapanasati Sutta gives the impression cittanupassana is something much more profound & deep because the Anapanasati Sutta says cittanupassana is performed together with knowing each in-breath & each out-breath; with complete mindfulness & clear-comprehension.
When you/the mind gets angry at another person, this is called a "hindrance" (to meditation). It is a loss of mindfulness & clear comprehension. Therefore, when you try to calm your anger and note you are angry, I personally would say this is not cittanupassana. I have not read the suttas about overcoming distracting thoughts & hindrances, such as MN 19 & MN 20, called "cittanupassana".
Based on the Anapanasati Sutta, it seems cittanupassana is a deep profound knowing and unveiling of the mind (citta) after the breathing & body have been profoundly calmed and after the resultant blissful feelings of rapture & happiness have also been calmed.
I would say for most Buddhists, including Joseph Goldstein, cittanupassana is a mystery; even though teachings by Joseph Goldstein may help people learn to cope with &/or control their mind.

Hi Dhammadattu, thank you for taking to explain. I'm interested in these aspects of the mind; what changes my mind from one state to another, is it sensations ? Is it the mind that reacts ? Say the angry mind reacts at a person by shouting.

Hi Addy. What causes the mind to change is a lack of knowledge. The Buddha said all negative mental states arise from a lack of knowledge or ignorance.


text:
What is the "Unconditioned" that the Buddha is talking about? And vinjana in Buddhsm
In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self. Consciousness has 2 modes: it can be pure consciousness, and it is described as "being aware of being aware" or the "I that I am knows that I am"; while the other mode of consciousness is consciousness entangled in objects, like feelings and thoughts.
Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"? Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism sees consciousness as impermanent and not self?
They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware. I have this problem, my friend had the same, so we wanted to ask you if you could help us out.

OP: In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self.

In Buddhism, it is considered all conditioned and unconditioned is not-self/non-self. "

sabbe dhammā anattā

Therefore, there nothing that can be identified as a self. Not even Nirvana.

OP: Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"?

No. In Buddhism consciousness is just to knows what is felt.

Then there remains only consciousness, purified and cleansed.What does one know [cognize]with that consciousness?
One knows, „It is pleasant.‟
One knows. „It is painful.‟
One knows, „It is neutral.‟

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta. See below for a full quote of the section on consciousness.
What is unconditioned in Nirvana.

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
— Ud 8.3

Source: Nibbana

OP: They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware.

In Buddhism, consciousness is part of the 6 sense bases. It knows what you have come in contact with.

On account of a contact that is felt ... conditioned by that contact ...

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta. See the full section quoted below.

(iv) The six groups of contacts are to be understood, thus it is said, and in what connection is this
    said?
Dependent on eye and forms,
    eye-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.
Dependent on ear and sounds,
    ear-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact.
...
The six groups of contacts are to be understood, thus it is said, and it is said in this connection.

Cha Chakka Sutta

The consciousness element
Then there remains only consciousness, purified and cleansed.What does one know [cognize]with that consciousness?
One knows, „It is pleasant.‟
One knows. „It is painful.‟
One knows, „It is neutral.‟
On account of a contact that is felt as pleasant, there arises a pleasant feeling.
When one feels a pleasant feeling one understands, „I feel a pleasant feeling.‟
    One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as pleasant,
    the pleasant feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟
On account of a contact that is felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling.
When one feels a painful feeling one understands, „I feel a painful feeling.‟
One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as painful, the painful
    feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟
On account of a contact that is felt as neither pain nor pleasure, there arises a neutral feeling.
When one feels a neutral feeling one understands, „I feel a neutral feeling.‟
One understands, „With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as neither painful nor
    pleasant, the neutral feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled.‟

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Thank you for your answer, what about pure conciousness is it described as conciousness conciousness of itself? I am confused about this part because I have been for a year in advaita they describe conciousness conciousness of conciousness as please go to 9;30 on this clip please help me with this i am stuck in this doubt thank you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95XorCcgrM&feature=youtu.be

