text:
How do you reach Nirvana when you are craving Nirvana?
They say once you reach Nirvana you remove craving. However, don't we need to crave the state of Nirvana in order to reach it? Doesn't that contradict everything an enlightened person who reached Nirvana stands for? Because in order to continue this state, meditation and other things need to be constantly practiced which is a sort of craving in itself.

The conclusion (last sentence) is wrong. That might be the reason for the confusion.

You do not need to crave Nirvana to reach it.
Nirvana is present in every moment. The belief that you need craving to observe Nirvana is contradictory because it is incorrect.
Since it is always present, there is no prerequisite to observe it. This is how spontaneous enlightenment is possible.
Because it is present in every moment, there is no maintaining that needs to be done.
The reason the Buddha created his teachings was to combat craving. Craving is what distracts us from observing Nirvana in every moment. That's why he teaches non-attachment. It is only through uninterpreted experience that the illusory separate self and Nirvana can be seen clearly.

How do you reach Nirvana when you are craving Nirvana?
You don't. You have to stop all craving in order to "reach" "Nirvana", including the craving to reach Nirvana. However, it makes sense to first stop the coarse instances of craving, then the less coarse ones, and finally stop craving for Nirvana.
At least this is how it is described in the books. In real life, craving for Nirvana stops somewhere along the way (75% in or something like that) but one may still have residual subtle cravings for things to be different then they actually are at any given moment.
For example, I no longer crave Nirvana, but I occasionally crave to have a different job, one that would involve teaching Dharma full-time. Or sometimes I crave the lifestyle of people that are fully integrated with society and have friends and family etc. These are examples of cravings even a relatively advanced Buddhist practitioner might have.
In Gradual approach to Enlightenment, all of these cravings must be abandoned in order for Nirvana to fully manifest. So even though you "got it", you still keep working to iron out these smaller wrinkles. This is called "Sudden Enlightenment / Gradual Cultivation". A virtually infinite progression of dropping the ever smaller and subtler cravings.
In contrast to that, in Sudden approach to Enlightenment, one just accepts these occasional cravings as something inevitable due to the Impermanence and no longer craves to stop having them. This of course only makes sense in the overall context of Wisdom Freed From Reification. In other words, when your practical realization of Emptiness reaches a level when you stop seeking a silver bullet, when you see things as they are and solve problems on case-by-case basis -- then you are at peace even when you are not, occasionally. This is so-called "non-abiding Nirvana".

To "crave" and to "will" are 2 completely different things. If you're not willing to go to the park, you'll never be at the park:

"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. ~~ SN 51.15 ~~

I think this question is answered in the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15). The Brahman asks --

If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.

Also the doctrine makes a distinction between "craving (taṇhā)" which is always unwholesome1 -- versus "desire (chanda)", which can be wholesome, when the desire is for something wholesome.
This doctrine reminds me a little of the Bikkhuni Sutta too, by the way.

1 "Craving" is maybe like a thief in a dark room -- wants to steal something, have something, anything, doesn't even know what!

What about sankalpa @ChrisW ? I know that it's also frequently used to distinguish trishna (tanha) in place you put chanda.

That's the 2nd factor of the noble eightfold path -- translated "(right) resolve", "intention" ... "aspiration" (sammā saṅkappa in Pali). I think that this sutta (SN 51.15) closely matches the OP's question though: and this sutta refers to chanda: In it, the Brahmin is told that, "The purpose of living the spiritual life under the Buddha is to give up desire" -- and that there's a path and a practice for giving up that desire -- and the Brahmin replies that, "the path is endless, for it’s not possible to give up desire by means of desire".

I always think about the Ox Herding Pictures when I return this question. They are well worth contemplating.
The point, though, is to make the proper distinctions around the term 'desire'. For instance, if you 'desire' a drink of water, you have a choice:

You can set aside your desire for the time being, because you're involved with some other task
You can languish in your desire, moaning about how thirsty you are and pitying yourself because you have no water in hand
You can stand up, find some water, drink it, and let the desire go away

Only the second is problematic; only the second reflects craving that breeds discontentment.
Now, with something as subtle and difficult as nirvana or enlightenment, we generally start in an ambiguous state of desire: an urge that we cannot identify, or put a proper name or face to. Then we have that same choice: we can push the desire away and occupy ourselves with worldly tasks, we can languish in our inability to figure out what we are longing for, or we can get up and go seek it out. When we do the last, we are on the ox herding path. We seek the ox in order to tame it and bring it home — like looking for a glass of water so we can drink it — and when we've accomplished that, the 'desire' that drove us out into the fields in the first place is quenched. We only have a problem if we 'desire' in such a way that we block ourselves from satisfying the desire, such that we always place that 'ox' out of our reach.


text:
Is Buddha a source of suffering?
Buddha said he taught only the suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path to cessation of suffering.
He also said whatever arises must perish and that is why whatever arises is a source of suffering.
However Buddha arises too.
Therefore is it correct to say that Buddha is also a source of suffering?

What did you mean by saying that "the Buddha arises" -- in what sense is that true? How does that statement compare with the Dhamma being described as "timeless"?

the Budhha arises means Buddha arises like the Sun arises or the Moon arises or the tides arise in the ocean.. Buddha had said that whether Buddha arises or not , it remains true that all phenomenon are suffering , all phenomenon are changeable, all dhamma are not self. Word 'arising' was used by the english translator. Suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering  and path to cessation of suffering are all traceable to Buddha as well.  If I want to posses or be Buddha then I will suffer.

I think you're quoting this -- alright I think I understand the question now.

One more question ... Do you want an answer from any particular school of Buddhism, or from any/every school -- a particular type of reference, or any reference? And/or an answer based on personal experience or belief, less based (or not only based) on a reference?

I want to know what you believe to be true and why? Rest of the knowledge is not required.

The Buddha is a source of suffering if you cling to his form, but not his teachings. By understanding the Buddha's teachings, you understand what is great and important about him. His form or voice or personality is not considered as great or important as his teachings.
Even his teachings (the Dhamma) are meant to be a raft that carries one to the other shore (Nibbana) but one should not cling to it, as one might cling to a raft after crossing the river.
From the Vakkali Sutta:

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."
"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

What is the big deal ? Even I am Dhamma. He who sees me sees Dhamma. Isnt that true ?

I think that the Agama you quoted -- here -- is intended to teach that the Dharma (or Dhamma) is unconditioned.

Whether a Tathāgata arises in the world or not, this element of dharma remains unchanging.

In other suttas the Dharma is also described as "timeless" (or perhaps "ever-present" or "continuous" depending on how akalika is translated).
Note too that "the Dhamma" is described as "a dhamma" -- it's not a "sankhara", (i.e. not a compound thing or composite thing). The Dhamma says that it's sankharas (not dhammas) that are impermanent. Nibbana is an example of a not-impermanent dhamma.
Back to the Buddha:

When asked whether the Tathagata exists or doesn't exist after death, I think that the canonical answer was:

It's inappropriate to associate the Tathagata with the aggregates
You're therefore unable to identify the Tathagata even when he's alive

In the time leading up to the Buddha's parinibbana, some of his attendants (e.g. Ananda) seemed reluctant to accept that.

Then the Venerable Ananda went into the vihara and leaned against the doorpost and wept:

"I am still but a learner, and still have to strive for my own perfection. But, alas, my Master, who was so compassionate towards me, is about to pass away!"

Maybe that (i.e. their attachment) was a source of suffering.
In various suttas, we're told to associate the Buddha with the Dharma -- for example, SN 22.87:

For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One."
Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.

This doctrine is developed or repeated in later forms of Buddhism (see dharmakāya).

So to the extent that the Buddha is the Dharma, and to the extent that the Dharma is unconditioned and timeless, I wouldn't view the Tathagata as conditioned.
I think I also associate with the Tathagata with Nibanna -- as an answer to any question like, "where is the Tathagata?" and "what does he experience?" -- and that (Nibbbana) isn't "suffering" either.

If I want to posses or be Buddha then I will suffer.
Maybe so.
I guess that Siddhartha Gautama discovered or realised something similar, during his search for enlightenment -- something like, "When I want to become enlightened, I suffer. To be enlightened, you have to stop wanting (craving and attachment)."
I think that's explicit in some suttas like the Brahamana Sutta (in that sutta, "going to the park" might also be a metaphor for becoming a monk ... because in those days, monasteries were just parks -- "forest monasteries").
And I think there are doctrines and practices in Mahayana to try to get over that (perhaps, I'm not sure, the "original nature" or "Buddha nature" doctrine; not to mention "tantrayana").
Maybe you're projecting something (is "projection" a concept in Buddhism?)? -- see this answer where someone starts by wanting to see himself as a good monk, the best monk ... later, perhaps more maturely, as "just a monk". Should even the Buddha, as a person, be seen as "a monk"?
But anyway if you think that "wanting to be Buddha" and so on is problematic you might find it less uncomfortable to identify as "a Buddhist" rather than "a Buddha" -- see for example this answer; or, this answer summarising different forms of buddhism.

