text:
Mahāsamādhi in Buddhism?
Wikipedia defines Mahāsamādhi as follows:

Mahāsamādhi (the great and final samādhi) is the act of consciously
  and intentionally leaving one's body. A realized yogi (male) or
  yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi,
  will, at an appropriate time, consciously exit from their body. [...] This is not the same as the physical death that occurs for an unenlightened person. 1

A non-practitioner of Yoga would call this 'dying at will'.
Is there a similar concept in Buddhism?

Voted to close. Question likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts because this has to do with comparing Buddhism to other religions and we don't study those here. If you study Buddhism you can compare it yourself to whatever intetests you. Buddhism is like nothing else and it's not explained in terms of an another religion.

miccha-samadhi (wrong/defiled concentration). And to think the mind is in the body is also miccha-samadhi if so perceived.

Dhammapada 37. Dwelling in the cave, the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Dūraṅgamaṃ ekacaraṃ , asarīraṃ guhāsayaṃ. New Concise Pali English Dictionary
guhāsaya
mfn.
being in the body. https://suttacentral.net/define/guh%C4%81saya

the act of consciously and intentionally leaving one's body.

I haven't ran across any Buddhist suttas that mention the above as a practice of the Buddhism's samadhi. In Buddhism, they don't concern much with "maha" samadhi. Instead they focus more on Samma-Samadhi/Right-Concentration, which is a link in the Noble Eightfold Path. Refer to this dictionary's definition for further details from Buddhism's perspective.

I've clarified the answer and added that it means death (more or less).

I don't think there is mahasamadi in buddhism but there is mind made body. This is what the Buddha said about mind made body in DN 2.

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Yes. The concept of relinquishing the will to live can be found in Buddhism.
From DN 16:

And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed,
  practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could,
  if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it."
(And later)
When this was said, the Blessed One spoke to Mara, the Evil One,
  saying: "Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the
  Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the
  Tathagata will utterly pass away."
And at the Capala shrine the Blessed One thus mindfully and clearly
  comprehending renounced his will to live on. And upon the Lord's
  renouncing his will to live on, there came a tremendous earthquake,
  dreadful and astonishing, and thunder rolled across the heavens.
Commentary (Sister Vajira & Francis Story):
Kappam va tittheyya kappavasesam va. Comy. takes kappa not as
  "world-period" or "aeon," but as ayu-kappa, "life span," and explains
  avasesa (usually "remainder") by "in excess." Comy.: "He may stay
  alive completing the life span pertaining to men at the given time.
  (Sub. Comy.: the maximum life span.) Kappavasesa: 'in excess'
  (atireka), i.e., more or less above the hundred years said to be the
  normally highest life expectation."
Among the numerous meanings of the word kappa, there is, in fact, that
  of time in general (kala) and not only the duration of an aeon; but
  the meaning "life span" seems to have been ascribed to it only in this
  passage. Also, the meaning "in excess" for avasesa (usually
  "remainder") is unusual.
The four constituents of psychic power (iddhipada) are concentration
  due to zeal, energy, purity of mind, and investigation.

The Anandajoti translation states:

Whoever has developed, Ānanda, made much of, carried on, established,
  maintained, augmented, and properly instigated the Four Paths to
  Power, could, if he wanted, Ānanda, remain for the lifespan or for
  what is left of the lifespan. The Realised One has developed, Ānanda,
  made much of, carried on, established, maintained, augmented, and
  properly instigated the Four Paths to Power. If he wanted, Ānanda, the
  Realised One could remain for the lifespan or for what is left of the
  lifespan.”


text:
Confusion Over Intense Experience During Meditation
Today, I sat for a 30-minute meditation session, and towards the end of the 30- minutes (since I heard the timer bell ring a few minutes after the start of the experience), I started to feel an intense acceleration in the mind, and just after that, everything else clearing out of my mind. At the same time, I felt my heart beating faster and I am making heavy breaths. I could really pay attention to the heavy breaths and I was keeping my mind there. And then, I saw some soft, satisfying light, lighting up from beneath my eyes (like lighting a torch from below when your eyes are closed). I got really scared of the entire thing, I tried to continue, but I couldn't because I felt I was going to blow up and ended the session. The whole thing was not a calm experience. It was like a free fall. Is this something normal or something that I should be worried about?

When stored accumulate stress dissolves, pure energy can rise up into the brain, causing this experience of "acceleration", "cleansing out of the mind" and "softening calmness".
The "heart beating faster" and "heavy breaths" is both exhilaration and the beginnings of fear (since the mind has not experienced this before).
Finally, the "fear" became strong and broken the meditation; because the mind could not handle the loss the control and the loss of self.
Unless you have a history of mental illness, the experience should not be worried about. It was a perfectly normal & ordinary meditation experience. If fact, the experience was a sign of progress (in terms of the calming & purification process).
When the body & mind cleanse themselves in meditation of accumulated stresses, these "special effects" will happen and then subside.
When the Buddha taught meditation, he provided the following basic instruction to be followed always; 99% of the time:

There is the case where a monk remains... ardent, clearly comprehending & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.

Thanks a lot for the explanation. Great to know that it is an "ordinary" experience. I felt it is nothing but ordinary and that something will happen to me. I really felt like my head is going to blow up, but still, I suggested to my self that I trust the Buddha's way and that took me a little further before I couldn't handle it and finally stop. Also, one other reason was, I've heard about Nimittas and felt that this may be it. And I was really scared that I'd see a demon face (there's some info about demons in my head which scares me, which is one of my weaknesses).

Actually, the light I talked about in the question became more evident and I felt like sliding into a strange state, when I suggested to the mind that, "I am letting go of the dislike I have for the fear" (the fear I mentioned in my earlier comment). In fact, the fear it self, kind of, vanished when I let go of the dislike I had for it. Also, I think the fear was based on my mental state before and during the meditation, which had some hatred and pride coming from daily activities. Which I thought, could contaminate any stillness I would get during the meditation.

The experience is definitely not "THE NIMITTA". However, it is related to how the nimitta comes about. The nimitta occurs due to calmness, radiance and light. However, your experience was just a temporary purification, where  calmness, radiance & light will occur however it will soon subside. Where as when the real nimitta occurs, it was be very stable and clear. It will exist for many hours. When the real nimitta occurs, you will be close to an expert at meditation and have stable samadhi many weeks before the real nimitta occurs.

Yes, what you wrote about "fear" & "dislike" is how to practise. Excellent. When fear arises, it cannot be directly controlled. But we have the ability to control the "dislike" towards the fear. By removing "dislike" towards the fear, the fear will eventually subside. If fear can be conquered like this then this is a very significant step in practise because the Ajahn Brahm method of "letting go" will result in more & more "selfless" mind and to be stable in "selfless"" mind requires to first conquer and pass through "fear". It appears you are practising very well.