Very good answer Suminda

Thank you for your answer guys

In Advaita, pure consciousness (Turiya) is said to underlie the other three states, ie waking, dreaming and deep sleep. So pure consciousness is not involved in (waking) sense consciousness.
The Buddhist suttas only deal with waking sense-consciousness, in terms of the 6 ayatana.
Some point to "consciousness without surface" as a sort of "pure consciousness", but this interpretation appears speculative. See Sujatos blog for example:
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/

Caveat:

Restricting the question to only "What is the unconditioned?", I will
offer an answer which is undoubtedly in conflict with much of
prevailing thought within the community. As such, it is likely to
offend. It is not my intention to offend. It is my intention to help
others who are suffering to attain nibbana. The total end of
suffering. I offer this answer because I have a very strong intuition
that it is true and that its consideration will help others to put an
end to suffering.
What do I mean by true?
I mean it is in accordance with an internally consistent
interpretation of the Buddha's teachings which has led this
practitioner to experience nibbana.

"Dependent origination" seems to be identical to the modern concept of "emergence".
It is a way of thinking about change in systems that is an alternative to "cause and effect".
Instead of thinking "A causes B", you think "A creates the conditions which increase the probability that B will emerge".
If B emerges, we say that B was "conditioned by A".
Here is a good description:
YouTube: Systems Innovation: Causality (Sep 25, 2016)
Consider 3 observed phenomena:

X is conditioned by A.
Y is conditioned by A.
Z is NOT conditioned by A.

One way to perceive (3) is "Z is unconditioned";
More precisely, "Z is unconditioned by A".
In this way of thinking, nothing can truly be said to be "unconditioned".
It can only be said to be unconditioned by some variable.
(I seem to recall the Buddha saying something like "Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."  This is consistent with the modern concept of "systems thinking" from which the concept of "emergence" emerged.).
For example: The Buddha cautioned us that all predictive models (saṅkhārās) should be considered to be
For example: The Buddha cautioned us that all predictive models (saṅkhārās) should be considered to be

impermanent (aniccā)
subject to the discomfort of misprediction (dukkhā) and that
the BEST predictive models

the ones which allow us to see things are they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana);
the ones which are more permanent and less subject to the suffering of misprediction;
the ones, being more accurate / less prone to misprediction; enable us to experience more certainty / less certainty; move through the world with equanimity;
the ones which enable us to move through the world with equanimity

are those that are unconditioned by "self-absorption in the narrative". (anattā)
This is the meaning I attribute to:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā
sabbe dhammā anattā

i.e. If you genuinely want to attain nibbana, the total end of suffering, give attention to

unconditioning the narratives you create in your mind about the world (your sensory-motor predictive model of the world) from self-absorption

and

strive instead to see things are they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana);

I have found an effective incantation for this purpose to be:

In the seen, there is only the seen.
In the heard, there is only the heard.
In the felt, there is ONLY the felt.
In the cognized, there is ONLY the cognized.

(borrowed from the Bjahia Sutta and slightly altered)
In summary,
if you make the choice to

"uncondition" the narratives you construct to describe the world
from "self-absorption" (sabbe dhammā anattā)
in favor of
striving to "see things as they actually are" (yathabhutañanadassana)
you will
cease responding to the first arrow (misprediction) by clinging.

To not respond to the first arrow (misprediction) by clinging is to end suffering.
Why Is this true?
Suffering is the choice to cling to a predictive model of the world which the misprediction signal has informed us to be incorrect.
Pain is inevitable but suffering is a choice.
What choice?
The choice to cling to a view of the world we know to be false.
The choice to lie to ourselves.
Suffering is a word we use to describe the internal conflict we feel between

The part of us that wants to know the truth and
The part of us that wants to cling to the lie.

if we make the choice to

"uncondition" the narratives we construct to describe the world
from "self-absorption" (sabbe dhammā anattā)
in favor of
striving to "see things as they actually are" (yathabhutañanadassana)
we will
not respond to the first arrow (misprediction) by clinging.
AND
We will, instead,
accept and embrace the truth that

I. all predictive models are impermanent. They are subject to change if they fail to accurately predict sensory experience.
II. the first arrow (misprediction) is a notification that our predictive model is incorrect
Instead of clinging, we will respond to the first arrow by

