text:
Is nirvana just the end of a causal series?
It is often said that nirvana is bliss.
What I'm struggling with, and have been for years now, despite reading a fair amount, is whether nirvana, being blissful, is not just objectively so.
i.e. is nirvana good for the buddha or saint that achieves it?
Because if it is, then I don't think it can only be an end to the causal series. Just like, when a fire has stopped burning, we don't say the fire is not hot.

All conditioned or caused phenomena are bad. Because they are unsatisfying. That which is not conditioned or caused is good. It is good for anyone who achieves it.
This problem occurs when you think that 'good' means a person experiencing a pleasurable mental or physical feeling. Nibbana is not a feeling. All feelings are caused. It's an existing phenomenon that cuts off the cause of suffering at the moment of attainment.

got it. it's tempting to think of the buddha's nirvana as a feeling; is that the same kinda thing as thinking of the "person" as a self ?

We think like that because Nibbana is outside of the framework we are familiar with. i.e. the five aggregates. So there's no real example to show that Nibbana is like this.
Both 'person' and 'self' are misunderstandings of the five aggregates.

thanks for the to the point and agreeable answers, it's v much appreciated :)

Nirvana is not 'caused'. This is why the Buddha referred to the "path" to Nirvana rather than the "cause" of Nirvana.
Imagine being blind-folded. The eyes cannot see any sights. But if the blind-fold is removed, sights can be seen.
Similarly, greed, hatred & delusion are like a blind-fold that prevent experiencing Nibbana. Nibbana is not something 'mental' although the mind experiences Nibbana (as a sense object).
This is similar to how a tree or flower is not the eye, but the eye experiences the tree or flower.

It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former
  times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city,
  an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html

thanks for the reply, tho i don't understand the suggestion that you're correcting me and i said, or meant, that nirvana is caused

sorry if i sound hostile, it's not the best medium for the exchange of these sorts of ideas :)

that's OK. i apologise if I misunderstood your question. regards


text:
Peculiar Experience of Shamatha / Vipassana
I'm currently attempting to do shamatha and vipassana meditations in alternation, even though I'm unsure this is the best way to proceed. I noticed that generally, as a person, I am somewhat repressed in the sense that few thoughts, images or sensations seem to emerge.
There are a few other peculiarities I experience, and I'm unsure if people could help me with that. I remember vaguely as a child having odd sensations / visions which arose without reason, in mandala form usually. And since a while now, I seem to be gaining insight randomly, sporadically. I've been happy for years, not in a strong pleasant sensation but in experiencing equanimity generally or lack of attachments.
Yet, I'm feeling stuck in my practice because I don't seem to realize where I'm at. I don't know whether I have good or bad concentration, or whatever else. I seem to be unaware of my own mental states. Since I feel repressed and few images or feelings arise, I think perhaps vipassana would help, but ultimately, I dunno.
Any kind of help on what I'm experiencing would aid me greatly, and I'd be willing to supply more details if necessary.

Your question gives the impression that you have not developed meditation within a certain teaching/practise tradition for a prolonged period but have been learning theory from different random sources. If that is true, your question thus gives the impression the various theories of meditation have confused you.
In the West, there is a popular form of 'meditation' from Burma that is erroneously called 'vipassana', where practitioners are preoccupied with noting thoughts, images or sensations. This is so because practitioners have many distractions so this method accommodates & attracts those kinds of practitioners.
In formal Buddhist theory (such as in the old scriptures) having few thoughts, images or sensations is a good thing. In formal Buddhist theory, samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem (concurrently), with samatha predominating in the beginning & vipassana developing naturally as samatha deepens.
In formal Buddhist theory, 'vipassana' does not mean noting thoughts, images or sensations. 'Vipassana' means 'seeing clearing' the impermanence & selflessness of phenomena.
For example, on a very basic level, the mind can develop samatha by continuously observing the breathing in a balanced equanimous way. As the mind is continuously observing breathing, it will naturally notice the breathing is impermanent; in that the breathing comes & goes; that it becomes short & long; that the various breaths have different textures & qualities, such as being smooth, rough, agitating, soothing, etc; ultimately to the point of seeing clearly it is the body that breathes (rather than "I" or the "self" that breathes). Seeing clearly the impermanence & selflessness of the various breathing ins & breathing outs is real vipassana.
Then as samatha develops & deepens, certain feelings of rapture & joy will predominate in the mind. When these feelings predominate, they will also be objects of vipassana, in that the rapture & joy will be seen as dependently arising, impermanent & selfless.
Then as samatha deepens, more profound vipassana will occur in different ways.
Therefore, in my opinion, you should consider developing samatha more because this leads to calmness & non-confusion. You should forget about thoughts & images because these are actually hindrances to meditation.
The 'sensations' that are ideally observed are the subtle sensations within the breathing; the sensations of the breathing being smooth, rough, etc. Then later, as samatha is profoundly developed, the mind observes the sensations of rapture & joy that arise from the calming of the breathing.
After this, the mind will be very clear & can discern the 'dependent origination' of thoughts, consciousness, other mentality & sense objects.
The classic original Buddhist path is based on developing samatha. Further, based in what you described in your question, the impression is your mind is predisposed or inclined to develop samatha, since it has equanimity & few attachments.

[And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
Maha-salayatanika Sutta

My guess (from the brief description, which somewhat resonates with my previous experiences) is that your mind is in a partially frozen or disconnected/dissociated state. Equanimity is a netural feeling (from the set +/0/-), not absence of feelings. It can be a happy state in some sense, but it is not alive. Sometimes people don't realize that they are in such a state until they get out and feel the difference. One way of describing depression is that it is a state of disconnection (rather than a state of unhappy feeling); I am not diagnosing you, but it might be something in that direction (you say "repressed").
My recommendation is to do vipassana. Do vipassana which only involves very little concentration ("dry vipassana"), otherwise your mind will be using concentration (fake calmness and equanimity) to hide stuff; you want to see it and release it as much as possible. I have a very good experience with Ajahn Tong's tradition, which is Mahasi with some Thai influences; they have a set "basic course" of 2-3 weeks and use noting to help develop mindfulness. Noting is useful, because it forces you to note something all the time (even if "disconnected", "frozen", "equanimous", "nothing", "unconcentrated", "confused"), thus making it more difficult for the mind to hide somewhere and develop attachment to some states. Do the full course if you can, it is very powerful.
To connect with the theory a bit, you are seeing one of the roots of suffering, namely ignorance -- not knowing what is happening. It is tough to see (tougher than greed and hatred, the other 2) because one literally does not know that one does not know. Something like curved space making light go around something, but it can only be identified indirectly and it looks like "nothing".
If you locate yourself, I can help you find centers in your area (they have in Thailand, Europe, Central America; and occasionally courses here and there).

Hi Eudoxos. I edited your post to remove the impression you were replying to me. Regards.

I think your recommendation is spot on, and I have been considering vipassana as a means, without concentration, to undo the 'equanimity' I believe I had attained. I was wondering, considering your accurate recommendation (in my opinion) if there was a way to message you upon this site, as I'd like further informations.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Escaping "certain death" in the Mahayana tradition: does it occur in India?
I was struck, when reading on the history of Buddhism in China, by the stories of brave monks escaping certain death, often many times in one life.
I was curious is this was something Indian Buddhists also wrote about, or if it was something peculiar to China. Do these stories also appear in earlier reports, in the Buddha's life, etc.?

In the Indian suttas (attributed to the Buddha), monks generally prepared their minds to accept death by violence, as described in SN 35.88 & MN 21.
In the Indian suttas & commentaries, there are also stories of the Buddha & his disciples using love & psychic powers to avoid death, such as Angulimala Sutta, the assassination attempts by Devadatta and Maha Moggallana using his psychic powers to escape assassination.

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


text:
Do any of scholastic currents conclusively affirm or deny that there are any facts at all?
Do any of scholastic currents unambiguously affirm or deny that there are any facts at all? In any tradition, so I welcome a reply from any perspective.
By facts, I don't mean certain knowledge.

But if there are facts then, if we did know that fact, what we knew
would be always be reliable, and there's nothing out there which
means we couldn't be entirely certain, only our limited knowledge of
what is.
And if there are no facts, then any supposed knowledge that anyone
has is possibly untrue, and not just because of anything about the
belief.

If that sounds very convoluted, I apologise; I've tried to give necessary and sufficient conditions of a fact.

Do you want to define what you mean by "a fact", or is it up to each answer to supply its own definition of the word?

i tried to define it

Your definition just seemed to be, what I mean by "a fact" is not "certain knowledge".

i tried to give a necessary condition

This looks like a question for the philosophy stack.

It's not clear to me what your definition of "fact" is.
My definition of "fact" is literally, "something which has been done".
This definition of 'fact' says:

from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere ‘do’.

... so it means "done" (for example, if you ask, "Is that a fact?", then I think that's the same as asking, "Is or was that done, did that happen?").
Furthermore a sutta like MN 60 Apannaka Sutta says that there is action:

Because there actually is action, the view of one who thinks, 'There is action' is his right view. Because there actually is action, when he is resolved that 'There is action,' that is his right resolve.

I think that this sutta is saying that, yes, there really are facts: there are actions, there are things done.
I think that to say otherwise would be a form of nihilism or solipsism.
I think (described is more detail here) that even the Yogacara (or "mind-only") school teaches that there are facts or conventional reality (albeit dependently-originated).

