text:
Practice of saying Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
Some Buddhists like to say Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!, usually 3 times.
There is some info here and here on this.
How did this practice originate? Are there any references to the Pali Canon or other texts for this?
Is it specific to a particular tradition?
Why is it necessary or useful to say this?

Mahasi Sayadaw gives some insight, if not an actual answer in his discourse on the Hemavata Sutta:

The Buddha was constantly into the jhāna, and for that He is adorable. While, after the end of a part of a sermon the audience exclaimed in one voice, "Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu! (Well done!) the Buddha went into jhāna even during that brief interval. And then He resumed the sermon. Such constancy is really marvelous."
There are occasions  for the audience to say "Sādhu" during my preaching but they are rather few. But in Myanmar it is usual for the audience to say "Sādhu" at the end of a Pāḷi gāthā (verse) of which the preaching monk gives a literal translation. When the monk ends in a long drawn-out voice with the (Myanmar) phrase "phyitkya le dawt tha dee" the audience says without any hesitation, Sādhu. They don't care to notice whether the verse so recited and translated relates to a subject which calls for an exultant hailing or not. They just note ending words "tha dee" and drone out "Sādhu."
For instance, in the Vessantrā jātaka, king Vessantrā gave away his two children, a son and a daughter of tender ages of four or five, to Jujaka Brāhmin. The Pāḷi verse in that connection describes the Brāhmin's cruel treatment of the children who wept desolately; how the Brāhmin beat them cruelly and dragged them away. When the preaching monk recited that verse and translated it into Myanmar and ended his version with the usual "tha dee" the audience droned out the usual  "Sādhu". Well, that is the part of the story which calls for sympathy and sadness from the listeners, not exultation, and so the  "Sādhu" went awry. But in Myanmar the audience don't care to discriminate.
In Sri Lanka, however, the audience intones "Sādhu" three times only for the part of the sermon which related to attainment of Arahatship or Nibbāna, for that is an occasion of exultation when a congratulatory note of joy, such as "Sādhu", is called for.
During the time of the Buddha the practice of saying "Sādhu" must be of the Sri Lanka pattern. When the audience said "Sādhu" three times, the Buddha paused, and during that brief interval He went into jhāna, and soon after the saying of   "Sādhu" by the audience, He resumed His sermon, He never remained idle, How adorable!
The preaching monks of today may not be entering into the jhāna; that brief interval is probably the time of resting his voice or it is the time for him to think of the words he will utter when he resumes his sermon.

It was certainly common in the Buddha's time to respond to an appreciated statement with the word "sādhu"; this occurs throughout the tipitaka and commentaries. E.g.:

“aparopi ce, cunda, sabrahmacārī saṅghe dhammaṃ bhāseyya. tatra ce tumhākaṃ evamassa — ‘ayaṃ kho āyasmā atthañceva sammā gaṇhāti byañjanāni ca sammā ropetī’ti. tassa ‘sādhū’’ti bhāsitaṃ abhinanditabbaṃ anumoditabbaṃ; tassa ‘sādhū’’ti bhāsitaṃ abhinanditvā anumoditvā so evamassa vacanīyo — ‘lābhā no āvuso, suladdhaṃ no āvuso, ye mayaṃ āyasmantaṃ tādisaṃ sabrahmacāriṃ passāma evaṃ atthupetaṃ byañjanupetan’ti.
‘But, Cunda, if you think he has got the right meaning and expressed it correctly,... you should say: ʺGood!ʺ and should applaud and congratulate him, saying: “We are lucky, we are most fortunate to find in you, friend, a companion in the holy life who is so well-versed in both the meaning and the expression!”
-- DN 29 (Walshe, trans)

As for the tradition to repeat it three times, I can't find an example in the tipitaka; twice seems common - dual repetition in pali is certainly a common construction (e.g. punappuna.m - again and again):

“sādhu, sādhu, puṇṇa! sakkhissasi kho tvaṃ, puṇṇa, iminā damūpasamena samannāgato sunāparantasmiṃ janapade viharituṃ. yassadāni tvaṃ, puṇṇa, kālaṃ maññasī”ti.
“Good, good, Puṇṇa! Possessing such self-control and peacefulness, you will be able to dwell in the Sunāparanta country. Now, Puṇṇa, it is time to do as you think fit.”

There is mention in the commentaries (e.g. DN-A) of the phrase "tikkhattuṃ sādhukāramadāsi" ("giving a sādhu-making three times") but I am not clear if this really means saying sādhu three times. In modern times, this is certainly how the Pali phrase is used and understood, but we also see (Jat-A 540):

“sādhu sādhu, bhikkhū”ti tikkhattuṃ sādhukāraṃ datvā...
having given sādhu-making three times, [saying] "sādhu, sādhu, bhikkhu!"...

Anyway, it's clearly a part of the tradition since ancient times in one form or another.

As to why it is considered beneficial, rejoicing in the the goodness of others is one of the ten means of acquiring goodness.

Sadhu in this context is used for approval and agreement as well as saying "well said".
Some other contexts it can be used for a holy or venerated person entity. Generally it is generally used for Hindu priests.
See: http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sadhu/index.html for details.

This isn't really an answer to the questions asked.

Sadhu (pronounced saadhu) is a word that occurs in the Tipitaka. It relates to an action. An action involves a subject and an object. If the action is beneficial to both the subject and the object, then it is Sadhu. If somebody utters this word he is stating the above fact.
In Sri Lankan practice you can hear this word, usually repeated three times at the beginning or/and at the end of any Buddhist rite, ritual or ceremony (private or public). The word has also been used by Lord Buddha and arahants as well.

Abbhanumodana (as an aspect of mudita), is something not really known an practiced in modern world (see
Sharing in Joy), maybe Mr/Mrs likes to explain more about its. It's maybe also worthy to explain of what is not proper to conform it with Sadhu (thinking on Dispraise) thought that such is in Buddhist countries often practiced as a polite ritual and can give bad notions in large.

As far as I am aware, Abbhanumodana occurs only in the commentaries. PED gives the meanings:  being pleased, satisfaction, thanksgiving.

As far as I am aware, Abbhanumodana occurs only in the commentaries. The word is not used in Sri Lankan practice. There is a word Asadhu (Pronounced asaadhu) to express disapproval. [PED Saadhu.] Sadhu is used to refer a monk; to pay respect to a monk also. Budu Sadhu is a reference to Lord Buddha. Sadhu is the most important word in Sri Lankan Buddhist practice. We learn it as toddlers. This is the only word some villagers, especially illiterate, know of Dhamma. It is adequate because Sadhu/Asadhu is the right/wrong; good/bad; Skilful/unskilful/; pure/impure etc.


text:
I Seem to have Developed the Faculty of Introspection But Not Mindfulness (Contact)
Alright, this will probably sound odd for most people on here: I cannot seem to place my mind on an object, as in make my attention rest upon an object as to define it more or emphasize it. However, I've managed to (from what I understand) diminish gross excitement and gross laxity, meaning I can sustain concentration but this concentration is not of an object. I'm merely looking at the object, not concentrating on it. I'm having much trouble develop the mental factor of contact, which may seem impossible but I don't know how to explain this better. Any advice? Thanks!

Welcome to Buddhism.SE This isn't really the best forum for advice, since you're bound to get diverging and conflicting opinions. If you could specify a tradition and focus more on getting answers about the nature of the state you are in, it would fit better with our site format.

strange question - i can't claim to know the ins and outs of meditation cultivation, but how do you know you have "concentration" and how do you know this isn't "of an object". what is missing from your lack of excitement and laxity which suggests that ?

I cannot seem to place my mind on an object, as in make my attention rest upon an object as to define it more or emphasize it.

Many beginners have this problem. There are couple of solution:

Breath Meditation

When doing breath meditation when starting be aware of your surrounding like the sounds, touch of your shirt or air touching your body. Do this for a few minutes only. When doing breath meditation and you realise your mind has gone to a sound realise that and then stay with the sound and your breath for a short while and then bring it back. If this has caused any through proliferation and other sensations in the body look at them for a short while. These sensation can trigger other distractions so realise their presence and ensure equanimity towards them (if not already not their develop it). If there is a pleasant smell you might have delight in it and this might be turning up other memories which intern triggers other thoughts and memories in associating with the sensation, what you recognise this as and your mental reaction.

Awareness

in developing awareness it might be worth while to try to switch from object to object. You can try systematically scanning your body.

However, I've managed to (from what I understand) diminish gross excitement and gross laxity, meaning I can sustain concentration but this concentration is not of an object.

In Buddhist meditation your object should be a wholesome object. So see that you are concentrated on. Concentration by definition (in some traditions) your mind being in one object when there is many.

I'm merely looking at the object, not concentrating on it.

Looking at the object is perhaps the same as staying with the object.

I'm having much trouble develop the mental factor of contact, which may seem impossible but I don't know how to explain this better.

This is very difficult to see consciousness arising from contact. These can only be seen if at all at very later stages of the practice. So don't worry about it.
Basically progress is: object > contact > conciousness > Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering of each of the sense door
Try to catch the train at the stage of Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Spontaneous Formation of Mandalas
Somehow, I seem to be forming mandalas within my psyche without any particular knowledge of how I'm doing so. I'm merely walking around, or meditating, and there will occur mandalas of great complexity (usually of the same shape) which arise in my mind. When they do, my mind will explore and think about them, almost obsessively, and attempt to understand them. Any idea about this?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some tips on getting started here.

Have you tried Kasina meditation?

I suggest you ask your teacher.