The sutta quote: "A monk remains... ardent, clearly comprehending & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world" has also been translated as "A monk remains... ardent, clearly comprehending & mindful — putting aside LIKING & DISLIKING with reference to the world."  The basic practise is to abandon liking & disliking. MN 38 says: "Having thus ABANDONED FAVOURING & OPPOSING whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it or remain holding to it." All the best

Thanks again for your encouragement and comments about the method I am following. In fact, I found it difficult to find someone to get advice from who knows about Ajahn Braham's method here in the US. If you don't mind me asking, is there a way to directly ask you questions about the practice? Not planning to overwhelm you with questions; like one or two question a week or so? I don't think StackExchange has a direct messaging system.

Sure. Email dhammadhatu@bigpond.com

Really appreciate it. Will keep in touch.

You correctly identified your experience and your reactions so that is a win/win. It could be worse: like go for years having only some mild euphoria that masks your true feelings and clouds your mind as to the fact. I know, I was there. If you always have negative reactions that you can't get around, don't force it. Since you are following a good teacher (Ajahn Braham) it's not a worry if something rare happens. Sometimes experience is like eating cool ice cream, other times it's like touching an electrical socket.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do ignorance and intention have something to do with rebirth?
I have a lot of trouble dealing with rebirth, mostly because of my previous "skeptic" past. However, buddhism has helped me a lot to open my mind and to get detached from any point of view that might be incompatible with the wisdom shown by the practice of the Dhamma.
This aperture to new perspectives has made me reconsider the possibility of rebirth. Thus, my question.
From the point of view of paticcasamuppada, ignorance and craving are prerequisites for rebecoming.
But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires?
Isn't this a kind of anthopocentric view?
Why does uprooting ignorance and craving stop the rebirth process?

Ignorance is a word for the universe before it developed Mind with its ability to discriminate, recognize, judge, separate, and set goals.
Most of the Twelve Nidanas describe development and taking shape of the above qualities and corresponding representational experiences.
The naive mind, as it develops, delineates entities, calls some of them desirable, designates the logical center of experience as "self" and engages into purposefull action to get this self in position to acquire the desirable entities (and other experiences).
Rebirth refers to the tendency of this process to cyclically recreate itself despite the limitations of physical media.
"Birth" specifically refers to the birth of "self" as the designated center of experience and action. The way the birth of self depends on craving for entities and on the purposefull action, is described in the Twelve Nidanas. Basically, our perception of distinct entities develops in conjunction with taking shape of our like/dislike attitude which eventually matures into Self based on the mental fabrications we engage into on the way to acquiring capacity for purposeful action towards the desirable entities.
It's not really an anthropocentric view, it is representation-centric and information-centric, with media playing secondary role.
Uprooting ignorance refers to clearly understanding (and seeing in one's own real life) how this process works. It has an effect of dispelling the illusion of solidity that depends on not understanding the mechanisms behind the magic trick.
To say that rebirth has ended is a simplification though, because technically the process at large still goes on, you just no longer identify with any part of it. So for you it's the last birth because now you know there was no you ever, to begin with. But for others it still continues. The tendencies that led to your Liberation/Enlightenment do not completely disappear though, which is why in Mahayana we say that enlightened Bodhisattvas keep on existing in some sense, helping new students from the realm of subtle elements.

"The tendencies that led to your Liberation/Enlightenment do not completely disappear though, which is why in Mahayana we say that enlightened Bodhisattvas keep on existing in some sense, helping new students from the realm of subtle elements." -- does this refer to the enlightened Bodhisattvas continuing their existence in their Dharma Bodies? And the Dharma Body is simply the body of teachings?

Basically, yes, although it goes deeper than that, because in Mahayana we recognize existence of latent tendencies, subtle abstract potential energy of influence, stuff like that.

Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

OP: But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires? Isn't this a
  kind of anthropocentric view? Why does uprooting ignorance and craving
  stop the rebirth process?

Back to my analogy, does the coconut or the rice care about the monkey and its intentions, desires and ignorance? Not at all. In no way is this a anthropocentric view.
Rather, as Andrei stated in his answer, it's an information-centric or representation-centric view. I also think of it as a conceptuality-centric view. The suffering and its release are based on the mental concepts or ideas of the monkey with regards to its identity, desires and relationship to its environment.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

Wonderful and enlightening story! Thank you very much.

"Rebirth" is a moral teaching about the results of kamma. It means the idea of "self" reappears again; attached to the results of an action. "Becoming" is an "asava" or "mental defilement". It does not mean "reincarnation".  Uprooting ignorance and craving stops the rebirth process because it stops the "birth" of the "self" idea.

Some context is required, suggest you read about Dependent Origination:
Learning materials for Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism
Long story short, what we know about the origin of Life is too limited. The Universe doesn't "care", it is just how things are. Lord Buddha mentioned he has only taught us a few things compared to the grand scheme of things he knew.

I was reading the explanation given by Bhikkhu Bodhi about Kamma and Rebirth, and as I've understood, he says that kamma should be real because the universe wouldn't have a system of moral retribution and justice otherwise. Here's the essay: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_46.html

I would agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation. Basically, humans create morals and justice concepts, not a universe "program" being created by certain higher beings/Gods. That said, there are views and actions to be upheld to prevent from incurring bad Kamma.

But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires? Isn't this a kind of anthopocentric view?

They don't, but humans do. At least those who care enough about ending Dukkha.

Why does uprooting ignorance and craving stop the rebirth process?

Because human existence, like any other natural systems, needs some kind of fuel to keep the wheel spinning. For ours, the fuel is ignorance and craving. That's why "uprooting" is a particularly fitting word. The tree once "uprooted" will not grow back again.

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


text:
Buddha's views on the origin of the universe
Did buddha comment anything about the origin of universe and about origin of life? And if no WHY?? So far whatever texts i have read, i haven't come across any such statement. Though it is not very important for man to know about it and rather he must concentrate on the present time on his actions and thoughts but atleast for the sake of satisfying curiosity of man he must have told .

Origin of life is unknowable plus it is not related to the ending of suffering therefore it is unrelated to Buddhism.

The Buddha said a great deal about origins but mostly by implication and between the lines. The topic is subtle since we're asking about the origin of things that do not really exist. The origin of the universe would be the origin of Mind. .

Non-sense. Write an answer to prove your ideas.

In Buddha's teaching, "universe" (aka All) refers to the universe we perceive, the universe as it takes shape along with the sentient beings perceiving it, the totality of subjective experience. Universe is all we see, hear, and know to exist. In modern philosophy this is known as Umwelt, the living being's world.
Buddha describes the process by which our Universe arises in a sequence of steps called The Twelve Nidanas of Dependent Origination. This teaching is not sufficiently elaborated upon in the Pali Canon, but in Mahayana it has a living interpretative tradition passed along from teacher to next generation of students, which basically explains it as a gradual development of tendency for purposefull action along with the discriminating faculty of mind and capacity for deliniation of entities.
A modern near-equivalent of this perspective (minus the Buddhist ethics&soteriology) can be found in the works of American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. It describes cosmological development of "tendencies" and "signs", starting from complete nondifferentiation and culminating in what we know as the universe.
So if you want to understand (Mahayana) Buddhist view on the Evolution of Universe, I suggest you to study Depenent Origination as described in Salistamba Sutra, together with Peirce's biosemiotic cosmology. It's not an easy topic but it's worth it.