Since this question is epistemological, I will speak of knowers rather than objects of knowledge.
The Mahayana abhidharma defines seven types of consciousnesses. Lati Rinpoche says:

There are three divisions of awareness and knowledge: into seven,
  three, and two. The division into seven consists of direct perception,
  inference, subsequent cognition, correct assumption, inattentive
  awareness, doubt, and wrong consciousness.

The first four are realizing consciousness while the last three are not. A realizing consciousness realizes its object of engagement. A consciousness that does not realize its object of engagement can not be factually concordant. While an eye-consciousness seeing blue where there is blue is factually concordant (and an actual direct perceiver), an eye-consciousness seeing a blue snow mountain instead of a white snow mountain is not 'factually concordant' because there is no blue snow mountain.
A consciousness can be 'incontrovertible with regard to its object of engagement' and 'factually concordant'. For instance, a correct assumption is factually concordant (that is why it is correct) but is not firmly established (that is why it is just an assumption). It is not established in dependence on a perfect reason (contrary to an inferential cognizer, for instance). Because it is not firmly established, it is said to be 'controvertible'. All non-realizing consciousnesses are controvertible. A non-realizing consciousness can 'tend towards the fact' though: for instance, a doubt consciousness thinking 'all products are probably impermanent'.
Here, that 'all products are impermanent' is a fact. That 'there is a white snow mountain' is a fact. That 'blue is the attribute of such or such entity' is a fact.
Since you ask about 'scholastic currents affirming...', I will explain what 'a current' is. Mahayana scriptures explain four philosophical schools also called 'tenet systems'. The first two are so-called 'hinayana schools of thought' (Vaïbashika & Sautrantika) while the last two are called 'mahayana schools or tenets' (Cittamatra & Madhyamika). The meaning of 'Tenets' is  'established conclusion'. A person who propounds a tenet system is someone who has established conclusions in his continuum. For instance, he as come to established that 'all objects of knowledge are truly established, externally established', that 'all conventional truths are imputed existent while ultimate truths are truly existent', that 'there is no self-cognizer', that 'the four seals are valid', etc. He takes these as facts. For instance, a Buddhist monk disrobing and becoming a Christian monk is a person who had not established such conclusion in his continuum. His conviction was not firm, not based on proper reasoning, not derived from 'a perfect reason', not incontrovertible.
Generally speaking, he four seals are posited by all Buddhist tenets since it is what makes a school Buddhist. There are other facts as well that are posited, such as reincarnation, that karma is infaillible, and so forth.

In original Buddhism, absolute truth, such as in the Four Noble Truths, are 'facts'. One interpretation of the terminology 'Four Noble Truths' is they are irrefutable, which is why they are called 'Noble' or 'Ariya' (which means: 'without enemy'). The scriptures say at SN 56.11:

...the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma
  that cannot be stopped by brahman or contemplative, deva, Mara or God
  or anyone in the world.

Those facts or absolute truths of Buddhism are considered to eternally & inherently exist, even if they are not comprehended or known by the human mind.
At SN 12.20 & AN 3.134, the scriptures say about the natural laws of the Four Noble Truths (Dependent Origination) & the Three Characteristics (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self):

...whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas (Buddhas), this property
  stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  (lawfulness) of the Dhamma...

In original Buddhism, the workings of kammic inheritance are not absolute truth or fact, since bad can be the result of good kamma and good can be the result of bad kamma (per MN 136).

I think this is maybe defining "a fact" as "a truth".

I was just providing what might serve as an answer rather than getting caught up in philosophy. It is not a question I personally would quibble about. Regards

I'm not complaining, I just wanted to verify that I understand your answer and why it's slightly different than mine.

Sure. I was just verifying the question is too complicated for me & I made no exacting attempt to answer the question. Obviously, due to impermanence, there are no 'facts', apart from the fact of impermanence & the unconditioned fact of non-factualizing (Nibbana). Regards.


text:
Is enlightened cognition more than its parts?
Is enlightened cognition, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts?
I'm asking cos:

(philosophical interpretations) they say that for Buddhists there is nothing more to a thing than its parts. But,
every part of anything (it seems) is conditioned and only of a practical value.

According to which tradition, and to which school of thought ? And could you tell what you mean with 'enlightenment'?

Mahayana-Nagarjuna philosophy states everything is conditioned & comprised of parts. Original Buddhism does not. The impression is your question arises because of illogical philosophy, which makes the philosophy sound contradictory to you. The original Buddha was fully enlightened thus explained reality without flawed description. Enlightenment leads to the permanent end of suffering. Since enlightenment 'uproots' the causes of suffering, there is no longer spiritual work to do. So the 'parts' either end (in redundancy) or, otherwise, are permanently established.

To summarize, I think you're saying that the original Buddha rightly described nirvana as "unconditioned" (and permanent), and saying that if a philosophy said that everything including enlightenment is comprised of conditioned (and impermanent) parts then that philosophy would be illogical.

Yes. Nirvana, the laws of nature, full enlightenment, etc, are permanent (but still not-self or empty). Standard original theory.

i thought pali buddhism likewise said that every element is conditioned. not sure what i said that was illogical, and nowhere did i say that enlightenment is suffering. i downvoted because you seem to be being polemical rather than answering the question in front of you. it's a bad habit

also, and i'm not totally sure it's what you're suggesting, but IIRC any nirvana, not just great nirvana, is said to be unconditioned

@Dhammadhatu sorry if i sound hostile?

No need to apologise for anything. Also, I did not say you were illogical. I said the philosophy of Nagarjuna can be illogical because it appears to state emptiness is proved by conditionality. Back to the topic, Pali Buddhism states the Nirvana element is unconditioned (MN 115) & states the enlightenment wisdom of a Buddha is permanent for the entire lifetime (MN 12). My point in my reply is everything cannot be viewed in terms of conditionality (that is, made up from parts). If we try to view everything in such a fixed & rigid way contradictions will arise. Kind regards.

i like contradictions, they help me think :) @Dhammadhatu

From the flow of your words, I think that you may be confusing enlightenment with emptiness. Both can be confusing, but I will try to clarify each. According to Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche, enlightenment is the ultimate achievement of buddhahood; and emptiness is the lack of inherent reality of a phenomenon or person. I have often heard lamas teach emptiness as the breaking down of phenomenon in their parts in order to establish that it does not exist as and of itself. In other words, we see a mundane table and we believe that it has an inherent existence, but the table is made up of legs,top,nails,screws,glue...not fixed, but constantly changing from moment to moment from the atomic level up to the fact that it ages and rots. All is impermanent.
Also, in the mundane world one would look at the collective parts as having a practical value as they appear to make the table. However, within Buddhism we see all things as dependently arising; all is depend for its existence upon something else, cause and effect, which is karma. Ergo, the table is dependent upon its parts to make a table. A person is dependent upon karma to make a life. these principles can be applied to all that we perceive in this world.
When it comes to explaining enlightenment, I do not feel that I can explain it any better than Lama Surya Das:
"Enlightenment is not about becoming divine. Instead, it is about becoming more fully human.In examining the archetypical experience of the Buddha, we see that his enlightenment represents the direct realization of reality---how things are and how they work. Enlightenment is the end of ignorance. when we talk about walking the path to enlightenment, we are talking about walking the path of an enlightened being."
If I have misinterpreted your question, please kindly rephrase the question.

no i don't mean "emptiness" that would surely be to misinterpret it as some sort of entity. i mean enlightened cognition, as you say "direct realisation of reality"

I am going to break this down for clarity in my own mind, if not in the minds of others. By definition "enlightened cognition" means that one is "freed from ignorance and misinformation" in order to pursue "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding thought experiences and the senses" (quotes from a couple of dictionaries). So to paraphrase, is the acquired knowledge and understanding of wisdom, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts? Wisdom, is insightful understanding. Simple put the question seems to be, is wisdom more than its parts?
Alright, now let's add the comment's reference to "direct realization of reality", which from the Buddhist view means Ultimate Reality, the direct realization of emptiness which leads to the end of suffering completely which is enlightenment, or buddhahood.
Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism translate Prajna and Bodhi as Wisdom. In the deeper sense, Prajna is insightful understanding; and Bodhi is the perfection of wisdom, or the teaching that all phenomenon are empty of self essence, which ties back into the direct realization of reality.
This also takes care of the "in any Buddhist tradition" part of the question.
Is wisdom more than its parts? In the mundane world it is not, since one accumulates pieces and parts of wisdom, conventional wisdom, without sensing a higher pursuit. However, upon the realization of Ultimate Reality, the parts cease to play a role as they too become impermanent through emptiness.


text:
Does Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise 24:18 teach real knowledge?
I like this verse, it is simply stated, and I like simple statements that can be made into something, or understood as, important.

But I'm totally unsure how to make sense of its four (famous) components! I probably think that "emptiness" means no causation, the idea that conditioned (caused) things don't exist in reality: that any supposed knowledge about them is bound to be found out as a form of ignorance. So then I understand them as:

causation isn't real
this is real
we can study this
and we already are

Is that an OK-ish understanding, or have I fallen into a trap? If it is, do all four of these teachings permanently replace our deluded conceptualisations?

No, this is not an OK-ish understanding, since it does not approach traditional interpretations (whether that of Tsongkhapa or his opponents belonging to the Jonang school or the Nyingma tradition).
First, from the Madhyamika-Prasangika viewpoint (Buddhapalita, Candrakirti, Shantideva, Tsongkhapa, etc) there are thee types of dependent-arising:

Dependent on causes and conditions
Dependent on parts
Dependent on names

From the Madhyamika-Svatantrika viewpoint (Bhavaviveka, Haribhadra, Kamalasila, etc). There are only the first two types (or maybe this is forced on them by Prasangika proponents).
The point is: all objects of knowledge are dependent arising, even those that do not arise from causes and conditions and are therefore permanent phenomena (such as space, cessation, emptiness). This accords with the next verse of the same chapter:

Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist.
  Therefore a non-empty thing Does not exist.