I've had similar experiences. Though Buddhism doesn't directly talk about the Kundalini system or even use the terminology (though Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism has something close or maybe the same in Thummo), reading about it was useful from a systemic analysis perspective.
Regardless of any explanation I found, it was ultimately only for curiosity satisfaction.
I think the best approach is to continue to practice and to not get carried away by this. Especially not obsessively, as you state. Just observe, remain equanimous and go on about your meditation.
One could term it a nimitta in the  Theravada tradition, I suppose.
In any case, it is a good sign of powerful concentration, keep at it.

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


text:
Mindfulness when on the train, underground and bus
Many of us spend at least a couple of hours per day on public transport like bus, train or underground (for me it is around 2.5 hours).
How could we use that time to develop right mindfulness?

When im taking public transportation i also like to read a book, write messages on mobile phone, look at people or look out of the window.
I try to be mindful in all those activities. I think that when one is guarding oneself with mindfulness then its not important what activity one is doing. One can read a book and be mindful about the activity of reading. If mental formations arise then one can be mindful of them, note them and return to the reading.
If doubt arises e.g. if one is worrying whether or not one is trying to escape the present moment by reading or being on the mobile phone then one can take that doubt as an meditation object. One can note the doubt a couple of times and then return the ones primary object of meditation. If the doubt keeps arising again and again one can then leave the primary object and then take the doubt and make that the primary object of meditation.
As long as one is mindful of whatever arises and ceases then one is practicing the "right mindfulness" factor of the Noble EightFold Path. Here is a description of Right Mindfulness by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

"The mind is deliberately kept at the level of bare attention, a detached observation of what is happening within us and around us in the present moment. In the practice of right mindfulness the mind is trained to remain in the present, open, quiet, and alert, contemplating the present event. All judgments and interpretations have to be suspended, or if they occur, just registered and dropped."

And here is the book "The Noble Eightfold Path" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
You might check out the chapter IV: "Right Mindfulness - Samma Sati" to get a fuller description of it. Its very well described.
Another thing i would like to mention is the obstacles to meditation and the practice of being mindful of the present moment. This teaching is called "The Five Hindrances". You might have heard of them. They are what keeps one from developing in meditation. They are briefly:

Sensual Desire (kámacchanda)
Aversion or Ill-will (vyápáda)
Sleepiness – sloth (thina), torpor (middha), sluggishness
Restlessness – worry about the future, regret of the past, anxiety (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Doubt (skeptical doubt) (vicikicchá)

Here is a book called "The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest"  by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera and here is a great audio dhamma talk on the five hindrances by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi - Part 1 and Part 2. The dhamma talk really goes into depth of the hindrances and how to overcome them. When one gets to know the 5 hindrances as the inside of ones own pocket then one is well equipped to meet those obstacles.
May this be of some help to you.
Lanka

I too am on public transport for a reasonable part of the day. When I look around at my fellow passengers it's always notable to me how many are not present. The majority of people are on phones, checking social media, listening to music, flicking through a newspaper, doing anything but being present. It is rare to see people just sat there. This isn't to judge these people - commuting is tough particularly on some routes and people do what they feel they must do.
But it's not just other people. I do it - listening to music, checking the phone etc... Recently I've challenged myself just to let go of these crutches to my commute. I don't listen to music etc.. etc.. I just sit there. I try to take notice. I wait and see what crazy thought pops into my head and try to spot where it came from. I try to be aware of my fellow commuters. I sometime play a game with myself where I wait and see how long it takes before I get bored. I never get bored. I get restless, frustrated but not bored.
Right now this is a good practice for me. My life is busy but I just add to it. There are moments in the day when I can take in a bit less information - commuting is one of them. Guarding the sense doors is an important (and difficult) practice for me. I truly believe that it's improved my mental state and is having a positive effect on my meditation practice. It's all conditions and if I spend my commute pumping extra information into my mind it's not surprising that at the end of the day I feel like I've poisoned my mind.
This answer is just my personal experience but I hope it's of some interest to you. Good luck with the practice on your commute.

Thank you . I always read books on my iPhone when travel , mostly Dhamma books (meditation etc. ) . But still is this again an escape from present moment ?  Would it be more benificial for me to note mental factors or aware about body posture when travel ?

1st lets analyse the situation:

There will be a lot of distraction like sounds, sites, chatting if with a colleges, reading, etc.
If you are standing you have to keep your balance
If you are the driver you have to be mindful of the road and everything around you

So the risks associated with the situation:

Your mind will wonder into an object and you loose awareness
Developing sloth and toper (especially in the case you are the driver)
Not been effective at multi tasking to better utilise the time, like mediation while driving, chatting, doing a piece of work on your laptop, reading, etc.
missing your stop

What is not conducive in such a situation:

trying to keep your focus on one object if you are a beginner
practices which might make you sleepy
practices which might be prone to you loose your awareness

Also key ingredients of the right type of mindfulness you have to develop (as per Buddha's instructions in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta):

on one or more of the 4 foundations of mindfulness
aware of arising and passing or the constant thorough understanding of impermanence or clear compensation
inside and out side piercingly and penetratingly (examining elements and sensation arising in internal organs also)
diving and dissecting
devoid of craving and aversion or strongly equanimous
working at the experiential level

Now lets work out the strategy which will be effective in the situation mitigating the risks.

Satisfy the natural tendency of the mind to jump from object to object as you are among distractions. (Changing objects, multiple objects - anchor and secondary and tertiary objects)
Since there is chances of distraction try to change objects systematically with sustained and applied thought to do this in the chosen manner - e.g. scanning the body
Make sure you have sustained and applied through on 1) some wholesome object 2) without loosing awareness, so you do not get sleepy. Again scanning the body is good. May be having an anchor or secondary object or tertiary object is good,
have a anchor point while scanning. Use the breath or some sensation like your lips touching or just the upper lip. Having more objects mean that chances of loosing your awareness
With regard to distractions object > contact > conciousness > Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering of each of the sense door. Try to catch the train at the stage of Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering, but earlier the better. When a distraction comes 1st be are of it. Perception > volition > thinking > pondering stages also has sensation associated with them. So look at them. Make sure you are not taking craving, clinging or averse to any of the sensations. Look closely to see the sensations with the awareness of arising and passing (or the constant thorough understanding of impermanence or clear compensation). If it does not pass be aware of the sensations and continue scanning (come back to the anchor and then continue scanning if you are doing this). If the sensations seam to be lingering for some times let go of the sensation and pay more attention to the are you are scanning.
if you are doing a piece of office work, studying, reading, driving, etc. this causes sensations as there is mental activity involved. Keep your mind steadfastly on this sensations. If driving keep your focus on sensation around your eyes, ears, head, perception of what might happen, etc. but consciously switch objects so you do not get drowsy.

I hope this helps.

Living in the present moment is the core of Right mindfulness. A person should always live in his present moment without regretting/ cherishing the past or planning/ fearing the future. We can always practice that while doing our daily chorus. I once heard a monk preach during a dhamma deshana that an old grandpa can practice this right mindfulness while he is going to pick his grandaughter from the pre-school. He can think with each step he takes that he is walking & can concentrate on the people & obstacles on the path before him. This will keep the old grandpa out of accidents & train his mind to work according to his will. Maybe you too can use that 2.5h journey of yours to forget office work & household work & just live in the present. Maybe then you will notice something new each day on the daily route. Enjoy the everyday ride. May the nobel triple gem bless you.

It can be difficult to focus on what is going on around you on public transportation. I prefer to engage in focused activity that is more enjoyable to engage in, such as listening to a podcast or music. Noise cancelling headphones help. I am still engaged in the present moment. But I choose which present reality I am focused on.

Could you clarify how this is an answer to the question, i.e. "How could we use that time to develop right mindfulness?" Maybe explain how your preferred activity matches your definition of "right mindfulness" ... or what right and wrong mindfulness are, or something like that.


text:
What is special about physical contact in the context of erotic/sexual behaviour?
When staying at buddhist monasteries (Theravada for me so far) there are the Eight Precepts to be followed. I am familiar with the eight precepts. Regarding the precepts "
This bothers me already for a while: "To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour" one thing bothers me already for a while.
I cite from the information for guests from the Amaravati Buddhist monastery since the point which bothers me is well formulated there (I cannot directly link to the information for guests since it is mailed as PDF and not online on their website):

To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour

[...] For lay guests, while you are here you should avoid
  cultivating intimate relationships. This means to avoid physical
  contact [...]

(Full qoute for your reference at the bottom, here extracted the part relevant to the question extracted)
I understand (also by experience, although I've never done "real" sex up to now) why to refrain from erotic behaviour.
But I never understand why physical contact is automatically
associated with erotic practices. Take bodywork (therapeutic) or massage for example. Take communication through physical contact than through words (as in
Shiatsu, or simple games with hands-on) for example. Take dance-forms that concentrate on the experience pf physical principles rather than
"socialising-partnerfinding" (such as Contact Improvisation) for example.  Acrobatics. etc.
On the other hand, there may be many erotic scenarios without involving
physical contact.
So, what is so special about physical contact in the context of erotic/sexual behaviour that it needs to be forbidden at all at monasteries?

Full quote:

To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour

An important aspect of spiritual practice is the transformation of energy. This precept refers specifically to Sexual energy which can be transformed into 'heart energy'. To support this process, our training in the community requires that all behaviour supports the practice of celibacy.
For lay guests, while you are here you should avoid cultivating intimate relationships. This means to avoid physical contact or actively seeking out the company of anyone to whom you may feel sexually attracted. Even in speech, it is important to be sensitive to time, place and topic, not
  creating or furthering situations in which sexual attraction may arise.
This is especially true in contact with the monastics. For the monks and nuns, even private conversation with the opposite sex has strict boundaries. Such contact must be in a public place, or with a chaperon present (and sensitive also to topics discussed). Certain times are available for
  you to speak with some of the senior monks and nuns.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some tips to help you get started here.