And if no WHY??

The Buddha's explanation using that famous forest leaves simile from SN 56.31:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

The Buddha said sentient life is composed of six elements of earth, wind, fire, water, space & consciousness (but does not comment how these six elements were created).

In dependence on the six elements the appearance of an embryo
  occurs.
AN 3.61

The Buddha said talk about the creation of the world is "animal talk" (tiracchānakathaṃ):

If, while he is dwelling by means of this dwelling, his mind inclines to speaking, he resolves that 'I will not engage in talk that
  is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to
  disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge,
  self-awakening, or Unbinding — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, &
  ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing,
  furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns,
  cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street &
  the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the
  world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.' In this way
  he is alert there.
MN 122

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time
  a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms
  round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds
  of bestial (animal) topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers,
  & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink;
  clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles;
  villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip
  of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the
  creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or
  not.
AN 10.70


text:
If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transferred from a brain to next life when the brain breaks-up and cease to function?
According to the Pali Canon, how are intentions and habits passed on from one existence to another without any material support?
What do the texts tell us about rebirth and the transference of these material phenomena into inmaterial phenomena, and the back to material ones?
More specifically,  how is kamma transmitted from one life to the next. If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transfered from a brain which, as you observed, is destroyed and dissolved after the breakup of the body? Aren't intention and habits a function emerging form the conjuncted activity of brain cells?
Thanks in beforehand.

What do you mean by "transference of these material phenomena into inmaterial phenomena". Are you asking if the body of this life goes to next life? The body rots and become soil and dust. It goes nowhere! Or are you simply asking how the mind and body in this life result in the mind and body in the next left?

Thanks for your time and patience! I'm asking about how kamma is transmitted from one life to the next. If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transfered from a brain which, as you observed, is destroyed and dissolved after the breakup of the body?

Could you update the question with that? "If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transferred from a brain to next life when the brain is going to rot?"

To understand this you need a complete paradigm shift in the way you are thinking. Stop looking at the world in terms of entities. Drop everything that you think is real involving entities and start looking at the world in terms of experiences arising and dying. In this world you have six types of experiences: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling(tactile) and thinking. You have firsthand knowledge that arising of these experiences is real because they can be sensed. Once you make this paradigm shift, you will understand that the brain is not an experience. The brain cannot be sensed. It is nothing more than a concept fabricated in a thought. No direct knowledge can be gained by building theories based on fabrications. So the question of what happens to the mind when the brain is dead does not arise as it doesn't exist in the first place.
Karma is not a thing that is transmitted anywhere. Karma is simply the volitional action involved in each experience. That volitional action dies with the experience. But it can give a result immediately or in the future. You need to do Satipatthana meditation to see this happening. Ex: if a pleasurable experience arises and you get attached to it, suffering follows when it dies. This is the immediate Vipaka(result) of the Karma you just committed. In the future also if you cannot get this experience, suffering will arise. This attachment also creates a habit of doing things to get similar experiences. This gives rise to new experiences involving fresh Karma.
It is impossible to understand the complete dynamics of Karma unless you become a Buddha yourself, but when you start looking at the world through meditation, you will see that this continuous arising of experiences goes on and on until you cut off what is fueling them to arise. I.e. craving. Even though we do not have complete comprehension, this understanding of Karma is enough to work towards ending of suffering.
In this framework, the medical definition of death becomes just another concept involving entities. You will see that as long as there is craving, the arising of new experiences will never stop. Once the thought pattern makes this paradigm shift, questions like how the mind is transferred to a new body after death etc. do not arise as there is no constant thing called the 'mind' and there is no constant thing called the 'body'. The reality is made up continuous arising of experiences. These experiences have a physical aspect and a mental aspect. They arise due to causes. Read the Paticcasamuppada to get an intellectual understanding and do Satipatthana meditation for direct knowledge.

If person A tells person B a message, person B then gets this message, understands it and remembers what he understood of it. But we cannot say that this message was physically transferred from A to B. All that was physically transferred were movements of air molecules as sound waves. The message was conceptually transferred and not physically transferred. The message is a conceptual entity and not a physical entity. We also cannot say that the message that B had and the message that A had are exactly identical, because B might have understood the message slightly differently. Also, we are able to trace the history of the transmission of the message, for e.g. from A to B to C etc.
Also, similar is the transfer of a flame from one candle to another. Physically, the heat from one burning candle ignited another candle's wick, causing it to start burning. But we cannot say that the flame itself transferred from one candle to another. The flame here as something that moves from one candle to another is again a conceptual entity and not a physical entity. We created the concept of the flame. In physics, it's simply plasma emitting from a burning wick. As the candle burns, the plasma ions get replaced. There is no single physical entity as the flame. The flame from one candle is also not identical to the flame of another candle that it ignited. We can also trace the history of transmission of the flame from one candle to another. So, the transfer of the flame from one candle to another is also a conceptual transfer and not a physical transfer.
So too is "rebirth" in Buddhism. It's not a physical rebirth or physical transfer, but a conceptual rebirth or conceptual transfer. Similarly what a "being" or "person" or "self" is, are also concepts. If person C is reborn and now becomes person D, person D and person C are not exactly the same, yet not completely different, just like the message that transferred from A to B. And it is possible through attainments of meditation, to trace the history of transmission from C to D.
Instead of using the term "rebirth", I prefer to say that suffering or dukkha continues beyond physical death, and that suffering or dukkha is only ended by Nibbana, and not ended by physical death.

Very good. Conceptual transfer, or as I say, information.

@ruben2020 Hi! So, could one say that from a "single" individual ("single", if we considered "an individual" as the causal sequence of states of some khandas, from birth from the womb, to death at the cease of vital functions), multiple "rebirths" are possible, since one can influence on many people during one lifetime? I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly enough. Kind regards!

@ruben2020 I have one more question: based on the same ideas as before, could we also say that "rebirth" is possible even when the one "generating" the influence still lives?

@BrianDíazFlores Yes. The Abhidhamma view appears to be that of a moment to moment rebirth of one's personhood (idea of the self), and at no two moments is one exactly the same. At each moment, the mind generates new or different states of mind, dependently originated. Just like a river that appears to be single but each time you step into it, it's different from the other times that you've stepped into it - the water molecules and other characteristics of it have changed (e.g. flow rate, temperature, pH, sedimentation, number of fish etc.).

Aren't intention and habits a function emerging form the conjuncted activity of brain cells?