Depends on which version of Buddha you're talking about, the unenlightened prince Siddhartha, or the enlightened Tathagata?

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" ~~ SN 22.59 ~~

I am talking about Buddha who took birth in the world of suffering and guided men towards the end of suffering.

They you'll have to answer my previous question: do you mean prince Siddartha, or do you mean the Tathagata, because technically speaking, before enlightenment, Siddartha was not "Buddha".

I am not talking about any Siddhartha but that Siddartha who evolved into Buddha.

You have to be explicit. I repeat, prince Siddartha before enlightenment was not a "Buddha". If you talk about the Tathagata, then the answer is obvious per the mentioned SN 22.59.

I am talking about that Tathagata who was once Siddhartha.

Then the answer should be clear by now.

The question might do better as a comment --and I don't understand what the quote has to do with anything in either case.

SN 22.59 has everything to do with the OP. The Five Aggregates are dukkha and so are we puthujjhanas because we fully identify with them. But not the Tathagata nor his noble disciples since they're no longer identified with them. Prince Siddhartha was a source of dukkha because he still identified with the Five Aggregates before enlightenment.

So, are you saying that the Tathagata is stressful to the OP, because the OP see the Tathagata as a form? And/or saying that it's stressful to the OP, because the OP "perceives" the Tathagata but that the "perception" is inconstant and therefore stressful?

Youre putting words into my mouth. Did you even read the very first question I posed in the comment section about the distinction between the unenlightened prince SIddartha versus the enlightened Tathagata?

I did; and the OP replied that they're asking about the Tathagata.

And the answer is as clear as day and night per SN 22.59

I'm putting words into your mouth because I don't understand your answer. You didn't write any words of your own, so I'm trying to guess what you meant. But OK, I don't have to understand whatever you were trying to say.

Then that's your problem, not mine. I'll let the readers decide whether my post is useful or not.

Buddha is also a source of suffering

i think it depends, if you are not getting the essence of what Lord Buddha said. Just following other stuff like this very question. And some debates on those days social environments. Then, yeah it also will be source of suffering. Other than that if someone think such way then he or she tend to refuse almost everything what Buddha said, eventually they will become  so called FREE THINKERS. Arises of this so called FREE THINKERS will be the end of pure Buddhism.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?
What's the difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?
From my understanding, tanha is always unwholesome but chanda can be wholesome or unwholesome. How is this the case?
Craving (tanha) arises from feeling as many suttas say "from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving". What does desire (chanda) arise from?
There are three types of craving (tanha) - sensual, becoming and unbecoming. How many types of desire (chanda) are there?

Great question!
The Abhidhamma has the following to say about that.
Desire - Chanda
Chanda means the desire to act, that is, to perform an action or achieve some result.
Chanda is ethically variable, meaning that the factors coming along with chanda determine whether it is unwholesome or not.
So, the characteristic of chanda is the desire to act; it's function is searching for an object; its manifestation is need for an object and the same object is its proximate cause.

It should be regarded as the stretching forth of the mind's hand towards the object.

Which is, btw, something one can clearly observe in meditation.
Chanda is a bit of a general thing. It doesn't really have the need for a specific object, as long as there is an object.
Craving - Tanha
Tanha is much more interesting. :)
In the sixth chapter of the Abhidhamma, the Rupasangaha, craving is described as entanglement.

[Nibbana] becomes an object to the paths and fruits, and is called Nibbana because it is departure from craving, which is an entanglement.

Given this description the difference with chanda becomes a bit more clear. The experience of a-wish-to-act and being-entangled is different.
Another thing that is of interest is this, also from the Abhidhamma:

Herein, among the taints, etc.' it is craving that is intended by the terms "sensual desire" and "(attachment to) existence," since it has them (i.e. sensuality and existence) as its basis."

Sensual desire has sensuality as its basis. And (attachment to) existence has existence as its basis.
In dependent origination tanha is dependent on feeling (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral).
Last I heard a dhammatalk which might be of interest to you wherein the bhikkhu cites a sutta saying: "It's in craving for sights that craving arises ...."
So, these are all kind of specific, imho. Not as general as chanda.
Hope this helps a bit.

Chanda is acceptation to do something to an object. However, it is not decision (adhimokkha), or attachment (taṇhā). In vinaya pitaka, it often use as "agreement" (i.e.).
There are:

Unwholesome chanda

Unwholesome chanda without tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with sensual tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with becoming tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with unbecoming tanṇhā

Resultant chanda

Lokiya resultant chanda
Lokutara resultant chanda

Ineffective action chanda

Ineffective action chanda of sekkha (puthujana and 3 noble one)
Ineffective action chanda of asekkha (arahanta)

Wholesome chanda

Lokiya wholesome chanda
Lokutara wholesome chanda

See Conation in Sangaha chapter 2.

There are three types of craving (tanha) - sensual, becoming and unbecoming. Becoming and unbecoming are both self-views, namely, "I want to be" and "I don't want to be".
Chanda Iddhipada is the "enthusiasm", "love" or intuitive aspiration" to abandon "self-views" to end suffering.
When a mind is ready to abandon the highest hell or horror of 'self-views'; it will understand. But now, most 'Buddhists' take refuge in the rebirth of 'self'.

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


text:
Is there any meditation technique to develop the feeling of Gratitude?
It has occurred to me that if I have a sense of gratitude towards life and towards what has already been given to me then it's not possible to develop desires. I don't know why gratitude is not one of the Brahmaviharas. Lot has been said about it by the Buddha.
I was looking for any technique to develop gratitude towards life or in general.
What I was trying was to say, "I am grateful for what has been already given". but it's becoming like a mantra and proving useless. Is there any technique to generate the feeling/emotion of gratitude?
I looked at this question, but the answer I am looking for isn't there.

Would developing 'appreciative joy' (mudita) for what one has or get not equal gratitude? Might be that I mix up things to due language barrier though.

As @Medhiṇī says, as Medhiṇī says.

I was wondering whether going on alms-round was an example (of a meditation to develop gratitude) -- but I'm not sure it is. Maybe that's equanimity, instead, I don't know. And it's maybe not an example of "I am receiving a benefit", but of, "they are acquiring merit", and so mudita perhaps?
Maybe receiving the gift of Dhamma then, instead of food? I see people express gratitude toward their teachers.

Your question isn't just asking about gratitude, it's asking about not developing desires as a result of "what has already been given to me" being satisfying or sufficient.
That reminds me of this story: The Moon Cannot Be Stolen
Maybe that story is too cute, too pat?
It does reminds me of this story, though, which starts with a rich woman's encounter with someone who might take her life: My Path To Becoming A Buddhist -- Emma Slade (YouTube)

One more thing -- perhaps gratitude and generosity are linked? So the practice to develop gratitude is linked to the practice to develop generosity.

There's a Zen story on that that subject: The Giver Should Be Thankful

There's doctrine in the Pali canon (that maybe isn't easy to explain) about its being "an ornament for the mind".

If neither of the above are understandable, maybe this story will be -- it's a non-Buddhist (an ex-Christian), commenting on he and his wife's adopting children. He talks about some people giving him "deeply uncomfortable praise that we’re doing something 'noble'", and concludes,

As to the last, I wish I could identify the author who put it perfectly — adopting my children was an act of mercy, but the recipient of the mercy was me.

Thank you. The Ryoken story answers my question. It is like just looking at the moon you feel like, thathata, not wanting anything more. The moon or things around me at the moment. So my answer really lies in developing the Buddha mind as the Zen people say it.

It has occurred to me that if I have a sense of gratitude towards life and towards what has already been given to me then it's not
  possible to develop desires.

Are you sure? Where do the suttas say gratitude leads to the realisation of anatta & Nibbana?

I don't know why gratitude is not one of the Brahmaviharas. Lot has been said about it by the Buddha.

Brahma-Vihara is more detached than gratitude. Brahma-vihara is a type of liberation (MN 43). Where as gratitude is often mixed with obligation. The Pali word for 'gratitude' is 'katannukatavedi', which means: 'what others do for me; what I must do in return'.

I was looking for any technique to develop gratitude towards life or in general.

Simply reflect upon the benefactors you have in life. Mother, father, friends, teachers, employers, employees, bus drivers, shop keepers, nature, food, environment, etc.
About worldly meritorious right-view, MN 117 says it is right view to believe: "There is mother & father". What this means is there are "benefactors" (towards which gratitude should exist). Ingratitude is a sign of wrong view.

A person of integrity is grateful & thankful.

Without breath, we die. Considering the breath, aware of the breath, (the breath is not mine, I am  not the breath, the breath is not my self), we understand the gratitude of receiving life. In each breath, be aware of this. With each breath, be grateful. Bring this gratitude to MN10.