What's the need for couple dancing and massage therapy in a monastery? The 8 precepts are taken mostly on Poya days or if you are staying at a monastery.

These were the requirements for laypeople visiting a Monastery, correct? How is that mysterious? Would you bring a bottle of whisky to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting? Or a freshly cooked steak to a vegetarian's home? Simple regard for the choices of others, it says nothing about how you should act in other circumstances. On a retreat, you should be able to use your "indoor voice" as appropriate for a few days.

..."I never understand why physical contact is automatically associated with erotic practices"... We are not in control of how sensual desires arise. The only thing we can do to control erotic desire is to cut out what has been known to make the erotic desire arise and that means abstaining from physical contact. Doesn't it help meditation practice when we don't do things that could possibly lead to defilement and distraction? Erotic desire entangles  and greatly distracts us from the task of seeing things as they are. Metta :)

Let me just tell you the story of a monk and his disciple... On a pilgrimage they came upto a shallow river where they are supposed to cross it by walking... At the same time on the banks they saw a beautiful young woman standing hesitated to cross ... To the bewilderment of the young disciple the monk calmly went to the woman and asked her to climb his shoulder and he carried her across... After crossing the river the monk dropped her down and walked on as if nothing happened... The disciple couldnot hold his frustration any longer and bursted out..."what was that?".... The monk looked surprised and then he calmly replied..."why are you still carrying the woman on your shoulders?"....
I believe it is all about your intentions... As long as you does not intend any sexuality in any of your actions there should be no taboo for physical contact... But you must be sure be like  the monk who was able to let down the woman from his shoulders...

interesting answer, can we find a citation?

http://zenpencils.com/comic/109-zen-fable-the-river-crossing/  this is a well known story which can be intrepreted in many ways..


text:
Important readings in vipassana
I am looking for the most important Buddhist readings regarding vipassana teachings. I have read thoroughly the Satipatthana Sutta, but I wonder if there are other important texts regarding insight meditation.
Thank you.

Yes there are some great teachings by the burmese meditation master Mahasi Sayadaw.
This website offers free books by Mahasi Sayadaw dealing with vipassana meditation and how to develop insight. This is a quote from the website regarding the free books:

"The books in this section are free for downloads and personal uses. However, commercial uses are not allowed. The Buddha Sasana Online has acquired permission from Buddha Sasana Nuggaha Organization to post the books for free downloads as a gift for the Internet community. Therefore please keep these resources free, and if you wish to link to these files, please do not do so. Please copy the files to your own webspace, and save our bandwidth for other people. If you wish to distribute these books, you also need to ask permission from the publishers. Thank you".

You might find these books useful:
1. A Discourse on Vipassana
An extensive guideline through the practice of Vipassana meditation and explanation of the Satipatthana medthod, including how Nibbana is realized through this method of practice.
21. Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation
This book includes an explanation of the difference of Samatha and Vipassana meditation, how Vipassana is practiced, the theory behind the practice, and how the practice achieves the goal of Nibbana and fulfills the Eightfold Noble Path.
26. Practical Vipassana Meditational Exercises
This is a brief look to the Vipassana meditation along with a few exercises to begin with.
28. Purpose of Practicing Kammatthana (Buddhist) Meditation
Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw explains the two kinds of meditations taught by the Buddha as well as a brief teaching on how to practice the two methods.
29. Satipatthana Vipassana Meditation
This book explains the Satipatthana Vipassana meditation method that's taught by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta. It explains extensively the instructions given by the Buddha in the Satipatthana sutta, the practice, and the theory behind it.
30. Summary of Discourses on Purity and Insight (Visuddhi-Nana-Kattha)
This is a collection of discourses given by the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw on the subjects of purity and insight.
31. The Satipatthana Meditation
This is yet another discourse to extensively discuss the Satipatthana meditation method prescribed by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta.
Lanka

30+ discourses by Mahasi Sayadaw that can all be downloaded in one zip file:http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/

The "Practical Insight Meditation" by Mahasi is easy to get in online bookshops and some people say it is the best dhamma-book ever ;)

Following might be also of some use:

Ledi Sayadaw

THE VIPASSANA-DIPANI (The Manual of Insight) by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw, Aggamahapandita, D.Litt.
A collections of works: The Manuals of Buddhism

Webu Sayadaw:

Way of Ultimate Calm

Pa Auk

Wisdom Wide and Deep: A Practical Handbook for Mastering Jhana and Vipassana by Shaila Catherine - this is generally more accessible as well as comprehensive than other Pa Auk books. Other books can be obtained for free.

Forest Dhamma: http://www.forestdhamma.org/books/english/
Thanisaro Bhikku: http://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html (multiple good books)
Achan Brahm:

MINDFULNESS, BLISS, AND BEYOND

Bhante Vimalaramsi : http://library.dhammasukha.org/books.html
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana : Many good books on Insight meditation. See: http://www.amazon.com/Bhante-Henepola-Gunaratana/e/B002LADY6O


text:
How does one escape suffering when they cannot provide for those they love
Taoism and Buddhism say we should distance our self from suffering and accept life as is if we cannot change it. But what if we have serious clinical depression or cannot provide properly for those we care about?
It is easy to distance when your self is the only factor but not when others depend on us. If we cannot make the lives of those we care about good then is the next step to teach them Buddhist or Tao values of accepting life as is?

This is a thoughtful question. I understand your sorrow and frustration. I find it very interesting though, in my conversations with rich and healthy people, many say that in fact they find it more difficult to distance themselves from life because "Everything is going so well." Contrary to popular belief, having adversity in one life can make it easier to let go of the false sense of a material identity. There is a common misinterpretation that life is suffering only when we meet adversity. Life can also be suffering when we are rich and healthy too. What is the key: do we identify with a healthy body or a sick body. Either way it is impermanent. Meditation helps us experience the Permanent and non malleable part of being that is and is not. Meditation clarifies who we are. Words can confuse who we are. Use words sparingly but do not try to  identify yourself with them.
Here is an article giving more details.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp1_f6.htm

a) Life is suffering
The Buddha told us that "Life is Suffering". One who does not
  understand the Truth of this may think that life is meaningless and
  become negative and pessimistic. Actually, this theory is commonly
  misunderstood. People in society and even some Buddhists are trapped
  in this wrong and gloomy view.
When we encounter phenomena, and have a feeling of dislike, worry or
  pain, we say that there is "suffering". This should not be generalised
  to "all life is suffering", because there is also a lot of happiness
  in life! Noises are disturbing but nice melodies bring happiness. When
  one is sick, poor, separated from loved ones, one has suffering. But
  when one is healthy, wealthy, together with one’s family, one is very
  happy. Suffering and happiness exist in all phenomena. Actually where
  there is happiness, there will be suffering. They are in contrast with
  each other. If’ we only say that life is suffering when things do not
  go according to our wish we are rather foolish.
The Buddha says, "Life is suffering". What does "suffering" mean? The
  sutras say: "Impermanence therefore suffering". Everything is
  impermanent and changeable. The Buddha says that life is suffering
  because it is impermanent and ever-changing. For example, a healthy
  body cannot last forever. It will gradually become weak, old. sick and
  die. One who is wealthy cannot maintain one’s wealth forever.
  Sometimes one may become poor. Power and status do not last as well,
  one will lose them finally. From this condition of changing and
  instability, although there is happiness and joy, they are not ever
  lasting and ultimate. When changes come, suffering arises.
Thus, the Buddha says life is suffering. Suffering means
  dissatisfaction, impermanence and imperfection. If a practising
  Buddhist does not understand the real meaning of "suffering" and think
  that life is not perfect and ultimate, they become negative and
  pessimistic in their view of life. Those who really understand the
  teaching of the Buddha will have a totally different view. We should
  know that the theory of "Life is suffering" taught by the Buddha is to
  remind us that life is not ultimate and lasting, and hence we should
  strive towards Buddhahood — a permanent and perfect life.
This is similar to one who is sick. One must know that one is sick
  before wanting to seek the doctor’s treatment. Only then can the
  sickness be cured. Why is life not ultimate and permanent and full of
  suffering? There must be a cause for the suffering. Once one knows the
  cause of suffering, one will try one’s best to be rid of the causes,
  and hence end the suffering and attain ultimate peacefulness and
  happiness.
A practising Buddhist should practice according to the Buddha’s
  instruction, and change this imperfect and non-ultimate life to a
  ultimate and perfect one. Then would come a state of permanent joy,
  personality, and purity.
Permanent means ever-lasting, joy means peacefulness and happiness,
  personality means freedom and non-attachment, purity means
  cleanliness. This highest aim of Buddhism is not only to break through
  the suffering of life but to transform this suffering life into a life
  that has permanent peacefulness, joy, freedom and purity. The Buddha
  told us the cause of suffering and instructed us to strive towards the
  goal. The stage of permanent, joy, personality and purity is an
  ultimate ideal phenomena. It is full of brightness and hope. It is a
  stage that is attainable by all of us. How can we say that Buddhism is
  negative and pessimistic?
Although not all practising Buddhists are able to attain this highest
  point of practice, there is still boundless benefit in knowing this
  theory. Most people know that they have to strive to do good when they
  are poor, but once they become rich, they forget about everything, and
  only think about their own enjoyment and hence walk towards the wrong
  path foolishly.
A practising Buddhist should remember to strive not only when one is
  poor and in difficulties, but should also be mindful when one is
  enjoying, because happiness is not permanent. If one does not strive
  towards the good, they will degenerate and fall very quickly. The
  teaching of "Life is suffering" reminds us not to look forward for
  enjoyment only and go the wrong way. This is the important implication
  in the teaching of "Life is suffering", taught by the Buddha.