Traditionally, we say that the meaning of dependent-arising is emptiness. This is an interpretation of the verse, since dependent-arising is not said to be emptiness, but the meaning of emptiness. This is because realizing emptiness does not equate realizing dependent-arising.  One can not realize something as being a dependent-arising without having emptiness prior. That 'this is a provisional name' refers to emptiness being dependent-arising. Since it is a permanent phenomena, it does not depend on causes and conditions. However, it depends on parts and names: the emptiness of the mind, for instance, depends on its basis (i.e. the mind). Emptiness is necessarily emptiness of something and depends on its basis, therefore it is a dependent-arising.
This was stated because some think that emptiness exists truly (inherently) while it is not the case.
I suggest you attend teachings on this text and commentaries. One needs to rely on a teacher to study such texts. You started saying that you like simple statements, but it might be a trap leading you to think you can understand on your own.

hi, i appreciate the reply... i have actually read a fair bit on this, including the authors you mention, i just like simplifying things too much :/

is causation real? 2. if not, is that real? 3. and can we have non deluded knowledge about what causes what?

From a Prasangika viewpoint, causation is not real (because there is no 'real  conventionalities'), but it is 'real in relation to just the world' because it is an existent. On the other hand, the horns of the rabbit are not real even in relation to just the world, since they are utterly non-existent. Causation does exist conventionally. What is refuted is not causation altogether, but the four extremes of production, that is: inherent production.

The omniscient mind of a buddha is divided into two: the second disivion is "the exalted knower of all aspects that knows the main causes and effects with regard to the seventy topics". (so, yes, one can have non deluded knowledge about what causes what)

hey thanks for the reply, that is really great of you to do so, so clearly etc. :( !!

Nagarjuna is the master who gave a clear definition to the school of Buddhism that is known today as Mahayana Buddhism. So when you question whether what he thought in the quoted text is the real knowledge or not, it brought a smile to my face. How "emptiness" is defined in the Mahayana, and in the Pali Canon is different. I cannot remember where I came across it, so I will not comment further on this. You are not sure whether you have fallen into a trap or not.
All what I can tell you is that the Buddha taught us to be vigilant in the present and strive to understand the Dhamma by analyzing and investigating carefully. In society there are two predominant views. They are right view and wrong view. Right view leads to the proper path while the latter to a wrong road.  One thing that I know is that both the Mahayanins and the Theravadins believe in the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble Path, the Dependent Origination, the Three Characteristics of Existence and a number of other basic tenets. Above all, both the schools accept Gotama Buddha as their Teacher. So that is a good place to start.

I apologize for downvoting this; I did because I thought it didn't answer the question at all.

@ChrisW I upvoted because I think that it points to what the referenced "Middle Way" is. Define that, and the answer is clear. As I understand it, Buddhism asserts that we can only really know for ourselves, through experience and perhaps reflection. So looking outside oneself for direction might be a help, but it can never be an "answer". This Answer basically says this... "you are not sure whether you have fallen into a trap or not." This is the beginning of Knowledge.

@nocomprende Maybe it's a mystic, read-into-it-what-you-will answer (of a style that might appeal to you). I read it as saying, "That is a question about 'emptiness' in Mahayana, but I've forgotten where I came across that so I won't comment. The Buddha did tell us to be vigilant and investigate carefully, and here's a list of some doctrines which all schools of Buddhism have in common." The problem IMO is that an answer like "I don't know but the Buddha told us to investigate carefully" could be copy-and-pasted as an answer to any/every question: it's therefore not a (specific) answer at all.

@ChrisW I agree with you that on the face of it, this does not appear to be an answer, and I agree with your point that it could be "the answer" to lots of questions about undefined terms in Buddhism. The question is basically: "Does X = Y, because someone clearly said this, but I don't understand X?" One possible answer is to say, "Well, continue with Y then, which you have some understanding of, and eventually X will become apparent." This Answer tackles the Middle Way half of the equation, and the others try to address the Dependent Co-arising / emptiness side. I think that both are useful.

Work towards experiential knowledge of the realization of the Dhamma. Right view (Sammaditthi) is twofold:  conceptual right views or the intellectual grasp of the principles in Buddha's teaching, and the true (experiential) right view.  It is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching.  You will never come to the true right-view if you are not rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth. It starts with confidence and the state of Sotha-Aapanna – to get into the stream – is the arrival. Then you will see the otherness.

It is good to answer from your own experience (and/or answer with references). But I think every answer should also address/answer the OP's question, for example to be an answer to this topic the answer ought to say something about Nagarjuna, emptiness, whether or not and why anything which dependently co-arises is "empty", and/or whether such things "really exist". If an answer doesn't include any of those elements then IMO it doesn't answer, doesn't address, the OP's question.

Some philosophical interpretations of Nagarajuna do phrase it in terms of dependently arising things not really being caused.

there is no causation, when causation is thought of as involving
  causal activity. Nonetheless, he [Nagarjuna] notes (1: 2), there are
  conditions...  Suppose that you ask, "Why are the lights on?" I might
  reply as follows: (1) Because I flicked the switch. I have appealed to
  an efficient condition. Or (2) because the wires are in good working
  order, the bulbs haven't burned out, and the electricity is flowing.
  These are supporting conditions... [etc.] none of them makes reference
  to any causal powers or necessitation.

Garfield seems here to be saying that things are caused, but their causes aren't real.
I am quite unsure though whether he would say:

that's because knowledge of what causes what is deluded;
we can have non deluded knowledge

I'm sorry I don't understand the subject matter well enough to understand/judge this, but: is this as an answer to your original question, or, is it an addition/supplement/follow-on to the original question, or is it a comment/question to Tenzin Dorje's answer?

hi @ChrisW don't be sorry. i suppose it's an incomplete answer to my question

I will wade in to the conflagration and say that I think that one possible understanding is that #2 is false: we are unable to have non-deluded knowledge. But we can be clear about that and not get further deluded and wander farther into the maze. To me, knowledge of Dependent Co-Arising means seeing that causes, reality, concepts, etc are all made-up. We cannot have 'knowledge' of something that we just created in our minds out of nothing. Realizing that that is the state of affairs, is what I would call Emptiness.

You are actually misunderstanding the verse.
The verse is in fact the KEY to unlocking the understanding of the Prajñāpāramitā sutras - Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra as well the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra.
Here is an alternative English translation (You Zai) of the verse from Mulamadhyamaka Karika from the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva

All dharmas that arise from causes and conditions,
I call them emptiness.
They are also provisional names,
And also the Middle Way.

The Chinese text

眾因緣生法，我説即是空；
亦為是假名，亦是中道義。

What Nagarjuna is saying, is that because all dependent originated phenomenon are due to causes and conditions, by their very conditionality they are impermanent and without self. As stated by the Buddha.

Pratītyasamutpāda
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."

Therefore because things are impermanent and without a true lasting self. He call them 'empty'.
However the term 'emptiness' is also just a convenient label, because it does not fully explain the complexity of the phenomenon and all the causes that made up something. To say something is 'empty' is that it ultimately lacks an underlying 'essence', but does not mean that it does not exist but that it does not truly exist.
This is therefore the Middle Way between Eternalism and Annihilationism. To be annihilationist is to say nothing exists and that there are no causes for anything to occur. This isn't the definition of emptiness as used by Nagarjuna. It is because there are causes, there are outcomes, but because they are made up of causes, there are also impermanent, hence is not Eternal.
So whenever you come across a text like the following:

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is form.
Heart Sutra

Your should consider the meaning of emptiness.
Form is dependently generated, Dependent origination is form.
Form is impermanent, Impermanence is form.
Form is without self, Without self is form.
So the question would be, why did Mahayana Buddhist Nagarjuna rephrase what is already a known Buddhist concept into 'emptiness'.
It because of what they perceived as the reification of Buddhist teachings in the Abhidhamma by schools such as the Sarvastivada (one of the ancestors of the Theravada), recall that even in modern Theravada teaches that Nibanna is unconditioned, a deathless dimension, and that the Arahants are perfect etc.
Nagarjuna denies such permanence and eternalism.
This is why it is stated:

There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever.

Because wisdom is itself conditioned (by the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path), and therefore wisdom too is impermanent. Hence the fruit of Four Stages of Attainment (Stream Entry, Once Returner, One Returner, Arahantship) are impermanent too.
It is not saying that there wisdom does not exist or the fruits of the contemplative life does not exist. They do exist, but like everything else are impermanent and not self.
Nagarjuna is breaking our attachments to the attainments within the very Dharma itself! Even Nirvana itself is impermanent! The end of suffering as is suffering is caused and conditioned and is impermanent!


text:
Does the universe ever end?
I have meditated and come to the conclusion that the world never ends, that conciousness goes on infinitely. This was ok when I felt I had free will, when I believed I was helping other people, when I thought that even what was apparently nonsense had purpose and when I felt like I could at least to some degree affect the feelings I have and those of others; to make things better for everyone.
But sometimes I feel like I can't, like everything is predestined and there's no control over anything. Like we're all trapped in a giant hamster wheel that runs around and around forever with no exit.
What is the correct way to view this problem?
(Also, you probably need an 'eternal return' tag.)