I write with one intention, with kindness.
Allegory
Gratitude sandwich
(OK for any diet)
You are in your body, alive. (first "slice" of gratitude.)
Go about your day. Be. Do.
At bedtime, hold that day with your second slice of gratitude.
Put "sandwich" under your pillow.
Sleep.
Wake.
Good morning.

Interesting answer but could you tie it to Buddhism? OP is asking for a meditation technique. Be more specific on the method you propose. Thanks.

Seems like an interesting analogy of seven years worth of satipatthana. ;-)

Yes, having a sense of gratitude, seeing the endless loop of debts in this world, is not only the foundation of letting of all five kinds of stinginess but also leads to the ending of desire and liberation.
A person of gratitude, never forgetting that he depended, depends on so many sacrifies, beinging by oneself, voluntary and not at all, can be sure that if meeting that of what if beyond debt, hearing the good Dhamma, origin, cause and way of practice to gain the state of one able to give, is not only able to attain Jhana but also to reach paths and the highest fruit.
A person of ingratitude, what ever trying, is and will be lost and it is because of this one should avoid to associate.
Reflection on the many sacrificesbeyond so little joy is something that should be done by those still rejoicing on sensuality as much as possible, reflecting gain, debt and lose in it.
All Brahmaviharas, especially Mudita, are based on a sense of gratitude, a sense of right view. The path to liberation start with gratitude, is it's only door.
Gratitude, a sense of it, increases all desires to abound what is unskilfull and increases all desires to develope and hold on skilfulness.
Tha meditation of Mudita has gratitude as it's cause, aim and release, embodies the joy of letting go best.
Again, maybe now possible to see, to trace.
Also this lesson might be of support: [En] Karma and Gratitude, Bhante Thanissaro
One may find some additional explainings here, or learn about it by doing, giving into at fist had to understand: Sharing merits - (pattanumodana & pattidana)
Never ever think like a thief because if doing so, one is lost and not easily will find in the near of the Noble Domain, a borderland again.
Three kind of people are there, goodness can hardly till never be payed back again: Bahukārasuttaṃ.
But "gifted" of such, the end of tasks and duties is secured and reached.
So is it that a sign of having entered the Noble Domain is overwhelming gratitude toward the Sublime Tripple Gems, having the Sublime Buddha as it's leader.
Gratitude is the paths beginning and it's very end.
Usual training an technics to get familar to a minset of gratitude:
Note that this giving falls actually into the sphere of Silas/duties for one having gone for refuge and are required to not lose the refuge (e.g. breaking the Refuge)

Abhivadana or : Geating and paying respect, veneration toward people of goodness (guṇa), e.g giver: parents, teacher, clan leader, Brahmans and yogies/recluses (those who bond them to virtue). see: [Q&A] Some talks on duty, debt, respect, gratitude and generosity: joy in
Morning/Evening devotional "rituals" toward Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha. ( Chantingguide)
Giving first or repay goodness received.([Hard to find](AN 2.119: Dullabha Sutta — Hard to Find))
Service/fulfill duties (veyyāvacca, german) for ones "gods" (starting by parents... teacher/admirable friends, the Juwels)
Practicing Mudita (Pattānuppadānaby = transf. & Abbhanumodana=sharing) sharing merits (dedication of ones merits done, giving back joy and play it forward)

More advanced, if duties are done, is to focus total on practice and complete the task. How ever, even on such level (hardly possible when living in an household), gratitude and fullfilment of duties in possible sphere, does not disappear.
Who ever rejects to fulfill his duties in the releations he nourishes on, will quickly waste his/her past merits allowing his/her stand within, or increases a lot of debts/demerits.
Once off of gratitude means to dwell in a outer region. One is wise to do all effort to enter and remain in borderlands and to fall not appart. It's not so that outer lands are total void of gratitude, by it's Mara and bondage that earn it (sensuality, pride, conceit, desire for becoming or desire for destruction)

As i know there is no specific meditation technique to develop Gratitude, but if some one do Brahmavihara Meditation, it will develop himself or herself automatically.


text:
Bodhisattva wisdom vs. Arhat Wisdom
This answer says that:

in terms of wisdom, a Hinayana arhat is more powerful than a
  bodhisattva before the 8th bhumi, because he abandoned afflictive
  obscurations while the bodhisattva abandons them from the 8th ground.

Is there a sutra (if not, a commentary) where I can read more about this?

The following quotes come from Shantideva's Bodhisattvacaryavatara as well as Maitreya's text on Buddha nature, and commentaries from Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen.
In his commentary to Shantideva, verse 1, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen says:

Compared with an arhat (foe destryer) the omniscience of a buddha is
  higher. This is because only the mind of a buddha has the ability to
  perceive the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth)
  simultaneously. The mind of a Hinayana arhat does not have that
  capacity.

In Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum: The Essence of a One Gone Thus, with Commentary by Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen, it says:

The definition of a Sangha Jewel is an arya being endowed with any of
  the 8 qualities of knowledge and freedom, such as the knowledge of the
  mode of phenomena.

Geshe Gyaltsen commentary reads:

We do not need all eight to be a Sangha Jewel. The last set of three
  are qualities of true cessation and an arya bodhisattva on the first
  uninterrupted path of the path of seeing doesn’t yet have true
  cessations in his continuum and therefore not those last four
  qualities related to freedom. The arya bodhisattva mentioned in the
  Uttaratantra is of the eighth ground/bumi upwards and this arya has
  abandoned all afflicted obstructions so they have the freedom of those
  afflictive obstructions but not of the knowledge obstructions, since
  only a buddha is free from them, but they are still called a Sangha
  Jewel. Therefore it is mentioned: any of those eight qualities.

With respect to the verse 72, "Qualities of the non-returner", the commentary is:

The bodhisattva who is a non-returner goes to complete enlightenment
  with no return—it is irreversible. This is the bodhisattva from the
  eighth bumi on, and includes the ninth and tenth bumis.

And:

The Sangha free from afflictive obstructions are the bodhisattvas from
  the eighth bhumi onwards. Before the eighth ground bodhisattvas still
  have the afflictive obstructions. This presentation is from the
  Prasangika Madhyamika point of view, who say that only from the eighth
  ground onwards the afflictive obstructions have been abandoned.

And:

Why do the Hinayana arhats not have the indivisible four qualities of
  the Buddha, the non-abiding or ultimate, final nirvana? It is because
  they do not have the causes or the bases to achieve the ultimate
  nirvana that are produced at the time of the three pure bumis. Without
  producing causes, no results arise and therefore these Hinayana arhats
  are said to be far from the final nirvana. And: The Hinayana arhats
  have some level of purity but no perfection of purity and even the
  bodhisattva from eighth ground up still has the obstructions of
  omniscience and therefore the purity is not complete. To attain that
  perfection of purity of a buddha we first need the devotion to the
  Mahayana because only by way of the Mahayana path we can abandon both
  obstructions. A Hinayana practitioner with only renunciation [and no
  bodhicitta] who follows the Hinayana path will only abandon among the
  two types of obstructions the afflictive obstructions and will not
  attain the purity free from both obstructions.

In addition, Madhyamika Prasangika posit that the two vehicles are not differentiated in terms of wisdom because they both realize the same object. At times, we say that the wisdom of a bodhisattva has a greater capacity because (1) it realized emptiness by way of relying on countless reasonings while that of so-called Hinayana do not, and (2) it is conjoined with bodhicitta, whih makes it more powerful. We say that the wisdom is like an axe, and bodhicitta like a strong arm. Without a strong arm, one cannot uproot a tree even if he possesses the axe.

Thanks! Do you have a recommended English translation ?


text:
Is the "life force" and the "breathing" the same thing?
I read the following comment on the internet:

A corpse has lost its life-force, hence a corpse, dead. A meditator has attainment would be free from disease, for the vibrant
  internal-breath kept one healthy.

Are there any suttas that distinguish between the life force and the breathing?

The comment wasn't about "breathing" but "internal-breath" which is Chinese -- the author of the comment said, "Indian called Prana, Chinese Xi".

So the author was talking about non-Buddhist things?

They were referring to what they know of Chinese Buddhism ... but, have also been reluctant to answer questions about that in the past -- saying for example that relevant translations into English don't exist.

An angel (deva) just appear to me and said the answer might be in MN 43.

MN 44 defines the term "kāyasaṅkhārā" as the in & out breathing.
MN 43 says in the state of "cessation of perception & feeling" (saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ), which is compared to a corpse with life, the "kāyasaṅkhārā" ("breathing") ceases but heat (usmā) & life force/vitality (āyusaṅkhārā) remain.

When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and
  stilled. But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not
  dissipated; and their faculties are very clear.
Yo cāyaṃ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpanno tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā,
  cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu na parikkhīṇo, usmā
  avūpasantā, indriyāni vippasannāni.
MN 43

It follows, at least in Pali Buddhism, it seems the “life force” & the “breathing” are not the same thing.

I would also say that life force and breathing are not the same. In retreats I have experienced states without breath and heartbeat and am still alive. Nice to have a scriptural reference now.