I don't know of any example where the Buddha actually said "life is suffering".

@yuttadhammo Do you know a better English-language paraphrase/summary/approximation of the First noble truth?

@ChrisW the first noble truth is simply "This is the truth of suffering." Nowhere in the enumeration of what is suffering does it refer to life.

Life is what you perceive it to Be. Either you can let your ego-mind decide that for you or let your true Self(you) decide. I now realize that God is because he spoke to me. But I also realize that he is not because he is infinity and infinity is a paradox. So the religious, non-religious are both right and the agnostics are just unsure.

God speaking to you contradicts Buddhism. God as an infinite person also contradicts Buddhism. That's clear.

I don't believe that "life is suffering". Life can be happy or sad - it has its ups and downs. I believe Buddhist teachings say that "existence is suffering" (a different way to phrase "sabbe sankhara dukkha") and everything in life is impermanent. Good things in life will surely not last forever. Bad things today will end one day, but you can't avoid them from recurring in future.

The Buddha says clinging to the five khandas is suffering. Not getting what one wants, parting is suffering, old age ..etc...

Life is suffering, could be stated living in a polarized world such as earth consciousness is suffering. My own experience suggests that is so. Existence is suffering I can agree with. Believing one is a self of any kind is suffering. What is liberation seems a more relevant question. We can argue all day about what is not liberation. I cannot say a word about liberation. The Buddha holding the flower in the Flower Sermon points the way.

The real answer is that one cannot - it is the caring that causes the suffering:

Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or unloved.

From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?

-- Dhp 210-212 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

In fact worrying about others, or feeling depressed about our situation, doesn't help others or our situation to improve. This is how we reconcile with the Buddha's teaching; it seems callous and cruel to give up our concern for others, and it seems unproductive and negligent to stop caring about our worldly affairs. In actual fact, both our relationships and our worldly affairs improve when we give up our attachments to them.
Consider our concern for others; we worry, we fear, we cling to their happiness and suffering - does any of that improve our ability to work for their betterment? Clearly not. There is a difference between fulfilling one's worldly responsibilities and actually caring about their success or failure. Unfortunately, our culture (most cultures, in fact - even supposedly Buddhist ones) encourages us to care and looks with scorn on those who don't care. This doesn't make it any more useful to cry and moan when suffering arises or any less useful to be impartial and objective when dealing with problems no matter how personal they may be.
In brief, duty and responsibility should be what dictate our worldly affairs, not concern or care. As to what our responsibilities are, this differs from relationship to relationship; we don't have a duty or responsibility to teach our parents, for example, but we do have such a responsibility to our children. The point is, even if we fail in our responsibilities, we should not allow that to lead to sorrow or depression, neither of which is at all beneficial to self or others.

Thank you. I had my enlightenment experience yesterday and have reconciled this issue. My experience took the form of a voice in my head claiming to be God and telling me to Just Be. In the Eternity of Time Nothing Matters. Depeding on how it is viewed by the mind, this statement can be both good or bad. If it is good there is no problem. If it bad, we can either try to change it or accept it. It doesn't matter. Whatever happens, in the now you will just Be.

I think that we can escape suffering
the Buddhist teachings of the four truths help with the understanding of the types of suffering and the process of these different types.We try to escape from suffering, without asking ourselves what the word ‘suffering’ really means.


text:
Mindfulness of the world - its being OK
Does mindfulness include being "mindful" (noticing, etc.) of your world, or only sensations like the breath, walking. etc.?
So e.g. - being mindful of the other things that I do or do not have to do, rather than the task which is stressing me out and I haven't started yet.
I have "pronounced negative symptoms" of schizophrenia, and I badly need a way to be cognisant of tasks (like coursework) without approaching them directly and getting flustered. This may be one way.

Mindfulness is a translation of a Buddhist term that generally means "recollection" or "remembrance". It can be used in any number of ways, for example "recollection of the Buddha", "recollection of past lives", etc. In insight meditation, it refers to one's ability to recollect or remember the present moment, as taught in the discourse on the four foundations of mindfulness.
The four foundations are

body - recognizing and reminding oneself of bodily sensations as being simply bodily sensations
feelings - recognizing and reminding oneself of feelings (pain, pleasure, neutral) as being simply feelings
mind recognizing and reminding oneself of one's state of mind (scattered, focussed, etc.) as being simply a state of mind
dhammas - recognizing and reminding oneself of various aspects of ones experience on the path to enlightenment as being simply what they are.

So, to answer your question, mindfulness is simply a tool used to focus one's attention on a specific object; what you are suggesting sounds like a conceptual object, e.g. something unrelated to the task at hand to take your mind off of the present moment. This could be called "mindfulness", in the sense that you are actively working to recollect a specific object. It would be considered a form of samatha (tranquility) meditation, since it is no longer based on ultimate (i.e. present moment) reality.
The problem with what you suggest is that it seems to likely involve aversion to the present moment, and so it is not likely to lead to true freedom from the suffering associated with aversion. For this, you will need to practice mindfulness as described above regarding the four foundations. There, it should be used to focus on the present moment and remind you that the stress you feel is merely stress - not me, not mine, not good, not bad, etc.
A Buddhist perscription for your condition would be to focus your attention on the state of being flustered, as such states are conditioned by habit and can be countered with new conditioning (i.e. objectivity) through simply recognizing them as they are. As the Buddha said, for example:

idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sarāgaṃ vā cittaṃ ‘sarāgaṃ cittan’ti pajānāti
Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu clearly knows a mind with passion thus: "a mind with passion".
-- MN 10

In my tradition, this is accomplished by noting the flustered mind, for example, as "flustered, flustered..." somewhat akin to a mantra.

Does mindfulness include being "mindful" (noticing, etc.) of your world, or only sensations like the breath, walking. etc.?

This in of the 4 foundation of mindfulness at the experiential level. It is not the concept or head talk of waking, breathing, etc. If you want to look at you posture look at the outline of your body through what you sense. When walking see the change in posture through the change of the outline of the body through what you sense. You should be constantly aware of it's impermanence and changing nature of what you experience. E.g. any pain you get has a start and and end. Also at some point when you further analyse you will see it as smaller vibrations which make the large pain and they are arising and passing away.

So e.g. - being mindful of the other things that I do or do not have to do, rather than the task which is stressing me out and I haven't started yet.

The wrong type of Mindfulness is supporting to stress people out. (If you do a course at: http://dhamma.org/ this is covered in the instructions given.)
In short right mindfulness is awareness of what is going on in the framework of you body and mind (through the 4 foundations of awareness) while being constantly aware of the impermanent and changing nature (at a deeper level arising and passing) of phenomena.
All metal and physical phenomena has sensations attached. Hence being with sensations will definitely help.

I have "pronounced negative symptoms" of schizophrenia, and I badly need a way to be cognisant of tasks (like coursework) without approaching them directly and getting flustered. This may be one way.

When you are with the 4 foundations of mindfulness you are with the present moment. This way there is no room to misinterpret reality.
Also it is best that you seek a good meditation instructor who can guide you in this case. Some on you can approach and reach out when there is a issue.


text:
Leg pain in retreats and even zen short sessions
I've never had a problem with sleepiness, and I only get impatient when sitting on my own.
But oh that leg pain is something else.
Does anyone have any advice from a Zen perspective - not necessarily how to reduce the pain, but how to not simply hate meditation because of it (at least the half lotus position, and at least when in that position).

If you are doing mindfulness , leg pain could be a great opportunity to be mindful about "vedana" . What I do is making mental notes of "pain , pain " for some time . Sometimes it stops if not I move my legs by first making mental note " feel to move legs " then slowly do move again with mental notes of each step .

I've added "from a Zen perspective", since I assume that's what you're looking for? Please correct if wrong.

There might be something useful in this post or this answer for you.

I too suffer from leg pain (along with back & neck pain) - which is alleviated now to some degree since I have adopted a proper sitting posture that I can maintain. It took a lot of experimentation, however. How much time have you put into really analyzing your position?You don't have to force yourself into lotus. I personally use the zazen position (aided by a kneeling meditation bench). Maybe I'm a rebel but the way I look at it, a position isn't helping you be mindful if it causes overwhelming pain, so I use positions that may not be traditional but which help me sit for longer times.

As you progress in your sitting and develop samadhi, leg pain will become less of an issue.  You will still experience it along with the discomfort, but it stops being such a matter of "oh-my-God-this-is-terrible-ring-the-bell-now" and instead becomes less of an immediate concern.  It's almost as if it's happening in the background while your koan or mushin becomes the center of your attention.
Think of leg pain like a tooth ache.  When you are sitting around and watching TV with your mind diffused and disordered, you are very much aware of the discomfort.  If, however, your mind is absorbed in something else - and I don't know of a single person who'd complain about their molars during sex, for instance - that pain has less command of your attention.
The important take away is to develop your concentration.  Follow the breath to its very outer limits.  Let your mind ride your exhalation all the way to the end.  If you allow your attention to break even for an instant, discomfort, thought, judgement, and opinion will arise in the vacuum.
As a side note, don't sit in half lotus if it causes you pain!!!  Use the Burmese posture where you put one foot in front of the other.  There is no sense in torturing yourself.  If you hate meditation, you won't practice it.  Zen isn't about self injury, it's about waking up.

