Karma is not something one accumulates; this question gets asked so often because, as you say, there is a misconception of it being a 'a solid, substantial' entity.
Karma is volition (intention is a bad translation, IMO), or in abhidhamma, the seven javana citta present in an ordinary mind process (i.e. every moment of experience).
All this means is that ...
Technically, consciousness (viññāṇa) is that aspect of the mind that is aware; it is the qualia of modern Western philosophy.
Colloquially, it is used to refer to the entire mental ensemble that includes sensation (vedanā), recognition (saññā), processing (saṅkhāra), and awareness (viññāṇa). This is because the other three aggregates are always accompanied ...
In many cases Mara the Evil One appears when he realises that someone somewhere is about to escape from his grips, when they are practising ardently, about to attain enlightenment, and his purpose is to arouse fear, trepidation, and so on to disrupt their practice.Kassaka Sutta,Brahma-nimananika Sutta,Soma Sutta,Sister Vajira Sutta etc..
IMHO Mara is ...
In a meditative context "anger" is one of The Five Hindrances which are obstacles to meditative progress. Anger belongs to the 2nd hindrance, i.e. Ill-will (hatred, anger, dislike, hostility, resentment etc.).
There are antidotes for these hindrances, i.e. ways to deal with them so that one can dispel of them and continue on with the practice.
In the "...
There are two types of nirvana: saupādisesa-nibbāna (nirvana with remainder) and anupādisesa-nibbāna (nirvana without remainder) (Iti. 44).
It is true that for one who has attained anupādisesa-nibbāna there will be no more consciousness. This is because someone who has attained anupādisesa-nibbāna is dead*. It is the equivalent to the more familiar ...
There are two main interpretations of how karma is accumulated.
In Sarvastivada branch of philosophy, past actions can be directly related to new consequences, because fundamentally "everything exists" and only the modus of time changes. As things aren't losing the status of existence, they can cause new things. There is a special additional property (...
Buddhist meditation is not clinging to (i.e., not getting infatuated about) experienced phenomena.
Last year I experienced samadhi, full state of awareness. Mind's
thoughts stopped for days and I can't describe with feelings and words
the complete experience.
This is a type of samadhi. Samadhi is the absence of thoughts, just like an orange is ...
If you want to know the truth about reality, you have to learn how to make impartial observations of nature. When you ask questions like "Who is waking up? Who is witnessing?", you have already made the assumption that there is an entity involved. The moment you do that, you drift away from reality and the experiment becomes biased. It's the same as asking "...
Does this refer to physical form?
Yes, anything physical is included in this category. Ex: light, sound, aromas,earth element, water element, heat element, air element etc.
However, with regards to the five skandhas, a thought is also called a rupa when it becomes the object received by the mind sense faculty. Ex: a memory
Can we only know ...
When the mind takes Nibbana as the object, all experiencing cease. But when enlightened beings do day to day activities, Nibbana is not the object of the mind. They do feel pain since there is experiencing. But they do not suffer. Being conscious of the pain is different from suffering due to pain.
I think the problem stems from a desire to know the mechanistic workings of reality; e.g. how one thing affects or effects another, rather than simple that it does so. Buddhism is, for the most part, terribly devoid of explanations about the former, since it is ultimately a practical path. As the Buddha said time and again,
Bhikkhus, both formerly and ...
There are other sources that support the notion that there is only one mind or consciousness in all that is. Here is one such source
In contrast with many Indian religious traditions, Buddhism does not
regard the body and the mind or spirit as being two entirely separate
entities- there is no sense ...
In Theravada, these questions are considered abhidhamma material. The goto reference is the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, which says in regards to your second question:
2. Is consciousness inevitably always a sequence of moments, not a continuum of awareness? Is this also true during meditation?
A second distinguishing feature of the Abhidhamma is ...
The future is only just an imagination at best as it has not happened and the past is only an memory. You cannot see the in details anything other than what you remember or things yet to unfold.
So present moment is what you can study to get a understanding of reality at the subtlest level.
There is a lot of questions in one question. You might consider splitting them up and asking separate questions. This ensures that other users will find it easier to answer the question and you will get better and more precise answers.
My answer is based on the last section of your question, i.e. the part about the 5th aggregate of consciousness.
As I understand, five skandhas describe phenomenological (first-person-view) makeup of a sentient being's world:
Rupa is "my body";
Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs?