@Dhammadatu Question for you: Since kāyasaṅkhārā is defined as 'in- and out breathing', wouldn't this mean that kāyanupassana is 'watching the breath meditation' instead of watching physical phenomena (heat, smoothness etc)? What then would anapanasati refer to?

The word "kāya" in "kāyasaṅkhārā" refers to the physical body. The breathing is the sankhara (conditioner) of the physical body because the breathing conditions the health & life of the physical body. Similar, thinking is the "vacisankhara" because thinking condtions speech (vaci). Thinking and speech are not the same thing; just as breathing & body are not the same thing; yet the body & speech are dependent upon breathing & thinking.


text:
Did the Thai monk Bhikkhu Buddhadasa teach Anapansati incorrectly?
I read the following comment on the internet:

Buddhadasa, his health
  failed him revealed he had no attainment in "Anapanasati", though
  written 550 pages on it. He was just a Bhikkhu-scholar groomed by
  Theosophical Society, his teaching contained poison.

Is there any evidence Buddhadasa was groomed by the Theosophical Society? Also, what evidence exists the health of Buddhadasa failed him to prevent Anapanasati? When he was in his final years, I saw he would sit very still crossed legged (although with back supported by chair) for up to 3 hours giving a talk. There was no visible evidence to most people in the audience he had physical discomfort (unlike the audience, who often sat in physical discomfort for at least 2 hours). In fact, at a time when it was said his passing was imminent, I saw him lose often consciousness when giving a (live translated) lecture when the translator would speak; then he would be woken up; and continue the talk exactly at the point he previously stopped. Most importantly, what errors did Buddhasasa make in his teachings about Anapanasati?

I don't know Bikkhu Buddhadhasa, but I've met several monks and laypeople who can stand still in lotus posture for much more than 3 hours, I believe that by itself is a feat but not a mark of some kind of attainment.

I don't know anyone without a calm body that can sit still for 3 hours. Regardless, the question is not about "attainment". It is about basic anapanasati. One thing I am confident about is you cannot sit still for 3 hours.

The quote you mention specifically says "... had no attainment in Anapanasati". I don't understand how you can be confident of someone else's practice.

Well, you made a comment elsewhere referring to Mahayana Masters. How could you be confident in them? Buddhadasa taught Anapanasati correctly because it accords with the Dhamma.

About anapanasati, there are many modern teachers talking about this but I have only read Buddhadasa comment extensively on the key phrase found in the sutta, namely: "He trains himself".
The same as Buddhadasa, the suttas define the term "training" to refer to the Threefold Training, as follows:

There are these three trainings. Which three? The training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in
  heightened discernment.
AN 3.88 Sikkha Sutta: Training

This below from his 550 pages is merely one point providing evidence to a hypothesis that Buddhadasa taught anapanasati correctly and every one else taught anapanasati incorrectly.

Related to the point above, the Buddha said he teaches about suffering & the cessation of suffering (MN 22). Suffering is created by the mind rather than by the body. Since the phrase: "He trains himself" must include insight into suffering & the ending of suffering, that is, the four noble truths, I have also only read Buddhadasa teach this from step 3, as follows:

This above from his 550 pages is merely a 2nd point providing evidence to a hypothesis that Buddhadasa taught anapanasati correctly and every one else taught anapanasati incorrectly.

Below from his 550 pages is a 3rd point providing evidence to a hypothesis that Buddhadasa taught anapanasati correctly and every one else taught anapanasati incorrectly. I have never read the following explanation by any other teacher; yet the explanation below accords with the principles in the suttas about feeling & perception.

Buddhadasa explains this more clearly in his later work, below:

EXPERIENCING THE MIND-CONDITIONER
Now we come to step seven: "experiencing the mind-conditioner (cittasankhara-patisamvedi)." If we have completed step six
  successfully, then we know all about the feelings of piti and sukha.
  What does the arising of piti do to the citta? What does the arising
  of sukha do to the citta? What kind of thoughts does piti condition?
  What kind of thoughts does sukha condition? We have noted and
  scrutinized these effects since steps five and six. Once we come to
  step seven, it is easy to realize that, "Oh, piti and sukha are
  mind-conditioners." These vedana are mind-conditioners in the same way
  that the breath is the body-conditioner. The method of study and
  observation is the same as in step three. (107)
We have observed that piti is coarse and excited, whereas sukha is fine and peaceful. Thus, when piti conditions or brews up a thought,
  the thought is coarse. On the other hand, when sukha brews up a
  thought, it is calm and tranquil. This is how we realize that the
  vedana condition thoughts. Then we realize that the feelings condition
  both coarse thoughts and subtle thoughts. We call this activity
  "conditioning the mind."    (108)
When piti is strong, it causes trembling in the body. And if it is very strong the body might even dance or bounce with joy. This
  feeling is coarse and powerful. On the other hand, sukha is calming,
  soothing, and relaxing. We learn that their characteristics are very
  different. When piti dominates the mind, it is impossible to think
  subtle thoughts. We feel a tingling all over; it makes the hair stand
  up all over our bodies. So we need to be able to control piti. Sukha,
  however, has advantages. It leads to tranquil, refined states. It can
  cause subtle, profound, and refined thoughts. It is as if these two
  feelings are opponents or foes. But that does not matter, for we know
  how to regulate them. We are able to control them by training
  according to the method we are now practicing. Just this much is to
  understand the citta-sankhara reasonably well already.
In the end, we will realize that the feelings (e.g., piti and sukha) are mind-conditioners. When piti conditions it, the citta is coarse
  and its thoughts are coarse, both the mind and the thoughts are
  coarse. When sukha conditions or supports it, the citta is subtle and
  tranquil, and its thoughts are subtle and tranquil. Both feelings
  condition the mind, but from different angles. The vedana are
  conditioners of the citta, thus they get the name "mind-conditioner
  (citta-sankhara)." (112)
Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners

According to your question:

Did the Thai monk Bhikkhu Buddhadasa teach Anapansati incorrectly?

Buddhadasa's ānāpānassati is the translation version of paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, and ānāpānassati's commentary. He copied all of them from the commentary.
So, for the anti-abhidhammist, it is incorrect. But for the abhidhammist it is correct.

This answer is obviously wrong because Buddhadada obviously did not copy "all" of it.

Obviously, the conclusion of the original  is a copy. Or you can give me the difference place of them? Everyone can read in my link to prove what I have written above.

I have never read Buddhadasa's 550 pages. I tried to read it once but found it too long with too much unnecessary things. The book translated in 1988 is sufficient and better. https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Anapanasati_Mindfulness_with_Breathing.htm   However, the parts highlighted in my answer are correct according to the suttas.  For the anti-abhidhammist, the parts i highlighted are correct

You can compare it with the link I put above.

I do not need to compare it. Obviously, the 550 page book is based on paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, and ānāpānassati's commentary. However, this does not mean it is all incorrect.

You never read from the other teacher, can't prove whether it is incorrect or correct as well.

Its correct according to the suttas.

I can quote the correct words  and ignore the incorrect words of  the thieve to admired him as a guiltless person as well. Because I have biases. But if I want really prove the evidence I must try to understand them all,  thieve,  plaintiff witnessed, and defendant. This is how people should do before judge something. That's the reason why I memorize them in pāli before judge them.

You are welcome to quote whatever you wish but this is irrelevant to the question. The question is about the correct teaching of anapanasati.

Can't you read your own question?

I can read the question. You did not answer the question.


text:
After attaining Nirvana will I remember that I was once without Nirvana?
After attaining Nirvana will I remember that I was once without Nirvana? If yes , as Buddha did, then isn't it true that my relationship with or possession of Nirvana had a beginning?

Your 'me' isnt statically defined to relate the begining of nirvana.

How does this line --> After attaining Nirvana will I remember that I was once without Nirvana? Leads you to conclude this -->isn't it true that Nirvana had a beginning with respect to me? I don't understand, how is a recollection of life before Nibbana has to do with the temporal happening of Nibbana? If it does it's just so obvious or am I missing your point?

@FriedrickNietzsche another example to clear the point: Car I own was manufactured much before I owned it. But there was a beginning of ownership of car. This beginning of ownership of car will end with non-ownership of car. Similarly if I remember that once I was not in possession of Nirvana then my possession of Nirvana had a beginning. This connection with Nirvana had a beginning. And what has a beginning must have an end. Therefore relationship with Nirvana must have an end.

i see what you mean but it seems you need to mention in the question, 'what is physics/meaning/substantiality of nirvana? ' according to you. It seems you have gotten it wrong.

I think your mistake is treating Nibbana as a thing. It isn't. If it were it would clearly have a beginning, middle and end.

Your question is not valid, because Nirvana cannot explain by our words we can not ask such questions about Nirvana, like it is not a place, it is not thing,it is not status, or whatever the other words. Read the Abidhamma then you'l know.