I am a Zen practitioner that lives with chronic pain. I haven't been sitting for super long but I have learned a lot about sitting with pain since I've been in the Zendo.
My first recommendation is that if you have a teacher you ask them what to do.
There seem to be two end of the spectrum on this, and what's important is that you find what the middle between the two is for you (might be different today than it is tomorrow!).
1) As neko elucidated in their answer, the pain is a story. You don't "complain about [your] molars during sex." It can be very important to sit through the pain.
2) If you are causing actual harm to yourself, you are probably doing something wrong. Get up. Go lay down. Change postures. When I'm on retreat it is very important to me that I don't leave the retreat with a destroyed body. I have to balance when I sit with pain and when I stop sitting and take care of myself. I have to be very careful about falling into thought patterns around the idea of zen being some sort of bootcamp.

hello. define "harm"? it ruined any conventional peace i could've found...

@user3293056 I define self-harm in this specific scenario as "is doing this now going to directly cause me pain 24 hours from now?" or, "If I keep sitting in this posture will I need surgery?" The first of the three pure precepts is to do no harm. I use it as a guide for this type of scenario.

ok that makes sense, but it's not any long term effects which is putting me off meditation. as you say, it is strange to do something which feels like bootcamp, even if it has other benefits

@user3293056 Indeed it is. Best of luck on your journey.

Think of your leg as already broken and the pain is just a memory.


text:
How to realise "anatta" of "Nama-rupa"
By noticing my abdomen while breathing , I can feel up and down movement of it . Also I can keep a mental notes as "up" and "down". When it is up there is "rupa of up" and "Nama of up mental note " and vice versa for down. But when it is down both "up rupa and Nama " already gone . So I have a glimpse of " anicca" .
I do not feel directly  "dukka" relate to abdomen movement but by applying same "anicca" for other temporary things in life I can get an understanding about "dukka" too .
But I do not still have any clue about "anatta" , how can I understand the "anatta" using above scenario?

i guess you could analyze the way that you are lacking in complete conscious control of your breathing, and so self - and so suffer in the sense of it escaping your conscious desire. just my two cents worth !!!!

The three characteristics are not meant to be understood through analysis; they are meant to be understood through direct realization (paññā). Once you truly see anatta for yourself, the next moment is the realization of nibbana. So there is no reason or benefit in seeking out this knowledge intellectually; it has to come by itself through mindfulness.

“sabbe dhammā anattā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
-- Dhp 279

In truth, you are seeing anatta at every moment - because the experiences arise and cease without remainder, they are not self or anything belonging to self. Eventually, through the practice of mindfulness, you begin to understand this clearly, and give up any attachment to experiences as me, mine, etc.

He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on.
-- Vism XXI.48 (Nyanamoli, trans)
then, seeing nothing to be taken as “I” or “mine,” he abandons both terror and delight and becomes indifferent and neutral towards all formations.
-- Vism XXI.61 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Mahasi Sayadaw acknowledges the difficulty in understanding the characteristic of non-self in comparison to understanding the other two characteristics, referring to the commentaries and sub-commentaries who acknowledge the same. The sub-commentary points out, however, that this is simply because intellectual knowledge is inadequate to truly understand any of the three characteristics:

The commentary states that the non-self doctrine is so deep that even the Enlightened One had to employ either the characteristics of impermanence or the characteristics of suffering or both of them to facilitate the teaching of the doctrine of non-self.
The sub-commentary explained further that: 'In the above statement of the commentary, the anicca and dukkha known outside the Dispensation are mere conventional terms, by means of which idea of non-self could not be known. Only the anicca and dukkha realized in the absolute sense could be useful in explaining the doctrine of non-self.
Mahasi Sayadaw, Anattalakkhana Sutta

If you want to understand the teaching on non-self intellectually, then, you can do so by reflecting on the characteristics of impermanence and suffering and inferring the characteristic of non-self in a way similar to the Buddha's exposition in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta:

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
-- SN 22.59 (Nyanamoli, trans)

This will not, however, constitute true understanding of any of the characteristics, for which the culmination of insight meditation is required.

How is impermanence painful? Surely, ignorance- believing something is permanent- is painfull, but with wisdom, impermanence is nothing more than a fact of life. Also, in Buddhism, i assume 'mine', 'i' and 'self' is referring to a static, non-changing object or experience? and consequently, nothing can be of self, i or mine.

Anicca:

At a gross level:

Each breath has the start, middle and end

At a subtle level:

The wind element or breathing, touch sensation and portion of your body at the anchor can be observed until you see arising and passing or phenomena pertaining to the above

Dukka:

You cannot control any of the arisen and passing phenomena. Trying to hold on to or control changing something is stressful. If you expect something to be so or not to be so is stressful as something that is changing will not match your expectation. You can see when you see arising and passing through your practice. When you perceive this at the level of perception, the general rendering in the Suttas is: anicce dukkha,saññā if all 3 are covered together. So when you realise Anicha intern you can use this to realise Dukka,

Anatha:

There is no unchanging or permanent core (soul) or controller either internally (soul) or externally (God). Everything is in a flux of change, thus things are not in your control and always not to your expectation. This is a process through Dependent Origination. You can see when you see arising and passing through your practice, followed by unsatisfactory (Dukka). When you perceive this, the general rendering in the Suttas is: dukkhe anatta,saññā.

See:

The Detailed Discourse on the (Seven) Perceptions
The Discourse on the Perception of Impermanence
Stream winning and the 6 things conducive to true knowledge

Whatever is impermanent (anicca), is without self (anatta). So to realize ‘without self’  (anatta), one has to contemplate on impermanence (anicca), and this is how it is done:
Contemplating on Impermanence, He Trains (as part of Anapanasati Meditation) “Contemplating impermanence, he breathes in. Contemplating impermanence, he breathes out. Thus, he trains himself.”
Anicca means ‘impermanence’. Being able to see everything in terms of impermanence is not something that comes automatically after gaining concentration of mind. Now, he trains himself to breathe in contemplating impermanence, and he trains himself to breathe out contemplating impermanence.
Some meditation teachers declare that impermanence is something that just becomes visible to a mind, like appearing in a meter, and enables one to gain something called ‘vipassana nana’ (insight knowledge) by continuous determination. This theory or view is not in accordance with the Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma.
Impermanence of Breath
Anapanasati is something that should be developed and pursued mindfully and discerningly. Now, he trains himself to breathe in focusing on impermanence, and to breathe out focusing on impermanence. Purity of mind has been achieved through the elimination of the hindrances (nivarana). His effort, mindfulness and concentration are now being directed towards focusing on impermanence. He is contemplating on impermanence within anapanasati. He can see the impermanent nature of his own breath in its rise and fall; the impermanence of his body; and the impermanent nature of the pleasant feeling and perception that he experienced.
Impermanence of Body
What has he seen in the body? What does this body consist of? This physical body contains and comprises the four great elements, which are known as: solidity/earth (pathavi), fluidity/water (apo), heat or temperature (tejo) and air (vayo). We generally use the word rupa (material form) to denote the body. When he is breathing in and out, he is focusing on impermanence of material form which is derived from the four great elements.
Impermanence of Feeling
Thereafter, he is focusing on feelings. Dependent on contact, feeling arises. What is contact? Contact is the coming together of three things. For example, eye, form and eye-consciousness come together, and it is their convergence, that is called contact. Similarly, with ear and sounds, nose and smells, and so on, through to mind and mental-objects.
In this instance, when body, tangible object and consciousness come together, there arises contact. With the arising of contact, simultaneously, there arises feeling (vedana) – feeling born of body contact. Since feeling is conditioned by contact, feeling differs in accordance with the change of contact. This way, he contemplates on the impermanence of feeling.
Impermanence of Perception
Then, there is the recognition of perception. This is called sañña (perception) which is also subject to change as it is conditioned by contact. Perception changes due to impermanence of contact.
Impermanence of Formations
Perception is followed by sankhara (mental formations). If the mental factor was directed to a certain matter, on that occasion there is volitional activity, and this is called sankhara. Here, he observes the impermanence of the mental formation with the change of contact. All these are based on the activities of the mind.
Now he understands every aspect in this life process which was considered as self (form, feeling, perception and formation); or anything pertaining to a self. He has real wisdom to see things as they really are. One may contemplate on impermanence saying “anicca, anicca” continuously, but still be holding onto the notion of “I am” or “mine”. To avoid this, it is important to realize the impermanent, no-self nature in inhalation-exhalation and in any other external object.
Impermanence of Consciousness
Finally, he sees the impermanent nature of all that has been cognized (the rise and fall of breath, rapture, joy, feelings, and perceptions). It is through this insight that the true nature of the five aggregates of clinging is understood and seen in the light of impermanence:
material form (rupa) derived from the four great elements,
feeling (vedana) that is conditioned by contact,
perception (sañña) that is conditioned by contact,
mental formations (sankhara) that is conditioned by contact, and
consciousness (viññana) that is conditioned by mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)
Being fully concentrated on anapanasati, he now dwells ardent, with full awareness, and clear comprehension of impermanence. With the base of this awareness, established in anicca (impermanence), he develops an understanding of his own life, the impermanent nature of others who breathe and live, and the impermanent nature of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness (the five aggregates of clinging).
Thus, he observes the impermanent characteristic of phenomenal existence, internally and externally. He does not see a difference in him and the outer world. He sees the characteristic of phenomenal existence as subject to cause and effect. Now he is gaining knowledge, and his comprehension is increasing. He sees things as they really are, in whatever material form: whether past, present or future, far or near, external or internal. He sees the impermanence even of the rapture and pleasure that he is experiencing in breathing mindfully. Now, based on the impermanent breath, he understands the impermanent nature of the five aggregates of clinging.
He realizes that whatever is impermanent and subject to change, is suffering (dukkha). And, whatever is impermanent is without self (anatta). It is through this insight that the true nature of the aggregates is clearly seen; in the light of three signs (ti-lakkhana): impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and without self (anatta).
He sees the impermanent, suffering and no-self nature of all conditioned and component things. As a result, he knows there is no “I”, no self, or anything pertaining to a self. When he trains himself to breathe in and out focusing on impermanence, he understands that anything taken as ‘mine’ is impermanent; anything taken as ‘I am’ is impermanent; and anything that is taken as ‘my self’ is impermanent. He realizes that whatever is impermanent, is without self. That which is without self, is not ‘mine’, not ‘I am’, and is not ‘my self’. Thus he sees everything as it really is – with wisdom.