Related: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/15456/is-it-possible-to-be-reborn-for-all-eternity

@Fiksdal I am currently unable to upvote being reborn for all eternity.

As far as I know, your upvote is still saved in the system. Once you get above 15 (I believe), your previous votes will come into effect. (If I'm not mistaken.) If you ask a few more questions or make some answers, you'll get some rep and then we can discuss these things in chat, etc. http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism

@Fiksdal Ok. I had a few other things come up in meditation recently. I might ask about those, I think.

Sure. You just need to provide a few more answers or questions here first, so you can get enough reputation to talk in chat. When you want to talk to a particular user, remember to use the @ and then their name.

@Fiksdal I tried to ask a question but I don't know if it would be useful to others.

If you're unsure, you can ask in meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com first to find out whether your question is suitable.

@Fiksdal Ok. I am sorry and will seek guidance before asking in future.

What are you sorry about? Have you asked any unsuitable questions? I haven't seen any.

You just need 2 more reputation now, and you'll be able to chat. And you can already upvote.

@Fiksdal Was my newer question a good question? I wondered if it was too personal to be answered.

I'm not sure. It seems kind of broad. But I'm new to this site myself, so I'm not sure what the requirements are here.

@Fiksdal I think "too broad" isn't a reason for closing a question on this site: this site is in some ways more liberal than many other SE sites, see Moderation policies for Questions for details.

@ChrisW Oh, that's cool. Thanks for letting me know.

@user8501 When this is Buddhism and our perspective is scientifically  to look at anything. So I gotta when you said felt eternal and infinite that awaken mind can't loose ever and it would be eternal. Once I was watching show visitor in monastery asked a monk "Is there a judgment day?" He said "There's only change and no judgment day." And for more about "universe" you can see what Buddha said about it.

There were fourteen questions to which Buddha remained silent. The universe is eternal,  The universe is not eternal.. were two of them. Read the following sutta.
MN 63 - Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that He explain these questions to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe, whether it is eternal or not eternal etc. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.
Another Sutta to read in this context is AN 4.45  -  Rohitassa Sutta: To Rohitassa

Once I was a seer named Rohitassa, a student of Bhoja, a powerful skywalker. My speed was as fast as that of a strong archer—well trained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharpshooter—shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palmyra tree. My stride stretched as far as the east sea is from the west. To me, endowed with such speed, such a stride, there came the desire: ‘I will go traveling to the end of the cosmos.’ I—with a one-hundred year life, a one-hundred year span—spent one hundred years traveling—apart from the time spent on eating, drinking, chewing & tasting, urinating & defecating, and sleeping to fight off weariness—but without reaching the end of the cosmos I died along the way. So … ‘I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.’”
[When this was said, the Blessed One responded:] "In this very one-fathom long body along with its perceptions and thoughts, do I proclaim the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world."
When the Buddha uses the term “world” or “cosmos” (loka), his primary meaning is the cosmos as experienced in terms of the six senses. As with the other factors of dependent co-arising, there is no need to study the cosmos “out there” behind our experience of the senses. It is enough simply to understand the cosmos as directly experienced for that experience to be brought to an end.

Does the universe ever end ?
I am not sure anyone has the answer, quite frankly.
Who knows.
But in our case, it doesn't really matter that much : we're mostly concerned with the here and now, to my mind.

In using the word "we", you give the impression of viewing life collectively.
The universe may never end, many things may be predestined & not controllable; often, we may not be able to help others or make the world a better place; but 'our own' individual mind can be set free from suffering about  the world of conscious experience.
Unlike you, when the Buddha meditated, he came to the conclusion consciousness is impermanent or finite. However, regardless of whether consciousness is finite or infinite, the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism explain the method to be free from suffering by abandoning craving, liking & disliking and attachment towards the world of conscious experience.

You are having a subliminal taste of the Infinite Consciousness jhana.
There are a lot of thoughts and states that we enjoy and pursue through various activities that would be fully satiated by entering into the respective jhana.
So maybe it is not about more thinking but cultivating that jhana (which require 1st jhana as prerequisite) to really understand consciousness and satisfy one's confusion.
So similar to what Sapta says, it is best to practice to convert this ideation into true transformations and  realizations that jhana would produce.

Whoever downvoted me thanks for the feedback, I clarified my answer to make it more understandable.

Can you recommend any good reading on the 1st jhana?

Look for samatha meditation. "Experience of samadhi"  .. Meditationexpert.com has my personal favorite articles. Jhana is one of the top 3 important things Buddha spoke about so you can find more about them by searching for samadhi/jhana.


text:
Is there any meaning, which I am supposed to untangle, to things I saw during meditation?
I had a friend who introduced me to Buddhism. He was very insistent I go to Buddhist groups, though I ended up going to a different one to the one he suggested (the leader was Theravāda not Mahāyāna). I haven't spoken to him in a long time, but he is the person I associate most strongly with Buddhism. He was very insistent that I chant the same mantras as him, and go to the groups he suggested.
In any case, during the meditation (which took place immediately after the one where I resolved to check if the universe is eternal) I saw these things:

I remembered a dream I had two days ago in which my Buddhist friend had changed from how I knew him. He was usually friendly and cheery, if a little unusual in manner sometimes. However, in the dream he looked very different and was angry, seemingly not just with me, but with everyone, but with me also. He grabbed me by my collar and screamed at me and I was afraid.
I saw there was a world within my laptop, which became large and over-filled with information, then shrunk to become the size of my left foot, and hovered just below my knee.
I saw a bright light, which was powerful and pure white, but tinged at the edges with gold. The light appeared to come from a figure, whom I saw as bound but then released from his bondage, stepping down from the place where he was bound to walk on the earth and talk to the people there.

Is it possible there is any meaning to these, which I am supposed to untangle? They seem to all be connected to my previous question, about the limits of the universe and the cycle of birth and death.

Was the group a legitimate, official Buddhist group? Did they demand donations or made an untrustworthy impression?

@OidaOudenEidos Yes. They wanted donations from my friend, and said that he needed to buy different items for his practice often.

Closing this question due to the the acceptance of satisfactory answer by the questioner, since it was flagged as an opinion based question.

@BuddhaTheis Sounds like this was some kind of sect, but not a Buddhist group, where you donate only if you want to (dana). If you want to get into real Buddhism, you could start by listening to this talk by Ajahn Sumedho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNb5fe_ixvg

@OidaOudenEidos Ok. I am helping some people in the English Language group edit their posts at the moment and they are showing me what I am doing wrong but I will look afterwards, I promise.

@BonnieTopits If a question is answered/answerable then it needn't be closed. The OP's "accepting" an answer is a signal that he or she is satisfied and doesn't need further answers (but the question isn't closed so people can add further answers if they want to anyway). This site (Buddhism.SE) is a bit more lenient than other SE sites about not closing answers ... see Moderation policies for Questions which is specific to this site

... see also  What does it mean if a question is "closed" or "on hold"? and Help Center > Asking which are the general (not site-specific) help topics, which describe how the web site software works.

I am still learning, and will follow your advise. I remember reading that one should leave a comment on why one was voting to close, but I did not consult the help section at that time. It popped upon review asking for a vote on closed status.

In order to possibly determine the meaning of your thoughts, you would need to consult a psychoanalyst. What is important within the reference of a forum answering questions on Buddhism, is that these conceptual thoughts during meditation are to be pushed aside so that you return to your focal point, usually the breathe. The goal of meditation is not to allow your thoughts to jump from one to another while you sit on a cushion. The goal is the absence of thought, thereby generating a clear calm mind. This takes practice. As you are someone new to to Buddhism, I recommend that you not rely on your friend alone, but read and study, and attend as many teachings offered by genuine lamas in order to extend your knowledge. You have made a good start. The Buddha said to listen to what he had to say but explore the truth of it on one's own.


text:
Benefits of sleeping in a sitting posture
Occasionally some buddhists monks will take up the practice of only sleeping in a sitting posture for an extended duration of time - sometimes up to 3 months.

What are the meditational (preferably insight-meditational) benefits of such practice?
How would one undertake such practice regarding posture and technique?

I read that one could start sleeping 1-2 hours in sitting posture and then move to a lying posture. Then slowly increase the time sleeping in sitting posture while reducing the time spent sleeping in lying posture.
Thank you for your time.

A good question, @Sri Lanka !

The practice of sleeping in a sitting posture can be explained as one of the 13 Dhutanga.

Sitter's Practice (nesajjik'anga) — living in the three postures of walking, standing and sitting and never lying down.

The advantages of sleeping less as described by the Buddha can be found in Jāgariyasutta

Vigilance
This was said by the Lord…
"Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu should be vigilant; he should live mindful, clearly comprehending, concentrated, happy and calm, and should know when it is suitable to cultivate those things that are wholesome. Bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu who is vigilant and living thus, one of two fruits is to be expected: final knowledge here and now or, there being some residual defilement, the state of non-returning."
You vigilant ones hear this:
  Wake up, you who are asleep!
  Vigilance is better than sleep:
  There is no fear for the vigilant.
One who is vigilant and mindful,
  Comprehending and concentrated,
  Joyful and calm in his thoughts,
  By rightly investigating the Dhamma
  With unified mind, will in time
  Destroy the darkness of ignorance.
Therefore be devoted to vigilance,
  An ardent, discerning, meditative bhikkhu.
  Having severed the fetter of birth and decay,
  One may here and now attain
  Enlightenment which is supreme.

Note that the pali word 'Jāgaro' which means 'deprive sleep' is translated as 'vigilant' in the above sutta translation.