Read the Abidhamma then you'l know This answer would be clearer if you'd quote or reference the part[s] of the Abidhamma which you think are relevant, and/or explain how that answers the question (or explain how/why the question isn't valid).

@ChrisW i read it in Pali book which have sinhala explanation, i dont know whether there is english translation for that part yet. i'll try to find some source.

I'm not sure how "I have attained", "I was once without", "my relationship with", and "my possession of" are compatible with Nibbana -- Nibbana is anatta, remember.
See also for example How do you know if you have attained Nibbana?
But yes the Buddha was able to remember and explain the details of his personal life (or lives), a sequence of events and experiences (including "the noble search") before enlightenment.

This is unfair. Buddha used 'I have attained awakening' and it was accepted but when I use 'I have attained' I am told it is unacceptable.

I'm not trying to judge your attainment. It's just that I think that anatta is an important characteristic, so I'm not sure what "my possession of nibbana" might mean. Sort of poetically, in a flight of fancy, I might say that nibbana is elemental, like fire or the wind, not something you can possess -- as if you could possess fuel but never possess fire. More practically though I feel that any notion of ownership is antithetical to attainment of nibbana, just a hindrance. But that's just me saying that. Also they say that the Buddha's understanding and explanation are superior ...

... e.g. here "only the mind of a buddha has the ability to perceive the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth) simultaneously"

@ChrisW Nibbana is not anatta. The three universal characteristics apply to nama and rupa, the five aggregates, to the conditioned. In short: they apply to experience.

@Medhiṇī I think you're right that the three characteristics apply to all sankharas, however anatta also applies to all dhammas including nibbana.

@ChrisW Could you supply me with a source?

@Medhiṇī Many sources so I don't know which one to give -- Wikipedia for example, describing sabbe dhammā anattā -- or maybe the topic Does Nibbana mean not self? on this site.

I didn't know that the doctrine was even controversial though, e.g. this article  says, "Several years back, there was a controversy in Thailand as to whether nibbāna was self or not-self. The issue was even argued in the newspapers."

I understand now that you equal Nibbana with dhamma, and dhamma meaning to be existing elements? The article you refer to, btw, states: "He then went on to explain how self and not-self are tools on the path, ... and how neither applies to the experience of nibbāna

@Medhiṇī I don't think I would "equate" nibbana with anything (and maybe "elements" might be called dathus rather than dhammas, but whatever, I don't want to get into nit-picking and semantics). "Nibbana" is a description (of nibbana) and is also a state of being (or perhaps a non-state e.g. not defiled), or a realisation (perhaps a view or a discovery) but also none of the above -- it's liberation etc.

@ChrisW Just trying to understand your way of thinking, since the links you presented me don't support your position. But ok, just leave at that.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

In Mahāyāna Abhidharma, we distinguish what is permanent (Skt. nitya) from what is eternal. That which is permanent is that which does not change from moment to moment. That which is eternal is that which is everlasting, never going out of existence.
Emptiness is permanent but occasional. This is because although emptiness is not produced and does not change from moment to moment as long as it abides (permanent), when the table ceases to exist, the emptiness of the table ceases to exist as well (occasional, not eternal).
With respect to nirvana, it is permanent, like all absences (the absence of inherent existence, the absence of John in the room, etc). But a Buddha has not always been established in nirvana. In this respect, it is occasional.
In addition, we usually say: although nirvana is not caused (because it's permanent), we can cause the achievement of nirvana. This is the whole point of the fourth noble truth, the path leading to the cessation of suffering.

When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with
  Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of
  Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the
  consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One
  who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.

MN22
During a lifetime, nibbana is attained with remainder. The remainder is what supports that life until parinibbana. Memories are not a support, but nibbana is not annihalationism - there is no requirement to wipe any thing but further kamma, further intentional activity. So long as memories do not lead to further kamma, they are inconsequential.

Jumping in with the definition of Nibbana from the (Theravada) Abhidhamma
In the Abhidhamma there are four ultimate realities: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
The first three (nama and rupa) are conditioned, thus anicca, dukkha and anatta.
Nibbana isn't; it is unarisen and unconditioned.

Nibbana is termed supramundane, and is to be realized by the knowledge
  of the four paths. It becomes an object to the paths and fruits, and
  is called Nibbana because it is a departure from craving, which is an
  entanglement.

...

Though Nibbana is onefold according to its intrinsic nature, by
  reference to a basis (for distinction), it is twofold, namely, the
  element of Nibbana with the residue remaining, and the element of
  Nibbana without the residue remaining. It is threefold according to
  its different aspects, namely, void, signless, and desireless.

An arahant experiences the element of Nibbana "with the residue remaining". The residue being the five aggregates. Though the defilements are eradicated, an arahant doesn't suddenly stop existing. The aggregates continue, meaning that sanna continues too. The body is still there, feelings are still there, memory and perception are still there.
Long story short, yes. An arahant will remember the times before experiencing the element of Nibbana.

In abhidhamma:

Nibbāna causes four aggregates (nāma-khandha) by ārammaṇa-paccaya.

But no any aggregates (vaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda) causes nibbāna (vivaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda). So, nibbāna is not an effect of the dependent origination.
You, aggregates, can depend on nibbāna, but nibbāna never depend on you. So nibbāna is the opposite of paṭiccasamuppāda.
See: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/29083/10100

No one has a-nupādisesa-nibbāna in their hand, so no one own nibbāna. However the noble one can attain sa-upādisesa-nibbāna by attaining phala-samāpatti and saññāvedayita-nirodha-samāpatti.
In tipitaka and atthakathā, they often said "the noble one is owner of nibbāna", but it is just an idiom.


text:
Given everything is Dhamma , isn't it true that he who sees me sees Dhamma?
Most people interpret almost everything as Dhamma. And it is said that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.
Given everything is Dhamma , isn't it true that he who sees me sees Dhamma?

If the seer lives,

Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana: 'the knowledge and vision according to
  reality'

then yes, she can see Dhamma seeing you.

In other words, most people, particularly those who "interpret", are not "seeing" the Dhamma. They are merely thinking about it, intellectually or philosophically.

The term "dhamma" has different meanings in Buddhism depending on context. You can find this on the wisdomlib page on dhamma.
In "sabbe dhamma anatta", the term "dhamma" means phenomena. So, yes. When one looks at you, one looks at a phenomena.
But when the Buddha said "Truly seeing me, one sees the Dhamma; truly seeing the Dhamma, one sees me" in Vakkali Sutta, he specifically meant Dhamma the teachings.
It's a figure of speech meaning that to understand what the Buddha is all about and to understand what is important and special about the Buddha,  you have to understand his teachings.
Although Dhamma the teachings is also a phenomena which is not self.

How are you sure that seeing Buddha one sees that Dhamma which means his teachings where as seeing me one doesn't see Buddha's teachings ?

It's a figure of speech meaning that to understand what the Buddha is all about and to understand what is important and special about the Buddha,  you have to understand his teachings.

I understood it as meaning that the Buddha lives in accordance with the Dhamma -- that he practices what he preaches -- so if you see the Buddha then you see the Dhamma enacted or embodied; but, also, that there's no benefit to you (or to the Ven. Vakkali) in seeing the Buddha in person, no benefit that you wouldn't get equally or more so from seeing the Dhamma yourself.

I couldnt get the answer about me as Dhamma.Currently as I am living with all the wrong views and right views , is it ok to say that one who sees me sees the Dhamma ?

I don't know what it would mean, to say that. "Dhamma" is a word with a broad meaning or many meanings -- definitions here. In some contexts (the Vakkali Sutta) it's interpreted to mean "the Dhamma" sometimes also called "the teaching" or "the Buddha-Dharma". I don't understand what "Most people interpret almost everything as Dhamma" might mean.

I am using the same context as Buddha used for himself when he said one who sees me sees the Dhamma and one who sees the Dhamma sees me.  When I said most people interpret almost everything as Dhamma I meant that all conditioned and unconditioned are considered as Dhamma, that includes all.


text:
What is actually Nirvana -- what are some Tripitaka sources?
What do you know about the Nirvana?
Most of this community people are from all around the world, and may have different teachers, and level of knowledge may vary.
A brief explanation, with reference to the Tripitaka, is much appreciated.

And, can someone please translate this:

It's from the Abhidhamma Margaya ("Way of Abidhamma") by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala Thero.

Are you sure this hasn't already been addressed by one of the 170 previous topics tagged [tag:nirvana]?

i just ask this because related to @DheerajVerma question asked few hours ago, it seems knowledge about Nirvana is little confused.

@ChrisW tagged but no this kind a question there as i saw.

See also What is Nirvana (mahayana)? (which may be equivalent to this question except Mahayana rather than Tripitaka)

@ChrisW i guess it is not.