Naming it “misprediction”
and
Responding to “misprediction” by seeking to investigate with the intention of finding the error and correcting it. i.e. seeking “insight”

By unconditioning "narrative construction" from "self-absorption" in this fashion, the first arrow (whose name is “misprediction”) will never again be followed by the second arrow (whose name is avijjā)
Recall that avijjā (the choice to ignore/avoid unpleasant truths) is the foundational condition for the 12 links of dependent origination.
When avijjā ceases, the entire chain which sustains suffering collapses.
Again. This interpretation is “internally consistent”.
This is why nibbana is sometimes called "the unconditioned".
Nibbana is what we experience when we choose to uncondition the narratives we construct from the "self-absorption" which gives rise to the cloud of delusion which prevents us from seeing the world the way it actually is.

OP: Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"? Or is the unconditioned
the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism sees consciousness as
impermanent and not self?

The short answer is NO.
In MN 38, the Buddha explained that there are only six types of consciousness dependent on the six sense media and their sense objects. There's no other type of consciousness beyond this. And they are all conditioned.
In this question, the notion of "consciousness without surface" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ - MN 49) or some kind of pure consciousness beyond the six sense media, was debunked as a mistranslation. It actually refers to Nibbana, the unconditioned.
All types of consciousness and even the "luminous mind" (pabhassara citta - AN 1.51-52) - the fundamental pure state of mind, are all conditioned and impermanent. Please see this question on whether "luminous mind" is conditioned or unconditioned.
According to SN 35.23, the six sense media and their sense objects is called "The All", and there's nothing beyond this range. Please see this question on "The All".
According to SN 35.205, the lute makes nice music. But when you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Similarly, the self is just a mental idea that arises when the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations) work together. When you break the five aggregates down to its constituent parts, the self cannot be found. This is completely opposite to Advaita which states that in the wake state, dream state and deep sleep state of many beings, you have the same one "I", eternal witness, true self, pure consciousness (see Advaita text Aparokshanubhuti 31-32, 56-58).
Nibbana is that which the mind experiences when it is free of defilements. It is not a state of mind or consciousness. It is certainly not a self or a witness. AN 9.34 states that nothing is felt or sensed about Nibbana and that's precisely why it is blissful. The absence of suffering (dukkha) is blissful. This answer explains more on Nibbana and bliss. This question asks whether Nibbana lies within "The All".
According to Iti 44, Nibbana-element without residue left describes the Arahant after passing away, based on Ven. Thanissaro's footnote. This means that all five aggregates, including consciousness, stop operating completely. And from "The All", we know that there's no other consciousness than the ones arising dependent on the six sense media and their sense objects (MN 38).
Nibbana-element with residue left refers to the living Arahant whose five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations) are functioning without craving, clinging and defilements. The flames of passion, aversion and delusion are no more burning for the living Arahant. But the five aggregates function without clinging, like glowing embers, for the living Arahant. This question discusses clinging aggregates vs. non-clinging aggregates. When the Arahant passes away, the glowing embers are put out (Nibbana-element without residue left).

In advaita vedanta, consciousness is the self.

In Buddhism, consciousness is consciousness because it cognises (MN 43). To quote MN 43:

'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?
'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'
MN 43

Consciousness has 2 modes: it can be pure consciousness, and it is described as "being aware of being aware"

Yes, consciousness knows consciousness. MN 43 says:

Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṃ — imesaṃ dhammānaṃ saṃsaṭṭhānaṃ no visaṃsaṭṭhānaṃ paññā bhāvetabbā, viññāṇaṃ pariññeyyaṃ.
Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed,
consciousness is to be fully comprehended.
MN 43
PTS Pali English Dictionary pariññeyya adjective knowable,
perceivable, to be known (accurately)

What is "perceivable" cannot occur without consciousness. To quote MN 43, again:

Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.

or the "I that I am knows that I am";

No. The above is thinking or 'sankhara'. Buddhism teaches about five distinct aggregates that compose of life (SN 22.48). These are physicality, feeling, perception, formations (sankhara) and consciousness. Any type of label, word, thought or description is a formation (sankhara); particularly the delusion of "I am" (refer to SN 22.81).

while the other mode of consciousness is consciousness entangled in objects, like feelings and thoughts.