To realise not-self, the mind must have some clarity & abandonment (of self-clinging). Not-self is best 1st seen when the mind can see clearly the body breathes rather than "I" breathe. Then if rapture arises, the mind see rapture as rapture rather than "I am happy". It takes a fair amount of mental detachment for not-self to be seen. When not-self is seen, nama is seen as 'nama' and rupa is seen as 'rupa' (rather than seen as "me", "I", etc). The way to develop detachment is to give up judging & give up wanting. Even wanting to concentrate. It is best to just have the mind be still & quiet. This will make the mind clearer. The ordinary effort & wilfulness to meditate is actually an obscuration to clear insight.

Also, the word 'dukkha' in the 3 characteristics does not mean suffering. It means unsatisfactoriness, i.e., the inability to bring lasting happiness. If the impermanence of a thing is seen clearly, it will also be seen that object cannot be relied on for happiness. For example, if you are offered a brand new car with a 5 year warranty versus a very old broken down car, you will take the brand new car because it is more permanent & more satisfactory (reliable). The words 'dukkha' in the 4 noble truths & 3 characteristics differ in meaning, just as the word 'dukkha' in the term 'dukkavedana' differs in meaning. Buddhas experience the dukkha of physical pain & the dukkha of unsatisfactory conditioned phenomena but Buddhas do not experience the dukkha of clinging to the five aggregates, as explained in the 4 noble truths.

The way I understand 'Atta' is ownership. 'Anatta' means there is no one to own that action. It is a result of the causes. Understanding of Dependent Origination (Patichcha Samuppadaya) leads to the realization of 'Anatta'. In order to understand 'Anatta' in breath in and out, one need to analytically view the origination of this 'Nama' and 'Rupa'.

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


text:
At which point after conception does life begin?
According to Buddhist teachings (of any school) at what point does a human life begin? Is it at conception, during a particular point during pregnancy, at birth or even after birth? Does it differ between schools and Buddhist cultures?
I suspect the nidanas might be instructive on this point but I'm interested in answers that may or may not include them.

Here is a quote from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", chapter 5: "The Process of Death and Rebirth", p. 221-223.

"§36 The Mind at the Time of Death
Thereafter, attending to that object thus presented, the stream of consciousness—in accordance with the kamma that is to be matured, whether pure or corrupted, and in conformity with the state into which one is to be reborn—continually flows, inclining mostly towards that state. Or that rebirth-productive kamma presents itself to a sense door in the way of renewing.
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼Guide to §36
  In the way of renewing (abhinavakaraoavasena): that is, the kamma presenting itself does not appear as a memory image of something that was previously done, but it appears to the mind door as if it were being done at that very moment.
§37 Death and Rebirth-Linking
  To one who is on the verge of death, either at the end of a cogni- tive process or at the dissolution of the life-continuum, the death con- sciousness, the consummation of the present life, arises and ceases in the way of death.
  Immediately after that (death consciousness) has ceased, a rebirth- linking consciousness arises and is established in the subsequent ex- istence, apprehending the object thus obtained, either supported by the heart-base or baseless, as is appropriate; it is generated by a vo- litional formation that is enveloped by latent ignorance and rooted in latent craving. That rebirth-linking consciousness, so called because it links together the two consecutive existences, is conjoined with its mental adjuncts, and acts as the forerunner to the conascent states as their locus (or foundation).
Guide to §37
  To one who is on the verge of death: The last cognitive process begins when the bhavanga is interrupted, vibrates for one moment, and is then arrested. Thereafter follows either a sense-door process taking as object some sense object presenting itself at one of the five sense doors or a bare mind-door process taking as object either some sense object or a mental object presenting itself at the mind door. Within this termi- nal process the javana phase, by reason of its weakness, runs for only five mind-moments rather than the usual seven. ￼￼
  ￼￼This process lacks original productive kammic potency, but acts rather as the channel for the past kamma that has assumed the rebirth-generative function. Following the javana stage two registration cittas (tad±rammaoa) may or may not fol- low. In some cases the bhavanga may follow the last process cittas. Then, as the very last citta, the death consciousness arises performing the func- tion of passing away from the present life. With the ceasing of the death consciousness, the life faculty is cut off. Then the body remains a mass of inanimate material phenomena born of temperature, and continues as such until the corpse is reduced to dust.
Immediately after that has ceased: Following the dissolution mo- ment of the death consciousness, there arises in a new existence the re- birth-linking consciousness apprehending the object thus obtained in the final javana process of the previous life. This citta is supported by the heart-base in realms which include matter, but is baseless in the imma- terial realms. It is generated by a volitional formation, i.e. the kamma of the previous javana process, which in turn is grounded in the twin roots of the round of existence, latent ignorance and latent craving. The rebirth consciousness is conjoined with its mental adjuncts, i.e. the cetasikas, which it serves as a forerunner not in the sense that it pre- cedes them, but in that it acts as their locus (or foundation)."

And here is a short quote from Ven. K. Sri Dhammanandas book "What Buddhists Believe", chapter 5: "Basic Doctrines", p. 152.

Dying Moment
"There are three types of consciousness (Viññana) functioning at the moment of death in a person: rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi- citta), the current of passive consciousness or the current of life- continuum (bhavanga) and consciousness disconnecting the present life (cuti-citta).
At the last moment of a person’s present life the patisandhi-citta or rebirth-linking consciousness arises, having the three signs as its objects. The patisandhi-citta remains in the course of cognition for five faint thought-moments or Javana and then sinks down into bhavanga. At the end of bhavanga the cuti-citta arises, disconnecting the present life and sinks down into bhavanga. At this very moment comes the end of the present life. At the end of that bhavanga another patisandhi-citta rises up in the next life and from this very moment the new life begins."

Lanka

Patisandhi Citta is the starting point of life. So life begins at conception.
Rebirth Consciousness

This is called pa.tisandhi citta, literally "relinking consciousness."
  The pa.tisandhi citta is the act of consciousness which arises at the
  first moment of life, the moment of conception. It is determined by
  the last kammic citta of the preceding life.
This kammic factor for the arising of a being operates through the
  pa.tisandhi. The accumulated tendencies of past lives are carried on
  to the pa.tisandhi and so the process of being born, dying and being
  born again goes on. Each pa.tisandhi citta is a new one, not the
  continuation of the old one in the previous life. Thus there is no
  place for a soul concept in rebirth. In the course of one particular
  life there is only one pa.tisandhi citta. Once the function of linking
  two existences has been performed by the pa.tisandhi, consciousness in
  the newly formed embryo immediately goes into the bhava"nga state.
  This flows along in the new existence with infinite interruptions by
  various stimuli and ends as the cuti citta of that particular
  existence.

Here's a quote from a description of Tibetan embryology,

Life and body begin their development right after the conception in the mother's womb, where the five basic and subtle elements start to be transformed into the physical body.
According to the conception theory, the Bardo consciousness and the two parents are brought together by the emotion of the Bardo consciousness.
When the Bardo consciousness sees the scene of a couple having sexual contacts, it also feels emotions, and desires to touch or hug the woman or man according to its karmic background.
If the Bardo consciousness is going to get a female body in this next life, [etc.]

It goes on to say the following, which implies that consciousness "wakes up" in the 26th week,

However, after that, the Bardo consciousness falls into coma or loses consciousness. It remains in this state of fainting until the 25th week after the conception.
The force of karma drives the power of attraction between the two parental physical energies and the consciousness; it is like magnet and iron, or earth and sky. On the 25th week, the child’s respiration (through the mother) starts and the sense of feeling begins. The consciousness wakes up on the 26th week and remembers some experiences of the past that happened during Bardo and even past lives.


text:
Is lack of inherent existence the same as 'not real'?
I'm reading Rob Burbea's book Seeing That Frees. The book is about ways of working with emptiness. In the book he says that things lack inherent existence. I'm fairly sure this isnt the same as not been real. Is that right? Can things be real and lack inherent existence?
I appreciate the real answer will be to meditate on this but I find exploring the issues more intellectually helpful too.