My "see also mahayana" comment wasn't meant to you, but as a convenience other readers who might search for topics about nirvana ... this question, looking for answers based on the tripitaka, is similar to but not a duplicate of that one.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I am not putting this as an answer because it's not from the Tipitaka...but from my research of Comparative Religion, Physics, and also Buddhism, the best possible explanation for what Nibbana is, is that 'Consciousness conscious of itself is Nibbana'. But putting it in words is a wrong view and almost false, and that's where Buddha stands higher than all others, He refrained from verbalizing it, instead He gave a path to experience it. The best sutta reference is what Ilya gave. And that is why Buddha is wisest of them all.

PL_Pathum... The person is very right in what s/he has said about nibbana. I could write a brief explanation, with reference to the Tripitaka, if you could give some details as to where (from which article) you extracted this. Is it from this book itsef (It's from the Abhidhamma Margaya ("Way of Abidhamma") by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala Thero.) ??? what is the page #?  With metta…..

@SapthaVisuddhi, lesson 11 - page no: 211 - last part from 2006 publication.

I associate it with cessation -- with the ending of dukkha, of craving -- outlined in the first three noble truths.

It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant gains a state of immersion such that they have no ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body; and no ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit for all external stimuli;
Siyā, ānanda, bhikkhuno tathārūpo samādhipaṭilābho yathā imasmiñca saviññāṇake kāye ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā nāssu, bahiddhā ca sabbanimittesu ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā nāssu;
and that they’d live having attained the freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom where ego, possessiveness, and underlying tendency to conceit are no more.
yañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ upasampajja viharato ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā na honti tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ upasampajja vihareyyā”ti.
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant thinks:
“Idhānanda, bhikkhuno evaṃ hoti:
‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti.
AN 3.32

Perhaps there are people who think that this means ...

Meditate (samādhi), and while doing so,
Don't be possessive towards the body (saviññāṇake kāye) nor towards all signs (sabbanimittesu)

... and therefore something something something "atta" or real self which is neither the body nor signs.
But I don't know (i.e. I don't know a reason to agree with a doctrine of atta like that) -- because I associate self-views and attachment (possessiveness) with dukkha -- e.g. "this is mine ... no, now I've lost it, that was mine, so now I'm unhappy" -- and therefore, cessation of that (nibbana) is necessarily without such "self" and "possessiveness" and so on.
If nibbana is uncompounded I'm not sure why you'd want to add an atta concept to it, but "to each his own" I suppose (see also this paper on the subject of whether nibanna is anatta).
Incidentally my concept of nibbana wasn't formed by the sutta above, so don't read into it more than I have -- I'd never read it before, I just looked up a reference (to answer this question) and picked the first one (on this page) which didn't seem to contradict my preconception.
Given that nibbana is uncompounded I doubt it exists in relation to anything else ... but other things can co-exist with it, e.g. to the extent that the Buddha could co-exist with unenlightened beings ... it's not like another place, exactly, more like a different state of mind or something.
I just called it "a state of mind" except that maybe it's better described as a non-state -- e.g. not defiled, without hindrances (klesas).
I wondered about saying that "anything that's not nibbana is a hindrance" (as if nibbana were a pure substrate or element, and everything else were a hindrance or an obscuration on top of that), however, I'm not sure how compassion for example relates to nibbana.
I've also recently seen it described as a state of ethics.
That's it, more or less: simple doctrine. When the Buddha says, "Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha.", then nibbana is the cessation of dukkha.
Oh yes, its selflessness makes it "deathless", also.
Saying that it's without this, without that, only cessation, might make it seem austere or sound like death or something, but I should think that's obviously not the right view of it (see Bhagavā).

Apart from seeing it simply as a state of mind, I think there are other views of it -- but, the following seem to me complications that are maybe more trouble (confusion) than they're worth:

Ayatana Nibbana
For example:

When the five aggregates perish, the anupadisesanibbanadhatu of Lord Buddha appears, dwelling perpetually at the center of Ayatana Nibbana, sitting on a raised diamond throne.

Bhikkhu Bodhi puts this more prosaicly, but still something implied to be super-mundane:

Philosophical Dimension of Nibbana
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that corresponds to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.

I don't know what to make of this -- it sounds complicated or florid -- except I agree it's related with negation (or cessation), and I suppose there is some ayatana involved to the extent that nibbana is perceptible.
You might want to argue that nibbana is a thing (a sense-object) which we can't perceive it directly, but only perceive its side-effects (e.g. cessation of dukkha) -- I'm not sure why that's a useful argument though and anyway maybe all senses are like that, i.e. sensual perception is indirect by nature, in that it is via the senses.
Perhaps (or presumably) it refers to some meditative experience.
Nibbana dhatu
Ven. Bodhi again:

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'dhatu,' an element, the 'deathless element' (amata-dhatu). He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.

Again, I'm not sure that's useful. It's not a bad simile for explaining nibbana's being unconditioned/unaffected.
Apart from ayatana and dhatu I might quote the rest of Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary (with my emphasis added on selected words):

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.
...
He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body."
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' ('pada') as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or accutapada, the imperishable state.
Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'Sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience.
So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.

Sorry to disagree; I know that Ven. Bodhi must know more than I do, and that he's paraphrasing suttas, but I don't see that these additional explanations make it easier to understand:

Saying "a reality transcendent" makes it seem other-worldly and more than it is, perhaps unattainable
Saying "an actual reality" is kind of OK, maybe you shouldn't imply that it's something other than this reality though, albeit undefiled -- if it's a different reality then I understand the message as, unfortunately, "you can't get there from here"
Saying "the cessation of existence" sounds like death again
Saying "not the mere destruction of defilements" sounds odd to me, because I think it is "the destruction of defilements", and that that represents a great achievement and not just "mere".

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Ud 8.1
Nibbana is not a conceptually constructed, ideological, 'thing'. It is described as the unconditioned element. As all concepts are conditioned by a mind, it cannot be reached by mental fermentation. It can be approximately described by negation - not impermanent, not unsatisfactory, not self (etc). But even that is still conceptualisation. Better meditate, attain jhana, and find out for yourself.

+1 One is reminded of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel and the admonition not to exalt images and idols.  .

What do you know about the Nirvana?

Here is a little Buddhist story about the Turtle and the Fish, which I think, nicely illustrates the confusion that arises when trying to understand Nibbana intellectually and not practically.

"There was once a turtle who lived in a lake with a group of fish. One day the turtle went for a walk on dry land. He was away from the lake for a few weeks. When he returned he met some of the fish. The fish asked him, "Mister turtle, hello! How are you? We have not seen you for a few weeks. Where have you been? The turtle said, "I was up on the land, I have been spending some time on dry land." The fish were a little puzzled and they said, "Up on dry land? What are you talking about? What is this dry land? Is it wet?" The turtle said "No, it is not," "Is it cool and refreshing?" "No, it is not", "Does it have waves and ripples?" "No, it does not have waves and ripples." "Can you swim in it?" "No you can't" So the fish said, "it is not wet, it is not cool, there are no waves, you can’t swim in it. So this dry land of yours must be completely non-existent, just an imaginary thing, nothing real at all." The turtle said that "Well, may be so" and he left the fish and went for another walk on dry land".

Copy/paste part of my answer to this question.
Jumping in with the definition of Nibbana from the (Theravada) Abhidhamma
In the Abhidhamma there are four ultimate realities: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
The first three (nama and rupa) are conditioned, thus anicca, dukkha and anatta.
Nibbana isn't; it is unarisen and unconditioned.

Nibbana is termed supramundane, and is to be realized by the knowledge
  of the four paths. It becomes an object to the paths and fruits, and
  is called Nibbana because it is a departure from craving, which is an
  entanglement.

...

Though Nibbana is onefold according to its intrinsic nature, by
  reference to a basis (for distinction), it is twofold, namely, the
  element of Nibbana with the residue remaining, and the element of
  Nibbana without the residue remaining. It is threefold according to
  its different aspects, namely, void, signless, and desireless.

Can you give reference to, 'there are four ultimate realities: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.'... I would like to read. Because according to my understanding Nibbana cannot be a different reality than the five aggregates, the five aggregates are the ultimate reality.

@FriedrickNietzsche That's from the compendium of the Abhidhamma; pag. 27. It further states: "That reality, which is not included in the five aggregates, is Nibbana, the state of final deliverance from the suffering inherent in conditioned existence." Free pdf version: https://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html

Thank for both the book and the reply.