No. Consciousness does not "entangle" itself. What is entanglement is "sankhara" ("thinking wrongly").

Is pure consciousness, or being aware of being aware, the same as what the Buddha called the "unconditioned"?

No. Consciousness is a mental phenomena, that arises dependent upon conditions (MN 38). The unconditioned is Nibbana, which is not a mental phenomena (MN 115).

Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism sees consciousness as impermanent and not self?

No. Cessation does not mean cessation of consciousness. It means cessation of ignorance that causes consciousness to get wrongly involved in unwholesome sense objects. It means the cessation of a consciousness tainted and enslaved by ignorance.

They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would know that we are aware.

Sure. So what?

I have this problem, my friend had the same, so we wanted to ask you if you could help us out.

This problem appears to be a strange attachment & obsession with useless 'philosophy'.  Buddhism is about ending suffering rather than philosophizing.

Hi, do you have any sutta reference for,'Yes, consciousness knows consciousness.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f95XorCcgrM&feature=youtu.be  here is the clip from 9;30 he is saying that could you please give me the buddhist perspective of what he is saying

Consciousness knows it is aware. But it is not "I am aware". When the thought of "I" completely dissolves in meditation, it will be known consciousness is conscious of consciousness. There is no such thing as "I am" apart from being a delusion.  The video ends with "I know I am". The video is rubbish & superstition. Please don't post rubbish & superstition as comments to my answers. Thank you. The video is Hinduism.

MN 43 says: "consciousness is to be fully comprehended", which means consciousness is to be cognised by consciousness. I added this to my answer.

I am here to learn your perspective which I dirrectly feel is the right path i was in doubts about this i am all the time

This i was taught until now i feel how my body is relaxing by hearing this teaching about conciousness which was a big confusion for me and is for many studying advaita so  by saying that conciousness is both being and knowing as advaita we imply self or the i am which is wrong view or self view it is not i that is aware of conciousness but conciousness by nature is aware of itself that means it is wrong view to say concioussness is being and knowing as advaita do

You said conciousness is a mental phenomena arising based on conditions does the pure conciousness or conciousness of conciousness also arise based on conditions

Your answer were really helpful thabk you very much Dhammadhatu

consciousness of consciousness is not necessarily "pure". In Buddhism there are six types of consciousness - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind consciousness. That the mind is aware that it sees via the eye is consciousness of eye consciousness.

I think it's good to be a bit more aware of symbols, language and meaning. One tradition or group may use the same words in a different way with different meanings. What one group calls 'consciousness' or 'self' may be something very different than what another group understands these concepts to be.
For example, in Advaita Vedanta, when they say that pure consciousness (consciousness-without-an-object, i.e., NOT eye consciousness, NOT ear consciousness, NOT nose consciousness, etc.) is the self, what they are actually saying, in Buddhist terms, is that the unconditioned universal Self (with a capital 'S', i.e. Nibbana) is devoid of a conditioned separate self (with a small 's').
The confusion arises because Buddhist's don't use the word 'self' in this way. In fact, they only use it to refer to the conditioned ego structure that keeps one separated from the unconditioned. They don't provide a label for the unconditioned, except perhaps as an impersonal non-entity such as Nibbana, Sunyata, or Emptiness (of self). But they are referring to the same unconditioned 'thing'. One can also just as easily call this the Primordial Buddha, God, Natural Law, Ultimate Reality, the Great Spirit, Pure Consciousness, or any other such label that seeks to point to the unconditioned, unborn, unbecome, unfabricated Absolute.
This is also hinted at in the Buddha's teaching as sourced above in a separate reply:
What is unconditioned in Nirvana.