Things do exist just not in the way they appear to be existing.
Lacking inherent existency means that things/objects/phenomena are not set up by themselves. They are set up dependent on other factors. In other words they are conditioned.
That can be seen with e.g. a tree. A tree changes during the different seasons. Why does it change? It changes due to being set up dependent on other factors which again is set up dependent on other factors etc. That means that objects are in a constant flux. They do not stay constant or stable.
If a tree where inherent existent it would never change. It would stay green with flowers on it forever. If it truly were inherent existent then it would be uncaused. It would be completely defined by its own nature. Nothing could be removed or added to it since that would change its inherent existent nature. It would be both eternal and indestructible.
If we take a look at samsara the conditioned existence then we see that all physical and mental phenomena are caused by other factors. They are not stand-alone units. That does not mean that they are not real. It just means that they do not exist in the way they appear to be.
The Dalai Lama has written many great sections on Emptiness in his book "How to See Yourself As You Really Are". Here is a short quote on the existence of phenomena. The quote is from chapter 19: "Viewing Yourself As Like an Illusion", p. 187-188:

"A face in a mirror appears to be a face, but this image is not a real face in any way; it is from all viewpoints empty of being a face. Likewise, a magician can conjure up illusions that seem to be certain things, like a person in a box being skewered by a sword, but they are not at all established as those things. Similarly, phenomena such as bodies appear to be established from the objects' own side but are empty of being established that way and always have been.
It is not that phenomena are illusions; rather, they are like illusions. Even if a mirror image of your face is not really your face, the reflection is not utterly nonexistent. Through its appearance you can understand how your actual face looks. Similarly, although persons and things are empty of existing the way they appear to be established in their own right, they are not utterly nonexistent; they can act and be experienced.
Therefore, being like an illusion is not the same as appearing to exist but actually not existing, like the horns of a rabbit, which do not exist at all."

Here is another one with the title "Emptiness does not mean Nothingness". The quote is from chapter 5: "Appreciating the Reasoning of Dependent-Arising", p. 71-73:

"There is no question that persons and things exist; the question is how, or in what manner, they exist. When we consider a flower, for instance, and think, "This flower has a nice shape, nice color, and nice texture," it seems as if there is something concrete that possesses these qualities of shape, color, and texture. When we look into these qualities, as well as the parts of the flower, they seem to be qualities or parts of the flower, such as the color of the flower, the shape of the flower, the stem of the flower, and the petals of the flower - as if there is a flower that possesses these qualities or parts.
However, if the flower really exists the way it appears, we should be able to come up with something separate from all of these qualities and parts that is the flower. But we cannot. Such a flower is not found upon analysis, or through other scientific tools, even though previously it seemed so substantial, so findable. Because a flower has effects, it certainly exists, but when we search to find a flower existing in accordance with our ideas about it, that is not at all findable.
Something that truly exists from its own side should become more and more obvious when analyzed - it should be clearly found. But the opposite is the case. Nevertheless, this does not meant hat it does not exist, for it is effective - it creates effects. The fact that it is not found under analysis just indicates that it does not exists the way it appear to our senses and to our thoughts - that is, so concretely established with itself."

I would really recommend reading this book since it has a lot of insights about emptiness. I think sometimes its greatly beneficial to study another buddhists school's take on e.g. Anatta/Emptiness in order to "get it" cooked and prepared in another way. Of course the basic doctrine is the same but when reading about it in other terms and ways of expression that gives variety and nuances on the topic.
On purpose i did not go into the insight-meditational aspect of this profound teaching that emptiness is since you asked for an intellectual opinion. Hope this might be of some help.
Lanka

I'm a little late to the party, but I love this question, so I'll offer my insight.

Things lack inherent existence

is a great starting point for thinking.  The great thing about this is that the thinking that follows from this premise works like a diamond drill, chiseling through years of accumulated morass.  In other words, anyone can get themselves into this inquiry and roll it around in their mind; inspect it; test it; poke holes in it; and basically just look at it - and in thinking on this phrase, you will find yourself opening up.  Just using it as a tool to stimulate thinking can teach you how to think and open you up to different insights.  It is the perfect "koan" for a person at any level of experience and practice.
There are two guides that help for thinking about this - in a way they represent polar extremes of the spaces people often go through when considering notions like this:

Don't be an idiot - There is a tiger in the field in front of you if you see him.  Do not chase him to prove that he doesn't exist.
Don't rule out anything - While not being an idiot, also allow your mind to venture far beyond what you consider to be possible or true; and don't get attached to anything you come up with.  A quote from Dogen(I think) sums this up well:

"Don't cling to your own understanding. Even if you do understand something, you should ask yourself if there might be something you have not fully resolved, or if there maybe some higher meaning yet"

That being said, the basic premise that will provide the basic entrance into this question can be stated another way, "There is no independently existing thing called you, yourself, or your life".  And beginning there, we can immediately see aspects of truth in this.  Thoughts we have repeated to ourselves for decades have nothing in common with reality.  If I tell myself "I'm no good" every time I fail, then I will come to believe that there is an 'I' that failed, and that 'I' has has a property called I'm no good, and that property then becomes a plausible explanation for the failure.
Over time, the existence of the property gains form and mass, and becomes more and more certain.  However:  the 'I' that 'is no good' can only exist with the support of the properties that construct it.  Before 'I'm no good, the 'I' simply is, and empty of content, it is likewise formless - rootless.  There is no true you underneath the you that is constructed by repeated habits, constant dialogue, internal chatter, and unawareness.   To put it another way - if there is a you, then the you or I is the space that gives rise to properties as possibilities - that can create 'I'm no good'.
That space, as space, has no existence independently in the universe.  The space that you are is neither separate from, nor distinct from the space that you are not.  The mind - which is also not divided - but appears to be -  is not separate from anything else (though our experience of the mind is that it is within us) - the wall in front of us cannot exist as it exists without us standing before it and perceiving it.  Does that mean that if I leave, the wall ceases to exist?  That is the type of thinking that traps us in duality.  The wall is not separate from you, nor you from the universe - so how can it not exist - and how can you leave?  Where would you go?
Everything I'm writing here is merely like a sculptor's hammer.  I don't know you, and I am unable to offer you anything that would speak directly to your concerns without knowing them.  However, imagine I am offering you piece[s] of tile that you can use to knock on the door of your own understanding.  Since everything is right here, quoting ta-tu,

Attaining Enlightenment shouldn't take a finger snap....Even so, you have to be the one to do it.

Wild up-vote for an answer that proposes a thought or phrase as a tool to get under our conditioning!

We could say that absolute reality is the antonym of emptiness in the Buddhist sense of the words. According to the Pali Canon (Sunya Sutta), everything is empty (therefore not absolutely real) as in they are empty of a self. That is, they don't have an inherent base or core of reality. Or that nothing has its own independent existence. This also relates to Buddha's statement "sabbe dhamma anatta" or "all phenomena is not-self".
This means that there is a lack of absolute reality, but not a lack of relative reality. What is relative reality? Things which are perceived to be true by your senses are relatively real.
Quoting the Sunya Sutta:

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed
  down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty,
  lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self:
  Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye (ear, nose, tongue,
  body ...) is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
  Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of
  anything pertaining to a self.

The above discusses emptiness from the perspective of the Pali Canon and the Theravada tradition.
If you want perspectives from other Buddhist traditions, please see the wikipedia page on Sunyata.
Here is a related quote by Sogyal Rinpoche from the perspective of inter-dependence or conditioning (Sogyal Rinpoche (2009), The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Harper Collins, Kindle Edition):

...all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are
  not independent but interdependent with all other things. The Buddha
  compared the universe to a vast net woven of a countless variety of
  brilliant jewels, each with a countless number of facets. Each jewel
  reflects in itself every other jewel in the net and is, in fact, one
  with every other jewel... Think of a tree. When you think of a tree,
  you tend to think of a distinctly defined object; and on a certain
  level...it is. But when you look more closely at the tree, you will
  see that ultimately it has no independent existence. When you
  contemplate it, you will find that it dissolves into an extremely
  subtle net of relationships that stretches across the universe. The
  rain that falls on its leaves, the wind that sways it, the soil that
  nourishes and sustains it, all the seasons and the weather, moonlight
  and starlight and sunlight—all form part of this tree. As you begin to
  think about the tree more and more, you will discover that everything
  in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at
  any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment
  its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things
  are empty, that they have no independent existence.

when you say relative reality, do you mean a fluctuating reality?  for instance, let's say craving skews reality, still there is continuity there which can be thought of as absolute no?

I think that a summary ruben2020's answer is that things have no independent existence i.e. they are conditioned: Saṅkhāra.
I think of that as meaning that the apparent boundary of a thing is artificial (i.e. not real). For example you may look at a car and think "that's a car", but the boundary where the 'car' is isn't clear: a car wouldn't be the same without a driver, and a road to drive on, and fuel to put in it, and a mechanic to keep it running: so maybe all those seemingly-external-to-the-car-object are part of the car (or car-system) too. Similarly a car consists of wheels etc., and wheels consist of rubber and plastic etc., and those materials consist of subcomponents etc., so it's also true that the car doesn't have much inherent existence independent of its components. But then the Ship of Theseus paradox discounts the inherent importance of specific components too.
If you're going to ask whether something is "real" I think that the antithesis of "real" in Western philosophy/ontology is "ideal": i.e. "real" is to do with 'things' and "ideal" is to do with 'ideas'.
If you accept that definition of "real" then maybe sunyata implies that things are real but not ideal, i.e. they have physical existence but they're not what you think they are (i.e. your ideas about them are wrong).
I'm not sure whether Buddhism has a notion of thingness independent of the observer. I think that in the West it's more or less axiomatic to assume that there exists a 'me', and 'my sense of sight', and 'the things' which are the objects I see: and that the things I see have some independent or objective existence (independent of me). I'm not sure whether that kind of objective thingness, independent of the observer, is implied in saḷāyatana and Āyatana.
I shouldn't be surprised if this relates to self-view (identity view) too, somehow.
It's a fairly dry theory when you consider an object like a 'car', perhaps more important when you apply it to something for which you feel more emotional attachment/idealism, for example 'wife' or 'money'.
In practice I suspect it implies that feelings I experience about something are a property or attribute or description of me, not of the object: if I think "that object is desirable" then that's more a statement about my desire then inherent in the object itself. Conversely, "that person makes me angry" should be taken less as a statement about the other person and more as a statement about my susceptibility to anger.

are you saying reality is empty?  in which case the essence of reality is empty.   in which case, there is the mundane reality, or perhaps emptiness is not empty, but has real essence.

more likely reality is essence, and emptiness is void of essence...