When an entity A is devoid of entity B, then it can be said that entity A is devoid of B, or empty of B. That is the voidness or emptiness or suñyāta. The Buddha said when the mind becomes empty of greed (rāga), hate (dōsa), and ignorance (mōha) it becomes empty of those defilements: “rāgakkhayō Nibbānan, dosakkhayaō Nibbānan, mohakkhayō Nibbānan“, and that mind has attained Nibbāna.  There is a sutta in Tipitaka that is about sunnata (voidness / emptiness), called the Cula-Suññāta sutta
Voidness (Reflecting and Ceasing of Impurities) in this regard means cleaning process of all impurities. One should meditate in order to be cleaned out of all impurities, and the cleaning of all impurities will help to be free and end suffering completely.
These impurities accumulated due t0 desire of lust, hate and delusion. The total eradication of impurities will bring tranquility and Nibbana. The cleaning of impurities is devided in to five main categories, as it cleanses in different levels. Through the understanding, dawns the wisdom to each of the segments, taking out different parts of impurities (ක්ලේශ ප්‍රහාණය).
තධංග ප්‍රහාණය       -   Voidness by Characteristic
විෂ්කම්භන ප්‍රහාණය  -   Voidness by Suppression
සමුච්චේදන ප්‍රහාණය  -   Voidness by Substitution of Opposites
පටිපස්සද්ධි ප්‍රහාණය    -   Voidness by Cutting Off
නිස්සරණං ප්‍රහාණය   -   Voidness by Tranquillization
To find out more on these  above five points please refer to The Patisambhidamagga - "path of discrimination". page 357 / 359
In reflecting and meditating you begin to understand your thoughts, the way in which the thought process gets attached to desire. In contemplating on impermanence, one realizes the danger in been attached to desire. When understanding the value of letting go of the pleasurable desires, and attachments, and when this takes place, the impurities are subdued in these above said five ways.

The popular question about nibbāna already answered in Ekādasamo paricchedo Nibbānaniddeso of  abhidhammāvatāra.
There also are many  aspects of nibbāna in Abhi. Kathāvatthu as well.

Can you please provide an alternate page for the first link you shared? b'coz it looks like in Pali. I would like to read what you shared.

Nirvana is this moment seen directly. There is no where else than
  here. The only gate is now. The only doorway is your own body and
  mind. There’s nowhere to go. There’s nothing else to be. There’s no
  destination. It’s not something to aim for in the afterlife. It’s
  simply the quality of this moment.

Gautama Buddha

Where -- in the Tripitaka -- do you think this is a quote from?

apparently this quote reflect personal aspect


text:
Do meditation or chanting make one less agitated?
Understand that meditation helps to calm one's mind and does it also helps one get less agitated and less affected towards the unnecessary?
What about chanting? Does it also have the same effect?
If one is patient and he/she naturally will not get frustrated easily and not easily irritated by minor stuffs. That does not mean he/she meditated or chanted to achieve such state of mind?
I'm actually asking for myself.
I'm not much of a patience person, short-tempered at times. I don't meditate but i do brief chanting occasionally. I used to do chanting when I was little and looking back, I feel like life was a little better back then and possibly less frustrated, not sure if it has anything to do with chanting.
Growing up, I felt as if life was so injustice and merciless and often got angry at myself and things around me.
Probably I care too much, i'm not sure. Things may not get on somebody else nerve but to me, it was so easy!
At work, at home, my surrounding, everything just seems so tough on me.
So I don't know what helps.

No, chanting does not make you less agitated. on the contrary, chanting makes puthujjanas more agitated and the buddha says it is a mistake for the bikkhus to chant, but the buddha allows ''intonation''.
The problem with chanting is that puthujjanas love to get carried away by the chant and as usual being carried away by the senses is the biggest mistake a puthujjana who wants to stop being unhappy can make.
So the bikkhus must avoid that in order for the bikkhus to stop creating suffering for the bikkhu and for and for the audience, so that the puthujjanas are not carried away by their words, which means preventing suffering in lay people. This is how somebody cares for oneself and for others, typically from having metta and doing karuna.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/vp/03.cv/vp.03.cv.05.03.horn.pts.htm

Having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:
"Monks, there are these five disadvantages to one singing dhamma with
  a long-drawn plain-song sound:
he is pleased with himself in regard to that sound, and others are
  pleased in regard to that sound,
and housepeople look down upon,
and while he is himself striving after accuracy in the sound[2] there
  is an interruption in his concentration,
and people coming after fall into the way of (wrong) views.[3]
These, monks, are the five disadvantages to one singing dhamma with a
  long-drawn plain-song sound.
Monks, dhamma should not be sung with a long-drawn plain-song sound.
Whoever should (so) sing it, there is an offence of wrong-doing."
Now at that time monks were doubtful about intoning.[4]
They told this matter to the Lord.
He said:
"Monks, I allow intoning."

If, monks, the covetousness of one who is covetous and who meditates on chants could be got rid of merely by meditating on chants...

Chants are good for memorization, but note that the Satipaṭṭhānasutta (Mindfulness Meditation) is the direct path and relies on breathing aware. To unravel habitual clinging and craving, notice that mindfulness meditation proceeds with great care and without grasping, controlling or rejecting. Breathing aware, we meditate as the body calms, then acknowledge pleasant feelings and unpleasant feelings, letting be, letting go. Read MN10 carefully and practice it mindfully.

Reciting is one of the Five Opportunities for Freedom in AN Vimuttāyatanasutta:

with five factors
Opportunities for Freedom

“Mendicants, there are these five opportunities for freedom. If a mendicant stays diligent, keen, and resolute at these times, their mind is freed, their defilements are ended, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary.
What five? Firstly, the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches Dhamma to a mendicant. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the first opportunity for freedom. If a mendicant stays diligent, keen, and resolute at this time, their mind is freed, their defilements are ended, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary.
Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor a respected spiritual companion teaches Dhamma to a mendicant. But the mendicant teaches Dhamma in detail to others as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they teach it in detail to others as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the second opportunity for freedom. …
Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma. But the mendicant recites the teaching in detail as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they recite it in detail as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the third opportunity for freedom. …
Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma … nor does the mendicant recite the teaching. But the mendicant thinks about and considers the teaching in their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they think about and consider it in their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the fourth opportunity for freedom. …
Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma … nor does the mendicant recite the teaching … or think about it. But a meditation subject as a basis of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how a meditation subject as a basis of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the fifth opportunity for freedom. …
These are the five opportunities for freedom. If a mendicant stays diligent, keen, and resolute at these times, their mind is freed, their defilements are ended, and they arrive the supreme sanctuary.”


text:
Why is real magic not a good illustration to realize Truth?
Many monks achieved various levels of perfections and some were extraordinary by human standards like passing through walls , walking on water, levitating in the sky, dying then arising etc...
If Monks have compassion , which they have , then why don't they show us or show me the magic which they perfected? Because if they show me some real magic then my belief on the permanence of physical laws will vanish.
Mostly I believe in the permanence of physical laws like no person can go through wall or that what will go up will come down or that if slapped I will be in pain...and so on... This belief in permanence of physical laws came into existence in my consciousness as given the exact causes exact similar things were happening since I took birth. Real Magic will break that belief. And once I my faith in the absoluteness of the laws of Universe is broken I will start questioning the reality. I will start asking what all in not permanent ? I will start wondering if Universe doesn't work by those laws then which laws ? Should I conclude there is no permanent law ? Desire for investigating will develop as desire of investigation is one the 7 factors of awakening.
Therefore for the sake of humanity why don't Monks show magic and convert the lay people into Buddhism?
In short ,why real magic is not a good illustration to make one realize the Truth of impermanence of all physical Truths.?

This doesn't answer your question, but it's said "all 'compound things' are impermanent" -- not "all 'truths' are impermanent".

I mean all physical Truths are impermanent. Physical truths take some reality as input.

Investigation (7 factors) means investigating the workings of your own mind. Not the universe, not the content of your thoughts. Go inward, instead of outward.

If Monks have compassion , which they have , then why don't they show us or show me the magic which they perfected?
It is out of compassion that the magic is NOT shown to you. I am just not finding a right reference for this sutra but I have read that the Buddha once admonished a monk showing magic to lay people saying;

Monks, attracting people to Dhamma by showing magic is like a
  prostitute attracting clients by pulling up her skirt.

This is a very important thing to understand, that people should come and follow the Dhamma for all the right reason and that right reason is 'to end suffering'. If monks would have started showing magic to preach Dhamma, the whole purpose of Buddha would have defeated because people should have come to Him to gain powers.
Because if they show me some real magic then my belief on the permanence of physical laws will vanish.
No that will not happen. If I will show you I can fly in the air, you won't think that gravity is impermanent, your mind will make a new idea about some physical law that was helping me levitate.
Mostly I believe in the permanence of physical laws like no person can go through a wall or that what will go up will come down or that if slapped I will be in pain...and so on... This belief in the permanence of physical laws came into existence in my consciousness as given the exact causes exact similar things were happening since I took birth. Real Magic will break that belief.
This is the same question you were asking about Gravity. No, with seeing real magic your belief in permanence will not fade, you will, in fact, start believing in some other strange things, and this time they will be strange. And further you will start craving for that magical power instead of the Dhamma.
And once I my faith in the absoluteness of the laws of Universe is broken I will start questioning the reality. I will start asking what all in not permanent ? I will start wondering if Universe doesn't work by those laws then which laws ? Should I conclude there is no permanent law ? Desire for investigating will develop as desire of investigation is one the 7 factors of awakening.
You have already known that things around you are not permanent, is that not enough for you to develop the desire of investigation into Dhamma?
Further, I will state that the laws of physics that you are pointing out is not something you can ascribe the quality of being permanent or impermanent. I will like you to read the book called The Science Delusion nu Rupert Sheldrake. In that, he has shown that even the speed of light that is held constant is in fact not really constant. That book has answers you are looking for and not levitating monks.
Therefore for the sake of humanity why don't Monks show magic and convert the lay people into Buddhism?
For the sake of humanity, they are NOT showing the magic. That's not how you convert people and convert into what?
In short, why real magic is not a good illustration to make one realize the Truth of impermanence of all physical Truths.?
You are misunderstanding 'physical truth' with the description of processes. The physical truth like a gross body can be clearly seen as impermanent and the truth like 'law of gravity' is a description of the process which itself is proof of impermanence. The law is the proof you are asking proof of the proof.
Real magic will lead you astray, it's for the street shows not for the Dhamma.