Thank you Sajeewa, for the the thirteen dhutanga practices.

Thank you Sajeewa, you gave me more information and understanding of something. with metta... _/_

From Vissudhimagga:

The benefits are these. The mental shackle described thus, “He dwells
  indulging in the pleasure of lying prone, the pleasure of lolling, the
  pleasure of torpor”,  is  severed;  his  state  is  suitable  for
  devotion  to  any  meditation  subject;  his deportment  inspires
  confidence;  his  state  favours  the  application  of  energy;  he
  develops the right practice.
The adept that can place crosswise
  His feet to rest upon his thighs
  And sit with back erect shall make
  Foul Mára’s evil heart to quake.
  No more in supine joys to plump
  And wallow in lethargic dump;
  Who sits for rest and finds it good
  Shines forth in the Ascetics’ Wood.
  The happiness and bliss it brings
  Has naught to do with worldly things;
   So must the sitter’s vow befit
  The manners of a man of wit.

Greed subsides.
Thus the Sitter's Practise is the only recommended practise connected to energy.

There are several online articles that relate to the question of sleeping upright:
Why do Buddhist monks sleep upright?
Why do Buddhist monks sleep upright?
How to Sleep Sitting Up


text:
Momentum Within Meditation
I'm curious as to what the difference is between meditation 1) with distractions / without distractions, and 2) for a long and motionless period / while in the business of motion and surroundings.
I have been practicing mindfulness in my day to day life, and I wondered whether this was not meditation, or even a complete waste. I feel as though certain states or insights are achieved in the process, but I'm really wondering the following:
Does meditation, to even 'begin' or 'gain momentum' require the succession of non-distracted states which bear a similarity to one another? I.e. by varying the type of meditation or the states one experiences, and by having some slight distractions between them, is the whole meditative effort undermined?
Also, I feel a great resistance to actually sit down motionless and attempt to concentrate on a specific point, or engage in a continuous / repetitive mental effort. I am unsure why this is, as I believe I can apply much effort otherwise.
Ideally, I would like to practice dry vipassana, and I hope someone can answer how this would be achieved in the context of what I have explained. I am willing to expend time and effort, but simply wish to know what is the ideal way to proceed.
Thanks for any answer. (Also, how many distractions can one tolerate without too much impediment to one's meditation? Especially in regards to noise.)

Trying to make this question even clearer, I'm not sure how to understand the second-last paragraph which contains two ideallys. Is it saying, do you want it to be understood as saying, "My idea is that I would like to practice dry vipassana, I would like to know what your idea is about the best way to proceed in the context of what I have explained (about momentum and resistance)"?

What do you mean by momentum?

Yes. 'Momentum' requires a succession of non-distracted states. 'Momentum' is a product of purification & samadhi.
Dry vipassana itself will not result in momentum because dry vipassana uses 'noting' or 'mental labeling', which are essentially 'distractions' or 'speed bumps'. It is only when the mind 'lets go' that 'momentum' will develop.
It is like letting go of a boat to flow down a river. Dry vipassana keeps the boat attached to the bank.
That said, dry vipassana is useful for developing 'sampajanna' ('clear comprehension'; 'applied wisdom'), which is a very important factor for samadhi development.
'Sampajanna' is necessary for negotiating speed-bumps but, naturally, when a speed bump is experienced, this results in a loss of momentum, however temporary.
The scriptures describe four kinds of meditative results (AN 4.41), the 3rd being the development of sati-sampajanna, for which dry vipassana is helpful.

The defiled mind always goes out in search of distractions. That’s a given. Buddha in ‘dutiya assutawantu sutta’  –(SN 12.61) said that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness one moment rises as another ceases continually - just as a monkey wandering in a big forest seizes a branch and letting go of it seizes another.  Taming this monkey is not an easy thing. So you have to take baby steps in the beginning. Even if your attempt at meditation takes only a few seconds, or a couple of minutes, be happy about it.
As you’re getting started, keep in mind that you’re like a kid learning to ride a bicycle. At the outset you may need training wheels, with only two wheels you will fall many a times, you will struggle, you may even need help. You can’t just learn overnight to ride a bike with a perfect sense of balance. With meditation, it will take months and years of continued practice.
There’s a Dhammapada verse that says, “Those who always earnestly practice 'mindfulness of the body', who follow not what should not be done, and constantly do what should be done, for those mindful and reflective ones the corruptions come to an end.  So in time, a day will come when you give away your defilements, and you gain freedom.

Maybe you want to balance your faculties? Like, I do walking meditation before I sit and that usually balances concentration and effort. I am not sure if effort is increased or concentration is increased but I generally have a better sit right after walking meditation. There isn't as many distractions during walking meditation for me at least, I can stay more one pointed on my feet. It gets my momentum up.
   Some people do some breath meditation or some other form of samatha concentration meditation before mindfulness of mind and body. I went through a period where I couldn't sit down to meditate and I also had no idea why. I probably need to go to a retreat.

My answer won't format into paragraphs.


text:
Why is nirvana not mara?
The term "non-duality" oft appears in Buddhist English language literature, both contemporary and in translation. e.g. it is sometimes claimed to be the cornerstone of Yogacara philosophy, and its assertion of "mind only", that no part of us exists independently of consciousness, but nevertheless it does tend to have some existence.
Obviously the term nirvana means buddhist liberation, that point at which the sage or saint (both words appear in the English language literature) has put out the suffering of samsaric existence, be that its elimination or a realisation that it is, in someway, already so extinct.
Mara is the personification of skillessness, a character that deceives e.g. the aspirant away from the holy life, and as such represents (in a sentient being) let's suppose something like the opposite of skillful means.
I thought that nonduality often (if not always) means that opposing terms (good and evil, or illusion and reality) depend upon each other, by convention at least.
So, whether or not the last paragraph is correct, does the above not suggest that nirvana is mara?

There are four terminological divisions of nirvana, and none of them is mara.
Non-duality does not mean “that opposing terms depend upon each other”. Rather, we posit three types of dualistic appearances :

appearance of conventionalities
appearance of true existence
appearance of the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness as two different substances

A consciousness that is free from the three is said to be “free from dualistic appearances”. By extension, the person who is the object-possessor knowing “in a non-dualistic manner” is also said to be free from dualistic appearances.
Here is an example: Conventional truths do not appear in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing emptiness. True existence does not appear to the superior's exalted wisdom directly realizing emptiness. There is no appearance of the object and the consciousness as being to different substantial entities to that consciousness. Because the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is free from the three types of dualistic appearances, we say that he who directly realizes emptiness does so “in a non-dualistic manner”. He is free from dualistic appearances (as long as he abides in meditative equipoise on emptiness).
You are right to oppose mara to skillful means. Maitreya/Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization, says: “The first application in skillful means is called application in skilful means which is victorious over the four mara-demons”.
However, there are four maras:

The mara of the contaminated appropriated aggregates,
The mara of the afflictions,
The mara of the lord of death, and
The mara of the sons of gods. Only this last one is actually referring to a being—obstructing external forces creating obstacles to gaining the freedom of the first three maras. They are gods of the desire realm only—not of the form realm and formless realm. The god Garab Wangchub is posited as an example in the commentary.

Non-abiding nirvana is freedom from the four (and is the final true cessation), therefore it is not mara.

i wager that i could find a primary source that claims that it does mean they "depend on each other". v good answer, thanks

@Tenzin Dorje Excellent very clear answer.that distinguishes Mahayana 'non-duality' from other doctrines of 'non-duality'. It was an excellent guided meditation.

are you sure that non duality never means that in any mahayana tradition mean, that the terms good and evil are not separate? i still believe you are wrong on that count, and am doing some research into it

The "standard" position is that good and evil depend on one another, but they are (1) different isolates and (2) different entities. While a whole and its parts, or emptiness and its basis are one entity - although they are two isolates - because they can not be found apart and abide together, it is not the case of good and evil. When a table turns into ashes, its emptiness ceases to exist as well. Such is not the case of good and evil, long and short, etc. Destroying a short object will not destroy long ones.

They depend upon each other, not by way of cause and effect, not by way of being one entity, but in a more subtle way.

If you had a short object and a long one, and you destroyed the short object, on what basis would the long object still be "long"? Comparison is rather like the whole-part oneness, isn't it?

When the short stick is destroyed, the long stick might not be apprehended as a long stick anymore. However, the basis of designation of the long stick does not cease to exist with the short stick being destroyed. One has to think in terms of (1) basis of designation and (2) object of observation. When a table cases, its emptiness also ceases. It's not about whether it is apprehended as being this or that but whether it is an object of observation at all.


text:
What is the difference between nama-rupa and the five skandhas?
As I understood it from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas, a different scheme for the same thing, along with others (e.g. the dhatus).
But, as far as I can tell, this is never quite explicitly stated.
Why?
And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?

"from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas" Would you be able to provide more details on where exactly in abhidharma, this is explained?

it's not ever said in anything i've read, but there is nothing outside the skandhas and it seems that nama-rupa is everything, else something is neither psychological not physical @SajeewaWelendagoda

Nama-rupa & the five aggregates are taught for different purposes.
The five aggregates are objects of insight.

'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is
  perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are
  fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is
  consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' ...AN 4.41

Nama-rupa is a condition in Dependent Origination, where it serves as the 'control centre' for meditation. Either nama-rupa is overcome by ignorance or nama-rupa is controlled to end ignorance.

He sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body [rupa] erect and setting mindfulness [nama] to the fore....MN 118
He lives with attention to body [rupa] established, with an immeasurable mind [nama]...MN 38

Nama-rupa is 'mentality-materiality' & excludes consciousness (although includes internal contact, which includes consciousness one of three constituents but predominantly the mind/mano as a sense organ).