On the question whether things are "real".
If by "real" is meant independent objective existent then "sabbe sankhara annica" or "anicca vata sankhara" (all conditions things are impermanent) and that they are dependently originated, "theory of dependent origination, paticcasamuppada); both would rule them out as having an objective existence.
Moreover, how things appear is dependent on the observer (e.g. eye-base). And as the observer's eye-base is a result of kamma the world is different for different observer within this world and also from brahma to peta.
If the reasonable assumption, that all beings can only observe with only the 5 senses and the mind sense.
Hope all this make sense.

Are you sure that conditioned things have "no objective existence"? Maybe dependent origination implies that things are impermanent (temporary) and do not arise spontaneously ... I'm not sure whether that is also sufficient proof that they are not "objective".

@ChrisW DO implies that things are temporary and what is more their "existence" (or coming to being (CTB)) is dependent on the "existence"(CTB) of previous "existence"(CTB) and so on.. so on this criteria do they have objective existence? Now with the cessation of ignorance, mental volition ceased, with the cessation of mental volition, re-birth consciousness ceased..and so on. ..that is how with the cessation of ignorance...there can be total unbinding(nibbana)..or else how can there be total unbinding?

Is lack of inherent existence the same as 'not real'?
Yes

This is a low quality answer. Please improve it with explanation, elaboration and citation if possible.

This is a low quality answer. Please see this page for advice on how to write a good answer.

authors: Михаил Глоба


text:
How is Nibbana unconditioned?
It is often said that Nibbana is unconditioned. But isn't Nibbana to be attained through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path (abandoning desire, meditation, realizing paticcasamuppada etc)? Aren't those practices conditions for Nibbana? What am I missing here :) ?

Nibbanna is not conditioned because you don't attain it,what your ""actually"" attaining is the ability to see it or experience it. Nibbanna is there regardless.

The practice of the eightfold noble path leads to the experience of nibbāna, just like the act of adverting the mind to the eye door leads to seeing light. Light, the object of seeing, is saṅkhata (conditioned), but nibbāna, the object of supermundane consciousness, is asaṅkhata (unconditioned). So nibbāna isn't the result of the eightfold noble path, the experience of it is.

Thanks. Would it be correct to liken Nibbana to going to a place? The place exists, whether or not I make the effort to reach there. The effort to reach there is not the cause that the place exists.

@fxam yes, that seems apt.

If you can arrive at a place, you can certainly leave a place, that would imply that the experience of cessation/ Nirvana is conditional and impermanent.

In the material world alls phenomena arises and passes based on conditionality (as opposed to totally random). In Nibbana there is no arising and passing away of phenomena.
It is true that realising Nibbana is the result of practising the path to realise it, hence if you have realised Nibbana then this is because you practice the path.

Thanks, but you said "...hence if you have realised Nibbana then this is because you practice the path". Doesn't this sentence mean Nibbana is conditioned (caused) by the practices?

"Realising" nibbana is different than 'causing' nibbana. It is already there. The practitioner just needs to realize it directly.

@JeffWright Thanks, I think I realize something now :)

No, the practices are causes of the unconditional result of Nibbana. Things in the past or future do not even exist to ultimate reality. We can't understand this without practicing virtue and  witnessing what really is in the present moment(mindfulness or Vipassana) moment by moment

When it says that "Anicca vata sankhara" ( Impermanent are all conditioned things). "Uppadavaya dhammino" ( Of the nature to rise and fall).
It is saying that things arise dependent on conditions, things "exist" because of the conditions that support them. So we are talking about characteristic nature of things or its attribute.
The attributes of nibbana as pointed out above is permanent, does not arise depending on conditions.

Is this answer just repeating the claim, that "nibbana is unconditioned", without explaining why or how? Alternatively what's mistaken about the understanding in the OP, that Nibbana depends on (i.e. that it is conditioned by) practice?

First is is declared by the Buddha in Udāna 8: Pāṭaligāmiyavaggo: “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned.
If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome,
unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here
from the born, become, made, and conditioned.
But because there is an unborn, unbecome,
unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape
from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

So it's called unconditioned because that is how the Buddha described it.

He found it first and declared it and others who have subsequently discovered it may or may not agree with him but I take his authority on it.

In Theravada Buddhism, when we talk about conditions and conditioning there are 24 conditions found in the Patthana
The Patthana Dhamma are packed into 24 Paccaya or 24 conditions.
They are:
1.Root condition                  ( Hetu Paccayo )
2.Object condition    ( Arammana Paccayo )
3.Predominance condition  ( Adhipati Paccayo )
4.Proximity condition          ( Anantara Paccayo )... etc...

Interesting, can you elaborate on how is Nibbana unconditioned according to Patthana?

I see two ambiguities here which might be the responsible for the confusion.

with the six sense bases as condition, contact;
-- SN 12:1

The above is one link of conditioned arising chain, which explain how many things are conditioned. Would it be correct to, according to the above, conclude that the six senses cause (or produce) contact? That would be awkward.
This quote means that if a "contact experience" is present, then the corresponding sense is present. A more verbose reading of the above would be "six sense bases are a supporting condition for contact".
As another (unrelated to buddhism, and perhaps poorly chosen) example, if you study, you become more knowledgeable. But your knowledge, at any given point, is not  constituted by "studies". There is an ambiguity in how we can interpret "conditioned". Conditioned ≠ caused by.
The matter in question is that it is more a statement about a "necessary condition" than a statement about a particular cause.
There is also another ambiguity in play here. Nibbāna is unconditioned in the sense that it has no supporting condition. Echoing yuttadhammo's answer
, nibbāna is "one thing" and the experience of attaining nibbāna (which requires all the proverbial effort) is "something else".

Because of the coming together of eye object, eye consciousness and eye base there is contact. Also for the rest of the other senses.. depending on contact feeling arises...

Thanks. But when six sense bases ceases, contact ceases. The contact depends on the six sense bases. Doesn't that mean the six sense bases cause the contact (or contact experience)?

You might as well call it cause. But the risk of saying that the six sense bases "cause" contact, is to bring back the confusion: eg. to understand that the presence of a sense implies the presence of contact -- "if the sense is a cause, it's an agent causing something". And that is not true: it is possible to have no contact even though sense bases are present.

The 3 must come together i.e 1) eye object (no object or in the dark is no good) 2) eye base (being blind is no good) 3) eye consciousness ( being dead is no good). When these 3 come together there is contact.

Nibbana as stated in the Patthana with my summary below:

[] square brackets indicate my extra notes
* asterisk indicates I've changed to the English rendering according to Nyanamoli as it appeals to me to be a closer rendering, otherwise it is straight from the Patthana.

Nibbana the term derives from nivana or nirvana. Ni means nikkhanta or liberated from vana or binding. Vana is the dhamma that bind various different lives in the samsara. So nibbana means liberated from binding in the samsara. This binding is tanha. [Thanissaro Bhikkhu uses unbinding in most of his translation instead of using nibbana]
From view point of contemplation [at the time of release], there are three kinds of nibbana.
They are sunnata nibbana [*emptiness - attained thru seeing anatta],
animitta nibbana [*signless - attained thru seeing anicca],
and appanihita nibbana [*desireless - attained thru seeing dukkha]

All 3 are just one same nibbana perceived through different modes of release.
Nibbana is not in one of the 5 aggregates, [it is there all the time but we don't have the mental capacity to see it]. It can be an object of the mind (arammana).
Who can see nibbana? Arahants, and Anagamis only when he enters (*the state of ceasation of consciousness) nirodha samapatti.
[Sotapanas, Sakadagamis and Anagamis only have a glimps of nibbana]

Sankhata dhatu [*conditioned elements] are those whose arising and existence are influenced by one of four causes namely kamma [*action], citta [*consciousness], utu [*climate], and ahara [*nutriment]. Nibbana cannot be influenced by these four causes. Nibbana is asankhata dhatu [*unconditioned element].

I hope you don't mind: I added some extra formatting to your answer. This help page describes how it's possible to format text. I find that especially > is useful: it's used to show/format a direct block-quote, so that people can see, in an answer, which parts of the text are quoted from the reference you cited, and which paragraphs are your own. Many of the best answers contain a mix of quote, plus your own explanation or introduction to the quote. Thank you and welcome again to the site.

Thanks for the formatting. I shall endeavour to use it when I can.

I do not have sufficent knowledge to answer the question in a satisfactory way.
So i will instead point you to some great ressources regarding your question.
The first one is a book called "On the Nature of Nibbana" by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.
In this book Nibbana is being discussed e.g. "What is Nibbana and what is the meaning of it?, Mental Formation and Nibbana, The Nature and Attributes of Nibbana and many more things regarding Nibbana".
The second source is a great audio dhamma talk called "Nibbana" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Here is also some text material on Nibbana by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. A short quote from the section "Nibbana is an existing reality":

"Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane experience, a reality transcendent to all the realms of phenomenal existence.
The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.
However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma."

May this be of some help to you.
Lanka

Thanks for the recommendations and the quote. I understand more of Nibbana now.