I haven't ran across any Sutta that says Nama (name or immateriality like feeling, perception, mental formation) are properties that emerge out of Rupa (form or materiality). In Buddhism, the Five Aggregates can be said as operating together, but it'd be invalid to say that the mental part arises or "emerge" out of the material part. A crude analogy is like electricity and the light bulb. While the operation of various light bulb components allow for the manifestation of electricity, it'd be invalid to say that electricity "emerges" out of the light bulb. Another example is the radio wave and the physical radio. Its components allows the manifestation of sound and music, but it'd be invalid to say that the radio "creates" the sound and music. It's due to this certain degree of independence between Name and Rupa that makes it's possible for the Kammic stream to carry on from life to life.

Thank you for your time. My problem with these explanations is that they seem to be justified just by the analogies. In bulb simile, the electricity is the flow of electrons through the wires, but electrons and wires exist independently. Does that happens with nama-rupa? Do they both exist independent one of the other?

Even by assuming nama-rupa are inter-dependent, the key point is that there's still a degree of independence (ie. one does not "emerge" out of the other) that makes it possible for Kamma to go on. If there's absolutely Zero independence, it'd be impossible for Kamma to operate as it is (ie. the Kammic stream automatically terminates at the end of a person's life, which is obviously not what the Suttas say). Without this light bulb, electricity can always manifest in a different light bulb.

To phrase traditional Mahayana understanding in modern words, Mind and tendencies ("samskara" & "karma") are not "inside" the brain, instead they are media-independent informational/causational phenomena.
They exist "in" and underlie the very fabric of material processes at all organizational levels (dhatu).
Human beings, as well as inanimate objects, and also group entities, and other biological and social phenomena, serve as media or carriers or agents for the informational processes spanning many such carriers (as e.g. brains, books, computers) across space and time.
Mind is not "inside", matter/energy and information/mind are two sides of the same coin. I claim that this is the traditional perspective of Mahayana, whether many active practitioners can articulate it like this or not.
Intention and habits do not "originate" from the brain cells of course. They exist as latent tendencies in the realm of information and manifest via action mediated by a living organism with a brain (usually) or sometimes by other means at other organizational levels.

I think I get your point. But I'm not saying intention and tendencies are inside the brain, but rather that from certain group of brain cells working in a specific way emerges the function of kamma. It's like saying that the extension of the elbow is a function that appear thanks to the cojointed work of the triceps and the articulated bones of the arm. Saying that the flexion of the elbow lies independently of the anatomical parts mentioned is a strange way to put it.

That's because we're stuck in the habit of materialism. But in the information-first perspective it is understood that mind (information) is the forerunner of action (karma) and that the chain of information does not start in the brain.

Thanks for your time. I'm asking this because I'm honestly curious, not to be rude: why should I abandon materialism when it has shown to tell us most of the things we bear as knowledge of the world? If this view is (the one of letting go materialism) so clear to the buddhist trainee, why do everyone seem to have different opinions (even monks with years of training) on this topic?

For an alternative to materialism, try reading Pierce or any of the modern philosophers of semiotics studying Peircean approach to cosmogony. Your mind will be blown! There's a whole different way of looking at reality that we are only beginning to tap into in the West. There's a nice collection of essays published by Springer in 2014 called "Pierce and Semiotics. A guess at the Riddle of Life".

No, this view is far from being "clear" to all Buddhist trainees, although there is enough evidence in the texts and the oral tradition to assume that many advanced practitioners share this perspective, unfortunately most of the discourse remains at the folksy level, hence the perception of different "opinions". It is now our turn as a civilization of Science to take the torch from Religion and carry it on.

I started reading about Peirce a few months ago, and you were right: my mind was blown. Now I understand (in general) most of your answers. Buddhism and peircean philosophy complement each other almost perfectly; they explain the same phenomena only changing words and concepts, but underneath them lies -apparently- very similar world-views. I'm really thankful for this recommendation. Kind regards!

In your opinion, how is this (kammic) information carried from one existence to another, without an apparent material carrier? Kind regards!

The texts say nothing because "rebirth" in original Buddhism does not mean "reincarnation". "Rebirth" means the "re-arising" of "self-belief" based on acts of kamma and their results.
The original Buddhist scriptures say mind cannot exist without a material body:

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form (materiality), from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible.
SN 22.53

It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.'
Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in
  dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as
  eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear
  & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that
  arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as
  nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.
  Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile
  sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified
  simply as intellect-consciousness.
MN 38

Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that
  intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said.
  It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
  another. In the same way, from mind-&-body as a requisite condition
  comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  mind-&-body.
SN 12.67

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the body aggregate.... Mind-and-body is the cause and
  condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.
SN 22.82

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.


text:
Sensual Desire & their gradual cessation
We all now that habits which are not acted upon wither with time. However, is it possible to reduce cravings to a point where the specific cravings are close to non-existent?
How does one go about to achieve this?
Let's take sexual desire or sensual desire as an example: If I don't engage in sexual activities then craving will probably reduce in intensity and frequency, but I doubt that external objects have no control in how I process them.
If I see an attractive woman or tasty food isn't it inevitable that I at times will feel strong craving?

Does "I doubt that external objects have no control in how I process them" make sense? I don't understand it.

@Chris - I think he is saying that external objects themselves aren't the primary reason for the craving. The craving is the mind. One can co-exist with the same external objects that mind has previously craved for but not crave them because the mind perception has changed.

@Suchness I suppose it means, "..., but I expect that external objects (not just inner habits) continue to have some effect on how I process them".

I mean that outer object still have a (strong) influence on us

We all now that habits which are not acted upon wither with time. However, is it possible to reduce cravings to a point where the specific cravings are close to non-existent?

Yes, even to the point of complete extinction.

How does one go about to achieve this?

How I did this was through practising Satipatthana very diligently, in fact with such diligence I find myself now being more aware than not aware. I discovered that I was the one creating my own misery. I began practising Satipatthana because I realised sitting for one hour daily could take decades to progress but ultimately the motivation came from meditation in the form of flashes of insight. My ears were pricked and I wanted to know more but I wanted to know quickly. I needed to bridge the huge gap between 1 hour daily meditation and life. When I started Satipatthana things moved very quickly. As I now understand, Satipatthana is for the one who already has an ability to comprehend with depth and can summon a pinpoint focus on demand. This was confusing for me as my sagnha had knowledge of Satipatthana but I couldn't understand why they weren't practising it. Many people are extremely averse to being more aware. Some of the Buddha's teachings are tailored for specific groups, societies or individuals. I would suggest you read and practise and find out what resonates with you. Most importantly, begin to listen to your own self directed intuition.

Let's take sexual desire or sensual desire as an example: If I don't engage in sexual activities then craving will probably reduce in intensity and frequency, but I doubt that external objects have no control in how I process them.

This is a very wise observation. Knowing how you hold those cravings in your mind is paramount to the feeding of them and therefore whether they occur in the future and this is regardless of how long you have abstained from those desire objects. Removing the object itself is only a small part of a greater enigma. Being well versed in the noble truths and the three marks of existence is very helpful here alongside closely examining yourself.