What is mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements
  and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are
  called materiality.
What is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.
SN 12.2 & MN 9

Nama = mentality. It also includes another mental functions, such as mindfulness, zeal, energy, persistence, decision, etc (as listed in MN 111).
Why consciousness is kept separate is because consciousness is mere sense awareness, like a mirror. It is essentially 'passive' in nature.
Where as 'nama' is like 'intelligence'. It is a grouping of those functions of mind that discern, develop wisdom & makes decisions. Otherwise, if nama does not develop wisdom, it is controlled by ignorance (avicca paccaya...nama-rupa).
'Nama-rupa' is used as a word-compound to show nama & rupa are inseparably interrelated. For example, when nama becomes agitated, rupa simultaneously becomes agitated.

His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental
  distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental
  stress.
MN 149

Where as consciousness is just awareness or objectivity. Consciousness does not produce suffering where as an ignorant 'nama' produces & is afflicted by suffering; which also afflicts the physical body.
~~~
'Nama-rupa' is also a pre-Buddhist-Brahmanistic term that the Buddha adopted, redefined & thus debunked.
Brahmanism was concerned with 'creationism', of how the mind names forms. In Brahmanism, nama-rupa is 'name-form'. Where as the Buddha said 'nama-rupa' is 'mind-body' (mentality-materiality), which should be observed in meditation so to understand how suffering afflicts the mind-body & also can cease in the mind-body.

Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the world/suffering, the
  origination of the world/suffering, the cessation of the
  world/suffering and the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  the world/suffering... AN 4.45

There are many scriptures where the Buddha talks to Brahmans and the word 'nama-rupa' retains its Brahmanistic meaning as 'name-form'. This causes confusion to most Buddhists & scholars, who incorrectly translate nama-rupa as 'name-form' in all contexts.
When the Buddha teaches Buddhists, the translation is 'mentality-materiality'. When the Buddha teaches Brahmans, the translation is 'name-form'.

The brahman Jata Bharadvaja went to the Blessed One and said: Gotama, I ask you this: who can untangle this tangle?
Where name-&-form,   along with perception   of impingement & form, totally stop without trace:  that's where the tangle         is cut.
When this was said, the brahman Jata Bharadvaja said to the Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent!
SN 7.6

Why?
Different time period. Namarupa is more Theravadin and Five Skandha is a much precise, evolved system that isn't really deeply spoken of until Surangama Sutra--a Mahayana invention.
And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?
No. Not identical but very close.
From Wikipedia entry:

"And what [monks] is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention,
contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements,
  and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called
  form. This name & this form are, [monks], called name-&-form."
Katamañca bhikkhave nāmarūpaṃ? Vedanā saññā cetanā phasso manasikāro,
  idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnaṃ ca mahābhūtānaṃ
  upādāyarūpaṃ, idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ, idaṃ
  vuccati bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ.

With no argument from anyone, we can say from the above that form skandha = rupa.

rupa = form skandha CHECK

Now, we are left with four skandhas.
namas = feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention
Let's match them to the remaining skandhas based on the passage:

**feeling/**sensation skandha CHECK
**perception/**conception skandha CHECK
intention, contact, attention / part of the Ten Omnipresent Factors within the volition skandha.... CHECK
consciousness skandha?? 7th and 8th level of consciousness?

In conclusion namarupa can be generously rounded off to include 4.5 of the Five Skandhas as it seems to be missing much of the other delineations contained within the great volition skandha and the great consciousness skandha.

Elsewhere in the Pali Canon, nāmarūpa is used synonymously with the
  five aggregates.

Once again, I argue against this, since the 7th and 8th level of consciousness do not correlate entirely to "intention"... we cannot say that namarupa is a precise enough (or even late enough) to include these other layers which are actually worked on at the highest stages towards Complete Buddhahood and are described more in the Mahayana than in Theravada!

Rupa or Matter and consists of the combination of the four great elements of solidity, fluidity, motion and heat.
It corresponds to The First Aggregate of Form.
Nama or Mind consists of the combination of sensations, perceptions, volitional activities and consciousness.
It corresponds to the rest of the Aggregates, i.e. the Aggregate of Feelings/Sensations, Perception, Mental Formations and Consciousness.

doesn't answer the question. if you want to add comments like that the consider editing the question imho

great answer Lanka, I have adopted your answer although I would argue consciousness is not included and is not identical to namarupa

To get to know “Nama-Rupa”, and the ‘five skandhas”  the following dialogues between King Milinda and Arahant Nagasena is helpful.
Venerable Sir, what is ‘rupa’ and what is ‘nama’? Why do they generate together?
Dear king, ‘Namarupa’  means mentality & materiality.   Mentality (mind & thoughts) is ‘nama’. Materiality (the four great elements ‘Patavi’, ‘Apo’, ‘Thejo’, ‘Vayo’ which are transitory and the material form derived from them) is ‘Rupa’. ‘Nama’ and ‘rupa’ are linked together like flowers and their scent. They are born together. This phenomenon has been there for a long time.
Venerable Sir, what does conceive as the birth?
Dear King, ‘Namarupa’  (psychological elements of the human person & physical body / Mentality & materiality) conceive as the birth. The body & mind we have at present would never be reborn. Because of the results of good and bad deeds (Karma Vipaka) which we have done using our mind and body, another ‘Namarupa’  (psychological elements of the human person & physical body) is conceived.
Venerable Sir, is it the materiality or form (Rupa) which is Nagasena? Is it the feeling or sense (Vedana) (pleasure, pain or the absence of the either) which is Nagasena? Is it cognitive perception (Sanna) ( awareness of colour, shape, sound, smell, taste & touch) which is Nagasena? Is it volition or mental formation (Sankhara) (habitual actions like greed, hatred, generosity, kindness…etc) which is Nagasena? Is it consciousness (Vinnana) (all the mental faculties pertaining to perception & experience) which is Nagasena?
None dear king.
Venerable Sir, Then is it the five aggregates (Rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara,  vinnana) which is Nagasena?
No dear king.
Then, who is Nagasena?
Dear King, you came here by a chariot. Do you call the compartment the chariot? Or, do you call the roof the chariot? Is the cart wheel or the beam the chariot ? Is the axle the chariot ? Is the bridle the chariot ?
No Venerable Sir.
Dear king, when the compartment, the roof, cart wheels, the beam, the axle and the bridle is combined, it is called the chariot. If it is dismantled and heaped, nobody would call it a chariot.
Similarly, when my hair, teeth, nail, skin, flesh & bones are together, it is called Nagasena. When the five aggregates are together, it is called Nagasena. But, in reality, there is no such person.
Our Great Buddha said thus to Bhikkuni Vajira : “In the manner, that a chariot is called a chariot when the cart wheels, compartment, axle, beam, etc. are combined; a being is called thus when the five aggregates (the Five Skandhas)are merged. ”
King Milinda was very happy about the explanation and thanked Venerable Nagasena.


text:
Sampajañña: what is the correct action?
One of Buddha's four ways of training the mind for Sampajañña ("clear comprehension") is to know the suitability of an action. From an anecdote given by Joseph Goldstein, his meditation master was haggling with a seller. When asked why, he replied

The path of the Dhamma is to be simple, not a simpleton.

The following are two situations which I deal with on a daily basis, and I still am unsure what is the suitable or correct action to take.

Two people are walking towards each other on a narrow path, do you yield first and let the other pass?
Two people both make eye contact, who should avert their gaze first to avoid a staredown contest?

The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well, but I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?

'Sampajañña' means to be clearly cognizant in the application & use of various kinds of 'pañña' (wisdom; discernment) that relate to giving up craving & the cessation & suffering. The scriptures state:

The monk ardent (ātāpī), clearly-comprehending (sampajāno) & mindful (satimā) puts aside covetousness & distress with reference to the world.
MN 118

Despite Joseph possibly often having secular audiences, sampajañña does not relate to haggling for goods in the marketplace, which simply requires 'worldly shrewdness'.
When people are walking towards me on a narrow path, I generally always yield & let the other pass since I am generally walking without a particular craving (unless there is an inherent danger that must be decided on, such as when walking on a narrow path near a cliff).
Similarly, sampajañña would generally not be used stare-down contests because using sampajañña to apply the 8 fold path results in abandoning hostility & egoism.

And what is the faculty of discernment (pañña)? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with
  discernment of arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to
  the right ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This
  is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the
  cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of stress.' This is called the faculty of discernment.
Indriya-Vibhanga Sutta

I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?
I am inclined to "yield first", although it doesn't often (or hardly ever) happen in practice that I'm walking on a path that narrow.
When I'm on a bicycle on a shared footpath, pedestrians are usually inclined to yield to me, and then I allow them to yield (they walk on one side of the path and I cycle past them); or you could say I yield i.e. I cycle around them. I slow, slow to a stop, or dismount when necessary (e.g. on a single-lane footpath under a bridge, when passing small children or off-leash dogs, or on a pedestrian side-walk).
Sometimes I drive a car on a single-track road. There is a (unwritten?) convention for which car is supposed to yield in that case, i.e. it's supposed to be whichever car is able to yield the most easily:

The car which has a lay-by in front of it, which it can pull into
The car which is closest to the lay-by behind it (i.e. the car which has most recently passed a lay-by) into which it can reverse
The car which can most easily reverse (e.g. the car which will be reversing down-hill rather than up-hill, or the smaller car)

Sometimes I stop for 4 ½ seconds to see whether the other car (which is probably driven by someone who's more familiar with the road than I am) goes into reverse, and if not then I start to reverse.
The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well ...
I don't see this as a conflicting interest. I want to get around in a friendly and more-or-less cooperative way, I want to be non-aggressive and I don't want to frighten people. I assume (and my experience has confirmed) that these ambitions are socially acceptable and not a "conflicting interest".
When one car yields to another is conventional for both drivers to do a small hand-wave to the other as they pass each other (each to acknowledge the other's politeness and savoir faire perhaps).
On foot if I make eye-contact with someone (outside a city) then I'm likely to say "Good day!" to them (and vice versa, they do too). Someone said once that according to the older and more formal rules of politeness in this country it's conventional that it should be the more junior person who should be the first to say "Good day!"; but I'm happy ignore that and wish a good day to anyone, older or younger.

A true disciple of the Supreme Buddha is humble by nature as he/she has gotten rid of arrogance in its entirety. On the other hand a person who is not sincere, humble and innocent enough to surrender to the true Dhamma, has a greater degree of arrogance. So when two people are walking towards each other on a narrow path…, it is the one who has the alertness and awareness ( sampajañña), and who has true humility that will give way to the other.
Then to the question about two people both make eye contact, who should avert their gaze first to avoid a staredown contest?…  it is the one who has the alertness and awareness ( sampajañña), that would give in as he/she is one who practises the five Sekha strengths. He/she lives in association with the five Sekha strengths and does not abandon them. What are these Sekha Dhamma? They are… Saddha (Confidence), Hiri (shame), Ottappa (fear), Viriya (energy) and Panna (wisdom). Such a person is humble enough to see what’s going on in that present moment, that would lead to a staredown contest, and to understand the eventual pain that would come as a result.


text:
Are the formless jhanas without any consciouness of form at all?
I don't understand the formless jhanas.
Does this meditator completely lose consciousness of form, or are they meditating on something formless and, apart from that, as before?
I've read the abhidharmakosa bhashyam, of Vasubhadhu, and he says that a mediator of this sort will be later reborn into a realm without form, so that suggests that there are sentient beings without any of the sense consciousnesses. But I just find the idea impossible, to be honest.
Interesting, one of those books says that some Buddhists claim that there is a residue of visual consciousnesses there.
Can anyone describe to me what the formless jhana is like? I'm especially intrigued as to whether there is any sense of shade to it: if it seems darker or lighter than any given colour I've experienced.

vibhajavadins, iirc, claimed that

I don't know why someone downvoted this but it might be because the title isn't very good. Could you try to edit the title. to make it more closely reflect or summarize what you're asking in the body of the question?

Formless meditations exist. The eight attainments (atthasamapatti) in meditation (attaining Adhicitta) broadly has two parts - namely, the first four rupa jhanas and the four arupa jhanas. These last four are higher stages of mental concentration – the formless states - enable one to gain super-normal powers.
Even though we see the mind as normally inter-dependent with body, there are levels of existence where only mental phenomena exist, with nothing whatever of rupa.  The four 'formless' (arupa) meditative states are attainable from the fourth jhana onwards:
The sphere of infinite space (Akasanañcayatana);
This is attained by transcending any cognition of rupa, by abandoning the metal image that was previously the object of concentration, and seeing that space is infinite.
The sphere of infinite consciousness (Viññaaañcayatana);
In this second state, the focus is on the consciousness that had been aware of infinite space.
The sphere of nothingness (Akiñcaññayatana);
In the third, this object (Viññaaañcayatana) is dropped, and the focus is on the apparent nothingness remaining.
The sphere of neither-cognition-nor-non-cognition (Nevasaññanâsaññayatana).
In the fourth, this object (Akiñcaññayatana) is dropped and the mind is in an attenuated state where it is hardly functioning.
SD 24.11 _ Pathama Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Savitakka) Pathama Jhana Sutta. Progressing in the 1st dhyana.
SD24.12a _ Dutiya Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Avitakka) Dutiya Jhana Sutta. Progressing in 2nd dhyana.
SD 24.13 _ Tatiya Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Sukhena) Tatiya Jhana Sutta. Progressing in the 3rd dhyana.
SD 24.14 _ Catuttha Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Upekkhaka) Catuttha Jhana Sutta. How to progress in the 4th dhyana.
SD 24.15 _ Akasanañcayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of infinite space.
SD 24.16 _ Viññaaañcayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of infinite consciousness.
SD 24.17 _ Akiñcaññayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of nothingness.
SD 24.18 _ Nevasaññanâsaññayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

when you say "nothing whatever of rupa", do you know if that is also the case in the mind only schools?

I guess words are not enough to describe experiences. I don't know if they exist or how it is to be in a formless jhana, but I can tell you for sure that you will only get frustrated by trying to understand any experience using words or thoughts. See for yourself!

I am not aware of an explanation in the original Pali scriptures of exactly why the terms 'rupa (form) jhana' & 'arupa (formless) jhana' are used.
However, I would guess the term 'rupa' jhana is related to the activity of the nervous system of the entire physical body ('rupa'). For example, just before entering into the 1st (rupa) jhana, the mental stress stored within the physical is completely calmed & the entire bodily nervous system starts to radiate with bliss. Although the physical body & breathing can no longer be felt in the 1st jhana (due to the strength of the rapture-bliss in the brain dominating conscious awareness), the bliss of the entire bodily nervous system is the basis of the bliss of the rupa jhanas. The Pali scriptures state:

He enters & remains in the first jhana...in the second jhana...There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture & pleasure...MN 119.

As rapture (piti) & then pleasure (sukha) subside, the mind becomes purified & completely clear in the 4th (rupa) jhana; without the sense objects (sensations) of rapture & pleasure capturing consciousness awareness. The scriptures state, in attaining the 4th jhana, whatever physical-breathing activity remains is totally calmed:

Having attained the fourth absorption, inhalation and exhalation have ceased. SN 36.11

To gain a picture of what it means for the breathing to be completely calmed/ceased, MN 43 describes it is the same as a dead body (thus a medical doctor would think the body is dead due to no movement of the breathing despite the life-force of the body remaining alive).
~~~~
Therefore, the formless meditations (arupa jhana) are described as solely meditations upon consciousness & mentality, without any breathing & feeling sensations from the bodily nervous system being felt.
The features of the formless meditations are described in MN 111, as follows:

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of infinitude of space...the dimension of infinitude of consciousness...the dimension of nothingness. Whatever qualities there are...singleness of mind, contact, (mental) feeling,
  perception, intention, consciousness, zeal, decision, persistence,
  mindfulness, equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after
  another.

In the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception' (4th formless meditation/8th jhana), the scriptures describe the mental sense objects listed above start to disappear/fade & in the 'cessation of feeling & perception' ('9th jhana') all mentality, including consciousness, completely disappears.
Consciousness disappears in the '9th jhana' because there is no more perception & feeling thus, as taught in the scriptures (MN 38; SN 22.53), consciousness cannot arise without any sense objects.
Note: The '9th jhana' (cessation of feeling & perception) is not Nibbana/Nirvana.
In summary, in Buddhism, there are six avenues of sense consciousness. In the formless meditations (as described in MN 111), mind sense consciousness remains (although eye, ear, nose, tongue & body sense consciousness do not operate).

Please let us know why Note: The '9th jhana' (cessation of feeling & perception) is not Nibbana/Nirvana.? I like to suggest The 9th jhana is 'Nirodha Samapaththi'. In Secluded it says  Having attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased. In a taint-free monk greed has ceased, hatred has ceased, delusion has ceased......... greed has been stilled, hatred has been stilled, delusion has been stilled... .greed is quietened, hatred is quietened, delusion is quietened."

'Nirodha Samapaththi' ('9th jhana') is just a form of mental tranquility (samatha), to the degree the mind becomes unconsciousness. Where as an arahant abides in Nibbana including when consciousness, as defined at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044

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


text:
How to Attain Peace?
Sometimes we feel nervous, afraid, or anxious while doing something. So, How can we attain peace in afraid mood or anxious mood?

By acknowledging your anxious mood as a truth (dhamma). Don't push it away, don't try to change anything, don't blame or criticize yourself. It is a truth and therefore has the 3 characteristics of reality, namely anicca (it has beginning, middle and end), dukkha (it obviously doesn't satisfy you), anatta (you cannot control it; it arises due to certain conditions/habits/situations). Why should it be different?
As for how to actually deal with fear/anxiety, you could listen to this talk from Ajahn Jayasaro. He describes how fear/anxiety works. It has both a physical and a mental aspect. Fear builds up using a feedback loop. If there is a fearful thought, a reaction in the body follows, you become worried about your bodily reaction with your mind, which then causes more tension in the body ... You can break that cycle by staying with the body and watching the feelings/sensations there (more detailed in the video).
Being at peace means to be at peace with whatever arises, not getting things or mind states that are peaceful and dependent on external causes. Peace means you're never at war with yourself :)

If I could I would give 10 upvotes to this answer

Ajahn Jayasaro is a very good teacher who is practical & accurate.

When anxiety arises, we should fully acknowledge its arising, by thinking or noting: "I feel anxious; I feel anxious" or simply: "Anxiety has arisen; anxiety has arisen".
Then start to investigate into the causes for why the mind is anxious; including why certain objects make the mind anxious .
Then wisely reflect (think) in ways to reduce the power of the anxiety, such as: "This anxiety is irrational & unnecessary; I am safe; I am not in danger; this anxiety is impermanent; it will pass; the Buddha, Sangha & other practitioners have overcome anxiety & found freedom from it;" etc.
If anxiety is arising towards a worldly task, such as study or work, think: "I can only do my best; being anxious will not help my endeavor; if I can, how can I improve".
Anxiety is an emotion that can be resolved by rational or wise thinking.
In addition, mindfulness with breathing meditation can also help resolve anxiety.