This may not be physical in the sense of being solid, as is the case with ghosts etc. It is whatever is being identified with as "my body". ...
Some scholars, notably Dan Lusthaus, have argued that Yogācāra is not a form of Idealism. Lusthaus is one of the leading living authorities on Yogācāra and author of the authoritative analysis, Buddhist Phenomenology. The charge of Idealism is simply a mistaken reading of Yogācāra. For example in the introduction to his paper, What is and isn't Yogācāra he ...
Acts of cognition do not require a "cogniser, a subject" that knows (apart from the mind itself), because consciousness belongs to the body & mind.
The original question contains an implicit assumption that is invalid.
Cognition results from consciousness; just as a mirror reflects without a self.
Buddhism explains there are five aggregates (khandha) ...
Consciousness in English has a different semantic range than it has in Pali. Westerners have spent a lot of ink writing about consciousness, so I think there is a nontrivial risk of talking about biscuits (British cookies) and biscuits (American little round bread thingies).
Some of the relevant Pali jargon words are:
viññāṇa- awareness, especially the ...
Buddhist concept of not self is always difficult to translate. It generally means:
There is no core or soul
You have no absolute control over your aggregates or the world at large
Also when you have the perception of self you have a yard stick which you use to measure other people, their actions, standing, wealth, etc. with respect to you. This creates ...
There's no physical mind. Brain is Rupa(matter). There are only 2 aspects to the universe.
Nama - mental aspect
Rupa - physical aspect
These 2 are further subdivided into five groups called the Panchaskanda(five aggregates)
Usually what we call as thoughts belong to the Sankhara group. Thoughts are caused by both physical and mental causes.
From the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 18, speaking to Subhūti, the Buddha imparts,
...I know the mind of every sentient being in all the host of universes, regardless of any modes of thought, conceptions or tendencies. For all modes, conceptions and tendencies of thought are not mind. And yet they are called 'mind'. Why? It is impossible to retain a past ...
I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana?
According to the Theravada abhidhamma, yes, it is called a lokuttara-citta, and it is beautiful (sobhana).
Is there a consciousness of nirvana?
This wording is a bit more difficult to answer. Since nirvana entails unbinding of consciousness, it is hard to describe it as being conscious of ...
There is no Mind-Body problem in Buddhism.
The relationship between body and mind is well described by the Buddha in form of e.g. the 5 aggregates i.e., materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness and Dependent Origination.
But not only is it well described, the Buddha teaches us to go and find out for ourselves through the practice ...
The first link of paṭiccasamuppāda is “avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā” (conditioned by ignorance, formations arise). Analyzing this from the perspective of the Abhidhamma:
Ignorance is moha concomitant with the 12 akusala cittas
Formations is cetanā (volition) in the 12 akusala cittas, cetanā in the 8 kāmāvacara kusala cittas, cetanā in the 5 rūpavacara kusala ...
The "pair" or "dyad" of "knowing" and "object" is found in the Pali scriptures, as follows:
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus... there is
this (internal) 'group' ('kaya': of five aggregates) and external minds-and-bodies: thus this dyad (pair). Dependent on the
dyad (pair) there is contact.
Owing to a dyad (pair)...
It is difficult to be around non-meditative people when you are meditative. Dhammapada 302 states:
Suffering/difficulty comes from association with unequals.
When they say: "You are looking sad", this is a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, their own sadness & their own underlying fear. This has happened to me a few times before, when I used ...
life-continuum is Bhavanga-citta. It's the filler thought moment/moments between every 2 thoughts/experiences. It keeps you from dying when the senses cannot provide an object to the mind. When you are in dreamless sleep, your mind mostly has Bhavanga-cittas.
It's the first thought moment in your life and the last thought moment of the previous life. It is ...
So... what was it, where it came from and why?
What you have described sounds very much like the experience of Udayabbaya ñana or the knowledge of Arising and Passing Away. You can search for these terms and figure out more about this. You can also refer to this description of this stage by Daniel Ingram.
As to where it came from, only you can answer that ...
This is just bad translation. "Consciousness" is the common word for vijnana. A better translation of vijnana is "(subjective) experience". Meaning, you see something => you recognize it => you make sense of it => you experience it.
"Intellect" is how they usually translate manas or mind.
So "Intellect-consciousness" or mano-vijnana, is therefore the ...