If I see an attractive woman or tasty food isn't it inevitable that I at times will feel strong craving?

Yes, from therein lies the knowledge to understand yourself, the mechanism by which the craving takes place and the various degrees of unsatisfactoriness that one experiences from craving, what one can do about it and how that can be done. The answers are there, just watch yourself with curiosity. Have a look at The Four Noble Truths.

My teacher always said, reality is your interpretation, you are in control of your perspective.
Buddha said, you should be in control of your perception enough to be able to see repulsive in the attractive, and attractive in the repulsive. Buddha said, this is done by 1) "fabricating a fabrication" and by 2) "looking with equanimity". Buddha spoke about "proper attention" and "guarding the doors of the senses".

When you see an attractive woman, if you shift your attention and think about unattractive aspects, such as menstrual cycle, bowel movement, skin disease, STD, hysterical scandals, the process of giving birth etc. in connection with her, this is called "fabricating a fabrication".
My teacher said, the reason we like certain people is due to our stereotypes. We have some "types" or generalized images that we are attracted to, and the reason we find them attractive lies deep in our basic emotional experiences. In terms of Buddha-Dharma (and modern semiotics) we like people that have certain "signs" that we recognize because they trigger certain memories.
If you look very carefully at what goes through your mind when you're looking at an attractive (to you!) woman, you should be able to see the memories/stereotypes/prejudices that get triggered. For example, a woman could remind you of your own mother back when she was very young, or maybe her body language and voice look like they promise to soothe and cradle you etc. This is just an example, you should look at your own mind to see how it works.
Once you are able to see your triggers (attachments, stereotypes), you should be able to work with them to let go. Once you let them go, your interpretation of what you're looking at will change, and you will no longer be attracted to those particular signs.
So when you look at the situation scientifically, in terms of psychology, phenomenology, semiotics etc. - this is called "looking with equanimity".

These two techniques are called "controlling your perspective" or "the proper way to apply your attention".
Finally, in Mahayana we recognize that all attraction and repulsion is based on One Fundamental Assumption. It is assumption that "Something Outside of You Can Make You Feel Good". This is called the Root of Ego. Everything you feel, see, and experience - pleasant and unpleasant - comes from your mind. So all these pleasant feelings you think you feel when engaging in sex - they actually come from your own mind. Therefore, it is incorrect to impute (assign, project, attribute) these sensations to an "external object". In fact, external objects are also the constructs of your mind. And your mind is nothing but an ephemeral interplay of natural forces interacting from the beginningless times. So "external" and "internal" (aka object and subject) - are not two separate things. There is no "you" looking at "woman". There is only experience, which is the nature of mind.
Once you understand that there is no "you" watching it, and there is no "woman", - once you clearly see that this is like a dream that's dreaming itself, the attraction will be cut at the root. Then there is no way it can arise anymore.
So yes, craving is not "inevitable", it's absolutely possible to stop it.
It does take some effort to go deep enough in your mind to see the mechanism, but once you see how it works, it can be mastered.

Thanks Andrei, by the way, do you practise Asubha? Are you undertaking the 8 precepts?

I practice Dzogchen, which is cutting the illusion at the root by not separating "external" from "internal", so my practice is at a more fundamental level than simple fabrications (asubha) and 8 precepts - but yes, I practice what I preach.

What do you mean "at a more fundamentak level than simple fabrications (asubha) and 8 precepts"?

Meaning, when one practices at the level of Dependent Origination (Emptiness), the more basic requirements are automatically fulfilled.

How do you go about this?

I think it should be a separate question or a chat... Kinda big topic.

However, is it possible to reduce cravings to a point where the specific cravings are close to non-existent?

It's possible because the Buddha and many of His noble disciples from ancient time 'til now have been able to do it.

If I see an attractive woman or tasty food isn't it inevitable that I at times will feel strong craving?

It's not "inevitable". If it was there'd be no Buddhas nor Arahants. It obviously does take tons of effort and time dedicated to the cultivation of the Path. But once one has entered the Stream (ie the Noble Fruits), it should become easier, sorta like the difficulty a piano student faces at the beginning while trying to master the art. But thru constant practice that gradually builds up finger memory strength, eventually it'll become second nature and one'll be able to play complex music effortlessly and beautifully. If one finds one's craving's still strong at times, it might be a good idea to try out the 5 strategies the Buddha taught in MN 20

If I see an attractive woman or tasty food isn't it inevitable that I at times will feel strong craving?

I have found that when such arises, there are effective ways of dealing:

Reject "inevitable" and replace it with "now". This opens up change for future.
In considering your own craving regarding other sentient beings, ask yourself what the other sentient being wants. This will provide greater perspective and break you out of identity view. A pretty dress may simply be an expression of joy in color, not an invitation to craving.
Ask yourself to contemplate the opposite of your craving with love and kindness. I.e., glance away at something "un-pretty" and see the pretty in that. Glance back and forth until you see both the same.

The other answers are fine, but you might be asking for something concrete and actionable in the moment of craving.


text:
What Buddhist babies' names or meaning should be?
My relatives ask me to suggest good names that must be Buddhist.
I tried on internet but there are from other culture I want Indian names so what  names or meaning should be?

You should probably start from the Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names and then find proper Sanskrit versions of the Pali names.
For example, the Pali name Sariputta is Śāriputra in Sanskrit. The full version of this name is known as Śāradwatīputra.

How about these?
I'm not an expert in Sanskrit or Indian languages, so you better check these out carefully first. I'm also not sure about gender conversions, appropriateness and Sanskrit grammar.

Dharmadhara (female may be Dharmadharini) - upholder of the Dharma
Dharmānusara (female may be Dharmānusarini) - follower of the Dharma
Dharmacāri (female may be Dharmacārini) - observer of the Dharma
Dharma
Dhārmika
Karuṇā - compassion
Mudita - sympathetic joy
Maitrī (likely female) - friendly, benevolent
Satya (likely male) - truthfulness, honesty (one of the paramis / paramita)
Dāna (likely male) - generosity
Śīla - virtue
śīladhara (female may be śīladharini) - upholder of virtues
Kṣānti - forbearance, patience
śānti (likely female) - peace
ānanda - bliss

I have a male friend named Buddhi (meaning wisdom).

This has a list but it's in Sinhalese
https://mahamevnawa.lk/name-for-babies-baby-names/

This isn't helpful I don't know that language.

I'm sorry it isn't. It might be useful to someone else. If you're really keen, I need time to translate some for you..


text:
What kind of meat Guan yin believer are allowed to eat?
My girlfriend is from a Thai / Chinese familly.
They are buddist and they follow the Guan Yin precepts.
I know they can't eat beef, but this is not the only meat they refuses to eat.
They basicly eat only chicken and pork.
However her mother tried to eat some sheep meat just by curiosity.
I would like to know what kind of meat are you allowed to eat when you follow the Guan Yin precepts and which one are strictly prohibited.