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If
there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there
would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made
— fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an
unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born
— become — made — fabricated is discerned." - Ud 8.3

The important thing is not to get caught up in the symbols and their narrow cultural meanings, but rather to take the right view that all these traditions in their explanations are pointing to one inexpressible Universal Truth. And most importantly, to try to see the ways in which they are trying to say the same thing bound by the limitations of language which is incapable of expressing that which is beyond concepts and ideas.
It's also important to remember that even the Sutta's containing the Buddha's words were translated and retranslated, by men who may have interposed their own biases, opinions, views, and interpretations of things. So absolutely everything should be taken with a grain of salt and compared and validated against one's own direct experience which becomes true knowledge or knowing.

The Kalamas of Kesaputta ask for guidance from the Buddha

The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said
to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir,
who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own
doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to
pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to
Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the
doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces.
Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning
them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and
which falsehood?"
"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated
hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a
scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious
reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered
over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration,
'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These
things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are
praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to
benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them." - Anguttara
Nikaya, Tika Nipata, Mahavagga, Sutta No. 65

Yes, and the pertinent issue is that each group seems to want to believe that their understanding of release is uniquely special, exclusive, and individual. It's a common grasping trait found throughout the psychology of humankind that only occurs when the mind has apprehended a belief in a concept. You can see the same thing happening in these answers. Good, well-balanced and reasoned answer.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned. - SN 43.12

Is pure consciousness or being aware of being aware, the same as what
  the Buddha called the "unconditioned"?

Consciousness conscious of itself is what the Buddha called 'Nibbana' which is an 'unconditioned' phenomena.

Or is the unconditioned the cessation of consciousness, as Buddhism
  sees consciousness as impermanent and not-self?

The unconditioned is not the cessation of consciousness, it is the cessation of ego-mind or cessation of Consciousness identified with the ego-mind.

They said if consciousness was not aware of itself, none of us would
  know that we are aware.

Again the same phenomena, we know we are aware because we are primarily aware of six sense bases, eyes, smell, touch, sound, taste, and mind. When we become aware of awareness itself then we would have attained Nirvana. Ordinarily, it is not the case.
In Buddhism, there are five skandas. The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).
Vijnana in Buddhism is Consciousness and it is empty of self.

The first sentence -- i.e., "... is what the Buddha called 'Nibbana'" -- where is that from, e.g.  a sutta reference?

@ChrisW I am not getting the source of that, but I thinking it was from some discourse somewhere related to 'what is nothingness or emptiness.' I will edit the post when I'll get the source.

Thank you, if you can. "Unconditioned" being an attribute or description of "nibanna" is familiar, but I don't recall having read before its being associated with consciousness like that.

Actually, you can derive that conclusion if you try to go into physics of it. If you agree that everything that involves 'Matter' is 'conditioned.' and agree that Matter and Consciousness are two rungs of human experience, you can reach that conclusion. Because at Nirvana, you have left behind all that is 'conditioned' and then the consciousness is only remaining thing, all that remains is 'Consciousness becoming conscious of itself'. I think it gets confusing. But agreeably does not sound like direct words of Buddha.

@ChrisW I can ask this as a question if it has not been asked previously, that 'what is the physics behind Nirvana?'

You could (I don't think it's been asked previously). I personally don't much like attempts to mix Physics with Buddhism, I think it's generally nonsense (but I don't make the rules!). There's a partial answer like here perhaps, more questions than answers maybe. I was wondering earlier about asking, "Why Nibbana is Nibanna described as a 'Dhatu', an element? Does that imply it's like in any way some of the physical elements?"

this is info about 'dhatu' >>The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a, 'Dhatu' an element, the 'deathless element'. He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.<< from here >>https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Nibbana#Vi.C3.B1.C3.B1anam_Anidassanam

Please provide reference for : "Consciousness conscious of itself is what the Buddha called 'Nibbana' which is an 'unconditioned' phenomena."

@ArkapravaPaul I had heard of this in one of the discourses of Osho...sorry I am not able to find that particular discourse atm...

"Consciousness conscious of itself is what the Buddha called 'Nibbana'" - This is not Buddhism.

@ruben2020 If I consider the five skandhas as ontological primitives of human life, then this definition of Nirvana is the best I can get to explain the physics of Nirvana. Don't want everyone to agree with me, but this calms my questioning mind and I am free to do my practice.