I just mention few words. Magic, mysterious; buddhism teach us there is nothing called mysterious in universe. as long as reasons are unknown things remain as mysterious. so magic,mystery not in buddhism. just remove the ignorance. that is the ultimate teaching of Buddha.


text:
If Nirvana is unconditional then why is it not happening now?
It is said that Nirvana is unconditional i.e there are no conditions for it to happen. If so then why is Nirvana not happening now? Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

It is happening now, you are just not being mindful and aware enough to realize it.

What is the proof it is happening now ? I am suffering everyday. Suffering is opposite of Nirvana.

Asking for proof of nibbana is like a blind man asking for proof of light which is all around him, he just needs to open the eyes and the process of opening eyes is the Dhamma.

That means experience of Nibbana is conditional. Conditioned upon suitability of my eyes.

Does the other question on nibbana not answer this?

Somebody just asked it, what is nibbana?

Some patience also...with some time...suffering will lessen and lessen...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl0Lyxi8nbQ

You are saying experience of Nibbana is conditional and therefore if those conditions are removed then experience of Nibbana will be lost. If Nibbana is permanent then the condition used to achieve it must also have become permanent. Because if conditions are impermanent then experience of Nibbana will vanish one day.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

If so then why is Nirvana not happening now?

Nibbana is an existing reality. Its obscured by defilements just like a blue sky obscured by clouds. Insight-meditation and Jhana allows for the practitioner to experience and eventually attain Nibbana.

Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

A wholesome intention is the start but not enough in and of itself. It must be followed up by practice. We ourselves must do the work, ie. working for purification of body, mind and conduct.
I highly recommend reading the article "Nibbana", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

@ Dheeraj Verma, you are continuously try to conceptualize the Nibbana. your inner mentality is keep you driving to fulfill your desire to feel,see or experience the Nibbana.Isn't it? I had this issue earlier. it's like blacksmith build his own cage more stronger and stronger and become prisoner in his own cage ignorantly. You build strong concepts,ideologies and conditions ultimately you will end up with depression and misery. this is not the path. I have faced this harsh reality and just cross the line. Just observe the nature and try to realize. Just carefully refer the life of Buddha how he observe the nature and then slowly and gently try to realize. Nirvana here and now. Metta!

Let me answer with an analogy:
Suppose there is a small hill covering a much larger hill obscuring it from view. An energetic, skillful young woman climbs the hill (Stream Entry). She is happy about her achievement but suddenly realizes she has a lot more work left. She eventually climbs the larger hill and attains a magnificent view of the valley like never before. Her perspective of the surroundings has changed forever.
In this story, the larger hill was always there. But, she needed to create conditions to reach the summit.

Ok. Now suppose she climbs down the hill will the magnificent view of valley not be lost ? Unless she remains forever on top of the hill the view of the valley will be lost. That is the condition.

@DheerajVerma it is just a similitude. You still being with condition, so he just give you the similitude of conditions to show you the perspective of nibbāna, which is no condition.

I can ask the question without simile. If conditions led to discovery of Nibbana then when those conditions are lost the experience of Nibbana will be also lost unless those conditions which led to Nibbana became permanent.

@DheerajVerma Well, similes are never perfect. I see it more like Nibbana being a pond (always there) and plants obstructing the way to the pond, the clearly seeing of the (bodem of the) pond. The plants being the hindrances and  defilements. When you have gotten rid of all the plants including the roots (!), they will never ever be able to hide Nibbana again. Something like that. 4NT: when suffering ceases, Nibbana will be seen.

Your question is like this sort of question,
Think about a kid which is just started school, and he asks about this kind a questions from the his own class mates,

What is Quantum Physics ?
What is Universe ?
What is General Relativity ?
Can you explain wave function ?
can you explain Schrodinger equation

i point out this questions cause even some collage students can not explain these for exact point, those who can will not explain it to those kids because there at another level far away from the kids. So for this example just think how can kid knows about all that things one may be willing to be lawyer, business men .etc and only one kid will be a scientist how will answer those questions soon he became one. Yet he also can not answer those questions, except he can say this book has this and that man said this, kind of answers.
so i'm telling here is if some one is on the path to achieve something extraordinary and noble,without going along that path see for our self is better, rather ask someone from same level,and it is useless. Because they maybe also on the path to achieve it, so their knowledge about it will also unclear not the exact.
Only possible explanation for Nirvana is we can not explain it. By following eight noble path anyone can see what exactly Nirvana is.
Hope you could understand.

Nirvana is suchness (tathata). This is why Buddha is called Tathagata. Suchness is when you don't crave for anything to be different than it is now. So, regardless of how your situation changes, you take it "as it is", at every moment in time. This is why Nirvana is called "unconditional", because it does not depend on the circumstances moment-by-moment.
But first you have to reach that state when you don't crave for anything to be different than it is. If you still have craving/aversion then Nirvana is not happening.
It's really simple.

Is acceptance of now as it is called Nirvana?

Pretty much. Well, "is-ness" is called Nirvana - and acceptance is up to you.

The dependent origination are the cycle of happening/cessation conditions.
What is the dependent origination?
It is every true things, except nibbāna.
What is nibbāna?
It is the truth which is the opposite side of the dependent origination, the opposite side of the cycle of happening/cessation conditions. ์Nibbāna never has happening/cessation conditions. The conditions can know nibbāna, but they can't let nibbāna arise or vanish.
Why we can't see nibbāna by thinking like the noble ones can do?
Because we still having the wrong understood about the dependent origination, diṭṭhi-clinging, so we can't daily understand&discover&make cessation of the truth's root conditions, avijjā&taṇhā&all-unwholesome. Therefore we can't see nibbāna like the noble ones can do.
How to see nibbāna?
Observe sīla, meditate samādhi and vipassanā until enlightened.

The popular question about nibbāna already answered in Ekādasamo paricchedo Nibbānaniddeso of  abhidhammāvatāra.
There also are many  aspects of nibbāna in Abhi. Kathāvatthu as well.

The Dhamma is said to be timeless.
I think the Dhamma, specifically the first three noble truths, says that it's suffering (not nibbana) that's conditioned:

Truth of suffering
Truth of the cause/origin of suffering
Truth of the cessation of suffering

Nibbana is the cessation of suffering,
I suppose you could see the fourth truth (the noble eightfold path) as a cause of (or condition for) nibbana, but instead it's described as a path:

Truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering

Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen
The condition for (or path towards) the cessation of suffering is the abandoning of conditions which cause suffering; those conditions (according to the second noble truth), to be abandoned, are basically "craving" in various forms:

this is the dukkha·samudaya ariya·sacca: this taṇhā leading to rebirth, connected with desire and enjoyment, finding delight here or there, that is to say: kāma-taṇhā, bhava-taṇhā and vibhava-taṇhā

I think that, here (i.e. in SN 56.11) and elsewhere, it's taught that causes or origins of suffering include:

Self-views, including identification with and attachment to the aggregates, even pride/conceit
Sensual desires and attachment
Aversion (maybe like 'desire' but the other side of the coin), also called "anger" or "hatred"
Ignorance (as a result of which, wrong views and wrong attachments)
Immorality
Not just actual cravings, and attachments, but "tendencies" too

Conversely there are many factors which can help on the path.

I'm not sure that merely "wishing" for something is sufficient to make it so -- e.g. SN 42.6:

Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' What do you think: would that man — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people — at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world?"
"No, lord."
"Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!' What do you think: would that boulder — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people — rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?"
"No, lord."

See also How do you reach Nirvana when you are craving Nirvana? (for some analysis of wishing, of desire).
But the second factor of the noble eightfold path is "right intention", "right resolve" ... a right or effective form (or result) of desire.
It may begin with hearing the Dhamma, with taking refuge ... with morality (including e.g. generosity), with spiritual friendship
See also e.g. the Wings to Awakening or Bodhipakkhiyādhammā

It's quite a lot of Dhamma and difficult to eradicate thoroughly ... so you might find it helpful to remember simplified versions like "suffering and cessation". Or just the first two noble truths: i.e. that "suffering is caused".