I have only heard that laymen followers of Guan Yin would pursue to not eat the five pungent vegetable such as Onions, Garlic, Scallions, Chives and Leeks. On the meat side, I have only heard that it is just Beef.


text:
Buddhism after death
From what I understand the aggregates aren't self but now when a person dies and the material aggregates of his body dissolve then what remains who gets reincarnated ?.If there is no soul then what carries the information of this person to go to another life for example what defines that this is the person and not someone else do we have a serial number :) ?.
When the new material aggregates of the new body are born then they are different from the ones of the person who died .What defines that THIS person is in THAT body?.

Have you looked at https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30023/if-we-consider-kamma-as-intention-and-habits-how-are-these-transferred-from-a

Possible duplicate of If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transferred from a brain to next life when the brain breaks-up and cease to function?

I would recommend a wonderful book by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso 'The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings in the Noble Nagarujuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way' (Shambala). Nagarjuna addresses this precise issue. .

Yes, where our serial number is unique vibrational soul frequency.

@PeterJ I delete comments sometimes. If you want to post an answer, please post it as an answer.

"Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible."
Quoted from this post, highly recommended for reading:
How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
My interpretation of self is that Self = A permanent compound of Ego plus Identity.
Hence, "No self" is somewhere along the lines of "No permanent Ego plus Identity". I could be wrong, but that is what I can make the best sense of "No self", at least for now.

After thinking about it for sometime .I think your definition of self resolves the problem.We only need to remove the illusion of a singular ego that defines the person.At this moment even the believe in a soul as a possible aggregate for continuation of a human's spiritual journey doesn't mean a belief in self.

This answer is totally wrong reading of SN 44.10. I marked it down. The Buddha was never asked whether or not there is a self. Based on a literal reading of SN 44.10, the Buddha was essentially asked by a confused & bewildered wanderer: "I am a self" and "Am I not a self". Since the wanderer would have thought "'Does the self I used to have now not exist?" the Buddha did not answer him.

According to SN 12.17, Eternalist have the view ‘The one who acts is the one who experiences’ and annihilationist have the view ‘The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences.

"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences'[2] amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

The Buddha teaches via the middle. So our view or the “Buddhist view” would be,

‘From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
  From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
  From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
  From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
  From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
  From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.’

I marked this answer down because  SN 12.17 is not related to the question.

People always ask what is reborn and the mechanism of rebirth, as if that mattered, but that's really not the point of the dhama. THe only thing you need to know about rebirth is that rebirth does not stop dukkha, what is the condition for rebirth and what is the condition of cessation of rebirth.
asking about the precise working of rebirth is like asking what happens to your old car that you trash, after you buy a new car. The answer  is that the old car goes to so some junk yard, where it is dismantled. BUt for the people who ask what happens after death, they want to know more, they say it matters what is done with the thousands little parts of the car and where they go. That's really none of your business.
In practice, nobody cares much about that, what matters is that you have taken up a new car, the new car is what you focus on, and that having a new car is bad, so you must trigger the condition to stop having a new car.
The main worry about rebirth is that there is the taking up of a new body, worrying about what happens with the old body is not important for anybody who wants to stop dukkha.

The paradox is that Am I in the car or am I the car.If the first argument is true then the existence of eternal soul is true,if the latter then death is the end of the spiritual journey.

From what I understand the aggregates aren't self

Correct (per SN 22.59).

but now when a person dies

From the viewpoint of higher truth (that the aggregates are not self) there is no "person". The idea of a "person" is the same as the idea the aggregates are "self":

The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clung-to-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a
  clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a
  clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate,
  consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. This, monks, is called the
  burden.
And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is
  called the carrier of the burden.
SN 22.22

There are these five clung-to-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a
  clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a
  clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate,
  consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. These five clung-to-aggregates
  are the self-identification described by the Blessed One.
MN 44

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
SN 5.10

the material aggregates of his body dissolve what remains who gets reincarnated ?

This question is unrelated to higher Buddhism. In MN 117, it is taught there are two sorts of right view. The view of 'not-self' is transcendent right view and the view of 'self reaping results of kamma' is worldly right view. The Buddha did not mix up the two sorts of right view.
An analogy is kindergarten for children vs university for adults. Calculus is not taught to children in kindergarten and basic arithmetic is not taught to adults at university. Similarly, not-self is not taught to children and reincarnation is not taught to adults.

When the new material aggregates of the new body are born then they are different from the ones of the person who died .What defines that
  THIS person is in THAT body?

In higher truth, the idea "a person" or "self" dies is called "annihilationism" and the idea "a person" or "self" is reincarnated is called "eternalism", as follows:

There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be
  eternal.
There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views? Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin
  asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has
  material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and
  originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is
  annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death, at this point the self is completely
  annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction,
  and extermination of an existent being.
DN 1

In cultural Buddhism, because most faith follower Buddhists are not enlightened, they are taught and believe in "eternalism"; which is why they cling so tenaciously to metaphysical ideas of "rebirth".
In the history of Buddhism, there were heretic teachers, such as Buddhaghosa, who taught "not-self phenomena are reincarnated". This idea is heretical for at least two reasons:

To believe not-self is reincarnated destroys the incentive to do good personal kamma.
To believe not-self is reincarnated destroys the view of impermanence & dispassion required to realise Nibbana.

In the Pali suttas, it is clearly taught the same "person" inherits the results of "his" or "her" actions. That good & bad results follow from good & bad actions is what the scholars loosely translate as "rebirth" or "reappearance".


text:
What is the difference between Amitābha's Sukhāvatī & the Lotus Vault?
What is the relation of sukhāvatī to 蓮華藏莊嚴世界海 ("the lotus's vault, the perfected lokadhātu, the ocean") attested to in the Buddhāvataṃsakanāmamahāyānasūtra T279 & Āryasaddharmapuṇḍarīkanāmamahāyānasūtra T262, wherein arahantaḥ, according to the Mahāyāna as attested to in aforementioned scriptures, perfect Buddhahood?
Context:

Inquiry: in the Arhat's past lives the causes and conditions for being
  subject to embodiment necessarily ought to have been eradicated, in
  light of this they dwell where to perfect buddhahood?
Response: when attaining arhatship, the three realms' myriad outflows'
  causes and conditions are exhausted, there is no more birth again in
  the three realms. There is a pure buddha land, beyond the three
  realms, where not even the word affliction has a name, in this kingdom
  of the Buddha, they hear the Dharma Flower Sūtra [i.e. the Lotus
  Sūtra], with this they perfect Buddhahood. As in the Dharma Flower
  Sūtra's words: "There are arhantaḥ, for example, who’ve not heard the
  Dharma Flower Sūtra,themselves they call 'ones who have attained
  cessation'; I in another realm for them speak this matter, that you
  all shall become samyaksaṁbuddhāḥ."
(Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśaḥ T1509.714a9)

Furthermore, these pure lands, what relation do they have to ākaniṣṭaghanavyūha?