Following factors hinder peace.

Sensual desire (kamacchanda)
Ill-will (byapada)
Sloth and torpor(thina-middha)
Restlessness and remorse (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha)

Anxiety is caused mainly by Uddhacca-kukkucca. And it can be abandoned by developing tranquility, concentration and equanimity of the mind.

If there is water in a pot, stirred by the wind, agitated, swaying and producing waves, a man with a normal faculty of sight could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by restlessness and remorse, overpowered by restlessness and remorse, one cannot properly see the escape from restlessness and remorse that have arisen; then one does not properly understand one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized.
— Sangaravo Sutta SN 46:55

It is natural for people get into situations where they feel nervous, afraid, or anxious amidst the hustle and bustle of Life today with so many commitments and stresses. A way out of this is to somehow create some free time, to have a space to grow, to improve your spiritual practice. An answer lies in reducing your activities. When you have few duties, you have time to practice, because the answer lies in the Dhamma.
For this you need mindfulness and the stillness. With the stillness, you’re in a position to let go of nervous activity, to let go of unskilful things in the mind. With mindfulness and  letting‐ go of the unwanted, you get to see things clearly. In Dhamma—kayagatasati—is mindfulness immersed in the body. It is a whole‐body awareness, that helps you feel more and more settled and at ease.  Then your nervousness will begin to fade away. You will become calm.
In the back of our minds there’s always the fear of pain, fear of suffering.  To be at peace we have to get past that fear. If you’re afraid to face up to pain, the mind can never be in control over itself because it’s afraid. Then even your own mind is not a friend.
We’re afraid of many things. There are fears associated with greed, with anger, with delusion.  That is where you have to focus to understand your fears. You have to understand the emotions behind them. Then you will get to know which part of fear is dependent on greed / passion, / on the aversion, and on delusion. Then, when you address the underlying emotions, the fear will subside.  So learn to separate the physical from the mental side.  Remember that wherever there’s clinging there’s weakness and that’s what constitutes fear. Then you will get to know whether it is a realistic fear or not.  This will help you find ways to overcome fear. If you practice proper the Dhamma... there is nothing to fear.

Simple answer is to your Question is Try to Meditate. if you can do that your mind will be Still..if your mind still you can control other feelings very well..

It depends on whether one follows sutrayana or tantryana. Sutrayana finds peace in understanding there's a cause to everything. Tantrayana finds peace through thought transformations.

Can I ask you to expand on that, or should I post that as a new question? Especially the latter (Tantrayana): personal experience (perhaps an example to illustrate what you're saying), and/or a reference. What are "thought transformations"? How are they transformed (if that's not too much of a "there's a cause to everything" question)?

Tibetan Buddhism practice (tantrayana)needs you to find a genuine tantrayana teacher. You need to have connection with the teacher and he must be willing to teach you. Best Wishes!


text:
Is space impermanent?
I know that space is often said to be unconditioned, and it seems right to say that it is empty of svabhava.

But, is it impermanent?

See also Two unconditioned dhammas? (schools differ on whether space is unconditioned).

FYI if in future you would like to avoid Theravada answers (because they don't answer your question) you can 'tag' the question with a non-Theravada tag, e.g. [tag:mahayana], and/or explicitly reference a non-Theravada doctrine in the question. Without such a tag the question is open to answers from any/all traditions.

@ChrisW if i'm asking a mahayana question i'd say. no problem with theravada answers which are properly sourced

To short for an answer: SN 25.9: Dhatu Sutta — Properties "...Monks, the space property is inconstant, changeable, alterable..."

Space is not unconditioned. For example, there is space in the nostrils & ears. But if that space is filled up, with wax, snot or earplugs, the space disappears. This shows space is not unconditioned. The space is dependent & impermanent. To quote:

And what is the space property? The space property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial & sustained:
  the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby
  what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it
  collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else
  internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is
  called the internal space property.
MN 62

In Buddhism is explained immaterial meditative absorptions (arupa jhana), such as the dimensions of space, infinite consciousness & nothingness. Many 'Buddhists' (particularly Mahayana fixated on non-conceptuality/non-thinking) mistake these for the unconditioned Nirvana.
Nirvana, the Unconditioned, is the destruction of greed, hatred & delusion and is permanent for the arahant. Therefore, if an arahant thinks or speaks, the mind can no longer abide in the arupa jhana of the dimension of space however the mind continues to abide in Nirvana because an arahant can think & speak without greed, hatred & delusion.
This simple fact shows why space is not the unconditioned & why non-thinking is not Nirvana.

your quotation as usual does not prove your point, tho as is usual you are right about theravada despite dismissing anything else as not buddhism

Do theravada buddhists not think that the mahayana is buddhism?

@user3293056 That emphasis on "space" as meaning "empty space" reminds me a bit of the Tao Te ching. But I suppose you were asking about some other/different definition/understanding of what "space" is?

According to Buddhism, everything(except nibbana) is subject to causality(Sankatha) and everything arises dependently (Paticcasamuppanna) and there is no exception to space and time!
In the Pali Canon, the term Aggregate(Skandha) is defined as follows;

"To what extent does the designation 'aggregate' apply to the aggregates?"
"Monk, whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. Whatever fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. This is the extent to which the term 'aggregate' applies to the aggregates."
  Maha-punnama Sutta (MN 109)

So in a nutshell; aggravate means the delusion of existence(of Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara and Vinnana) in time and space.
In Seela Sutta (SN 22.122) Ven. Maha Kotthita asks from Ven. Sariputta

"Sariputta my friend, which things should a virtuous monk attend to in an appropriate way?"

Ven. Sariputta replies;

"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as

Inconstant(Aniccato)
Stressful(Dukkhato)
A disease(Roghato)
A cancer(Gandato)
An arrow(Sallato)
Painful(Aghato)
An affliction(Abadato)
Alien (Parato)
A dissolution(Palokato)
An emptiness(Sunnato)
Not-self (Anattato)

Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of stream-entry."

No one done a physics answer yet?
Here it is.
Space is impermanent. General relativity shows that space and time are linked together and they change with mass. Mass tells spacetime how to bend, spacetime tells mass how to move.
The whole field of cosmology studies how the  space of universes changes.

This is a fine answer, however I will note that “space” as defined by general relativity is not necessarily the same thing as “space” as used by the OP or the Buddha for that matter... hence the difficulty with most of these questions :)

What other kind of definition is there? GR is just a realization that space is not a backdrop, but a dynamic player. If one doesn't take this into account, one creates a fictional space, not existing in the world, but only in one's mind.

See this https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26051/13375 I was a physics major and have great respect for GR, but it is not the only notion of space that is useful. It is also a construct of the mind btw. And we know it is at best approximate as it does not take quantum effects into account.

According to the Scriptures the universe is infinite in time and space. By infinite what is meant is the length, width or number of solar systems (lokadhātu) in the universe are infinite. Within that infinite space there are sections that consist of one billion solar systems are called “Thri Sahashri Loka Datu” (equivalent to a galaxy). Such unfathomable spaces are always explained by similes. One such is -  If someone takes mustard seeds amount equal to the volume of Thri Sahashri Loka Datu (equivalent to a galaxy) and travel in one direction placing one seed on one solar system, the seeds will come to an end but not the universe.
Buddha has not refereed to space as impermanent or not, but all things within it are. All the worlds of the devas, and the Brahma worlds are found within this time and space. For instance the scriptures talk about realms of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space... realms of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness... realms of the gods of the base consisting of nothingness...
All of us beings of all these diverse worlds, whatever we do in time and space is going to come to pass sooner or later, like a picture you draw with a stick in flowing water.  But there is one realm outside of time and space, Nibbhana, that Buddha wants us to reach, where we find the deathless. Once you’ve found the Deathless it’s always there as it is beyond time and space.
A collection of 1000 solar systems are called “Sahashri Loka Dhatu” in the scriptures. A collection of 1,000,000 solar systems are called “Divi Sahashri Loka Dhatu”.  The universe may not be impermanent (as there is no mention of it).  Within it, the solar systems are born, gets destroyed and it will be made again. Such cycles are called “Maha Kalpa(great kalpa)”.
Maha Kalpa are further divided:  time of solar system formation ( Sanwatta Kalpa), time of existence (Sanwatta Sthayi Kalpa), time of destruction (Wiwatta kalpa) and time of emptiness (Wiwatta Sthayi Kalpa). The time intervals are termed “Asankya Kalpa”.
For further reading:
http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/eng/Buddhist_cosmology

Consider that for something to be impermanent it must have some sort of arising.
Arising implies Cessation.  Without arising, there can be no cessation.
So you tell me, does space arise?  Or is it simply the unawareness of space that ceases?
At any rate, compassion is a much more profound topic to put your efforts toward, for "the view of emptiness without compassion shall not lead you onto the sublime path" ~ Saraha

Of course space is impermanent! Just put an object in it and the space is gone!

you need a reference for this insightful claim

that is hilarious, but space pervades the object as well!

Space is an impermanent thing, but uncompounded space is a permanent thing.
See here for the definition of uncompounded space and how it differs from the regular notion of space.

shame you don't have a quote!

A quote from whom?

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