Perhaps your title question is too board. And I'm too lazy to check all the Sanskrit names of the Sutras in corresponding to the Chinese.
So, you are asking to compare Sukhavati with the Lotus-treasure World? Let's give it few directions:

Sukhavati and Lotus-treasure are not in the same category. Category means when you can compare China with USA, but you can't compare China with America. Here USA and China are names for the countries, America is the continent. But you can compare America with Asia, both are continents.
Lotus-treasure World includes Sukhavati. Why? Because Lotus-treasure World is a generic name given to all existences and phenomena, all non-existences and non-phenomena, i.e., the all of all, the total of totality. In the Avatamsaka, it said the Lotus-treasure World is formed by innumerable world-seas and world-seeds. Sukhavati will be one of the world in one of the world-seeds.
Sukhavati is very far from Sahā-lokadhātu our world. One is it is mentioned in the Amitabha Sutra, said it is at certain and certain huge distance from our world of the western direction. The other is, in Avatamsaka the chapters describing the structure of the worlds, after it described the world-seed our world resides, it goes to describe the neighboring ones; when it depicted a world with known relationship to our world, say, both are at the 13th dimension, it stated clearly, also at the 13th dimension, such and such world is called so and so name... But it never mentioned the world Sukhavati. Therefore we can know Sukhavati is not a neighborhood world to ours.

From my reading, it seems Sukhavati is a "purified" world, that is, it is emanated from Buddha Amitabha's mind. But Lotus-treasure is the primordial, it is the manifestation of Vairocana.

Good answer, I would add that one of my points of confusion was the description of the lotus vault in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa that I quoted earlier (問曰：阿羅漢先世因緣所受身必應當滅，住在何處而具足佛道？答曰： 得阿羅漢時，三界諸漏因緣盡，更不復生三界。有淨佛土，出於三界，乃至無煩惱之名，於 是國土佛所，聞法華經，具足佛道。如法華經說：「有羅漢，若不聞法華經，自謂得滅度；我於餘國為說是事，汝皆當作佛。」)  where it seems very "Sukhāvatī-like", as in a "Sukhāvatī just for the arhantaḥ".

So your quote is from 大般若經？If so, if it does state as 蓮華藏？You see, many English translations, almost all, are incapable to give correct interpretation and rendering, they are not with any attainment in Dharma except perhaps scholastic knowledge. Anyhow, the Three Spheres 三界 are what a being conceived, it depends on its Five Constitutions 五藴 to manifest as perceived. So, an Arhat doesn't necessarily conceive the same world even he lives on Earth - refer to 維摩經 the Buddha turned Saha-lokadhatu to pureland with his :D big toe. Sukhavati is just one of the purelands.

Not 大般若經, the commentary 大智度論. It doesn't name 蓮華藏莊嚴世界海, just says 淨佛土出於三界 (a pure buddha field beyond the three realms).

My association of arhantaḥ with the Lotus Vault is also from Āryopāsaka Korin's study notes on Venerable Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośakārikābhāṣya which can be seen in the notes to the Sattvaloka section page 47 --> (see Abhidharmakośabhāṣya study: https://abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kosa-study-materials.pdf) <-- on Sattvaloka chart it cites Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra Ch 5 華藏世界品 Kusumatalagarbhavyūhālaṃkāraparivartaḥ for Mahāyāna exegesis on śrāvaka śuddhāvāsā (淨居天)

Ok. Lotus-world is different from purelands, as  explaint in my answer esp. the last paragraph. Lotus-world is like the "natural" universe. With naked eyes we see dark space and stars, with Hubble we see colorful galaxies, with Samantabhadra we see the Lotus-world as described in Avatamsaka. But Arhat has realized no-self, his Five Constitutions nor long dictate his perception, therefore the Three Spheres can no longer bond him, in this sense he lives in the pureland. Pureland is just another dimension resided within the Lotus-world.

I only take a quick look at the link. My method of study is directly studying the Sutra, then Sastra. I read only the Classical Chinese text, without any commentary. Until I got all I could extract from the original text, I may read some commentary from trusted, realized masters, then read some from scholars, as a sport. I can sincerely tell you, the English writings on Dharma are horrible. Western people still needs many many effort to get the mind tuned to understand. The only merit is sometimes a wrong interpretation could be used a an inspiration...

... About Vasubandhu, roughly at this moment I group him together with Prasangika and Chandrakirti, they have wrongly interpreted Madhyamaka by Nagarjuna. But, but, their texts, since available in Tibetan, are used by many Western scholars to write essays, so you got that flooding in the arena. Most people get brainwashed by Hollywood and propaganda thinking Tibetan "Buddhism" is ancient and tasted old - brainwashed. After Tsongkhapa's Larim and Ngakrim Chenmo(s) Buddhism was severed from the root in their lineage. This is from my own study and knowledge, I don't belong to any sect.

I think that rather than being Ven Vasubandhu's, the mistake is a misinterpretation of mine based on Upāsaka Korin's sattvaloka study notes.

Ah! You meant that 100 pages "study materials" is your work!? Impressed! I didn't study too much of Sastras, Sutras are more effective. I definitely like Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, though 1000+ pages is intimidating. But Nagarjuna is absolutely cooool, I read some pages from it, his way of expressing is peculiar, and super intelligent, it makes me smile, always :). Currently I'm reading articles on Catuhskoti, there are so many people (incl. academics... shhhhh) don't really know what is Catuskoti but writing long papers on it... ahahaahhaha - grrrrr. I will read your link above and revert.

No, the study notes weren't by me, I just misread the sattvaloka chart. They are by Upāsaka Korin.


text:
Ancient texts on Meditation Techniques?
I have read a decent amount on modern meditative practices, but I am curious to read the way in which ancient monks described their techniques.
This is not suggesting that modern meditative practices differ from their originators, as I wouldn't know if they do.
I am simply curious about the ancient texts as one would be to read an ancient cookbook.

Please see the English translation of the Anapanasati Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 118 or MN 118) on the Buddhist mindfulness of breathing technique. The transliterated Pali version can be found here.
Please see the English translation of the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10 or MN 10) on the four foundations of mindfulness technique. The transliterated Pali version can be found here.
These two texts come from the Sutta Pitaka, the volume of the Pali Canon that contains the Buddha's discourses (suttas). According to tradition, these discourses were delivered by the Buddha, during the Buddha's lifetime (c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE).
These texts, translated to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, are originally in the Pali language, which is a partially Sanskritized variant of Prakrit. The Buddha spoke either Magadhi Prakrit or another dialect of Prakrit. Prakrit is closely related to Sanskrit.
If you want to read a modern guide and explanation on the techniques mentioned in MN 118 and MN 10, please see Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book "How to Meditate". If you're actually interested to learn Buddhist meditation, this is a great place to start.
Another newer text that you may read is the Visuddhimagga or Path of Purification, a text written in the 5th century CE in Sri Lanka by the monk Buddhaghosa. You can find a PDF version here.

Precisely what I was looking for. Excellent answer. Appreciate it.

This attitude is completely wrong; thinking something can crudely be manipulated for Nirvana. The Buddha  taught one primary method for the Noble Path; which was letting go or "surrender":

There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains
  singleness of mind.
SN 48.10

The is no "cookbook". It is the very opposite. The Buddha taught to stop "cooking" ("sanhkara").
"Cooking" is shown below, which the Buddha taught to stop:

I am massively confused by this comment. I never suggested that I was searching for Nirvana. I am interested in the historical teachings of Buddhist meditation techniques. Unless you're suggesting that only Buddhists and those seeking Nirvana, and only those subscribing to your particular sect of Buddhism, are permitted to show interest in Buddhism, or ask questions on this site.

Was your answer posted on the wrong question?

Buddha taught the path to Nirvana. So what meditation are you interested in? What destination or purpose?

In this question, I am not at all interested in the destination at all. I am interested, as I stated, in the "techniques" of meditation. Meaning, mindfulness, breathing, sitting posture, etc.

And my comment about cookbooks was an analogy. It had nothing to do with Buddhism or Buddhist practices.

Um... This is very amusing/perplexing. I think the woman in the picture is fabricating her own karma which is represented by her making a pot.


text:
Other physical (samatha) meditation objects besides breath?
Does Buddhist samatha meditation allow for physical meditation objects other than the breath? I have noticed I feel much more contentment with the physical sensation of "back straight". Please give examples or references.
Ayya Khema writes (Know Where You're Going) :

In the beginning we need the necessary meditation practice, the methods that will be our key to open the door, but within them we must find something that is of particular help to us. That element can be physical or mental, concerned with posture or with thoughts.

Upasika Kee writes (Pure and Simple):

Sit straight and place your hands one on top of the other on your lap. Hold your head up straight and keep your back straight—as if you had a yardstick running along your spine.

yes, when it comes to rupa, there is bhāvana on ''rupa'', or better said, bhāvana  on each one of the five properties
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/mn/mn.062.than.ati.htm#p1

"How, lord, is mindfulness of in-and-out breathing to be developed and
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, or great benefit?"
"Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
  internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
  near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right
  discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
  what I am.'
There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth
  property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property,
  and the space property.
"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
  internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3]
  Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained
  [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh,
  tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen,
  lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach,
  feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid,
  and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both
  the internal earth property and the external earth property are simply
  earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with
  right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my
  self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and
  makes the earth property fade from the mind.
"And what is the water property? The water property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal water property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's water, watery, and sustained:
  bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus,
  oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself,
  that's water, watery, and sustained: This is called the internal water
  property. Now both the internal water property and the external water
  property are simply water property. And that should be seen as it
  actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is
  not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is
  present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the
  water property and makes the water property fade from the mind.
"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, and sustained:
  that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, and consumed with fever; and
  that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, and savored gets properly
  digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire,
  fiery, and sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now
  both the internal fire property and the external fire property are
  simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is
  present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me,
  this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present
  with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire
  property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.
"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, and sustained:
  up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the
  intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing,
  or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, and
  sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the
  internal wind property and the external wind property are simply wind
  property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes
  the wind property fade from the mind.
"And what is the space property? The space property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, and sustained:
  the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby
  what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed, and where
  it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else
  internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, and sustained: This
  is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space
  property and the external space property are simply space property.
  And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and
  makes the space property fade from the mind.
"Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or
  unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth
  is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way,
  when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable
  and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with water. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as when people wash what is clean or unclean
  in water — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the water is not
  horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you
  are developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with fire. For when you are developing
  the meditation in tune with fire, agreeable and disagreeable sensory
  impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
  Just as when fire burns what is clean or unclean — feces, urine,
  saliva, pus, or blood — it is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted
  by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune
  with fire, agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have
  arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with wind. For when you are developing
  the meditation in tune with wind, agreeable and disagreeable sensory
  impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
  Just as when wind blows what is clean or unclean — feces, urine,
  saliva, pus, or blood — it is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted
  by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune
  with wind, agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have
  arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with space. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with space, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as space is not established anywhere, in the
  same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with space,
  agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will
  not stay in charge of your mind.

Buddhaghosa uses "kammatthana" to refer to each of his forty meditation objects listed in the third chapter of the Visuddhimagga, which are partially derived from the Pāli Canon.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamma%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADh%C4%81na

As Ayya Khema writes, on "body sweeping" meditation for absorption:

Whoever was able to have pleasant feelings in the body can use these feelings as the subject of meditation. One doesn’t necessarily have to go through the whole of the body as we have just done, but the moment the pleasant feeling arises in the body, these sensations become the subject of meditation. That constitutes the initial step toward the first meditative absorption, being one aspect of it. It is, of course, much easier to become absorbed in something pleasant than in a rather neutral feeling, so this enables a meditator to bring sustained application to the subject of meditation. Then all five factors of the first meditative absorption become possible. It doesn’t matter whether the whole body or just parts of it are filled with the pleasant feeling, because it is the sensation that matters as the subject of meditation.

Ajahn Brahm writes:

there are many other objects of meditation: loving-kindness (mettā), parts of the body (kāyagatāsati), simple visualizations (kasiṇa), and others. However, in all meditation that develops into jhāna there must come a stage where the pīti-sukha born of letting go arises. For example, loving-kindness meditation opens into a wonderful, gorgeous, unconditional love for the whole cosmos, filling the meditator with delicious joy. Pīti-sukha born of letting go has arisen, and one is at the stage of “beautiful mettā.” Some meditators focus on parts of the human body, often a skull.

Two related books, the first is a free ebook:
The Fire Kasina https://firekasina.org/2017/11/27/the-fire-kasina-book-by-shannon-stein-and-daniel-m-ingram/
Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw https://www.amazon.com/dp/159030733X


text:
Should one literally think "I am breathing in long, I am breathing out long."
Per the teachings of the Anapanasati Sutta, should one literally think about what they are doing, or focus on the breath itself?
Meaning, should I think "I am breathing in long," or should I focus on the action of my breath being long?

It is not necessary to think: "I am". The mind should know the action of the breath being long or being short. Also, there is really no need to "focus". When the mind is quiet & silent, the mind will know the breathing. Be as silent, still, upright, awake & alert as possible.
Note: At the highest level of practise, the Buddha taught to reflect:

Monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be
  regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
SN 22.59

If it helps you to be in the moment, then by all means do it.
Remember that breathing is just our anchor to the moment, to the now.
Let go of everything else. You can even let go of this idea. As long as the breath brings you to the present moment, it is doing its job.


text:
Similarities between Daoism and Buddhism
What are some of the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism? Can one achieve the Tao through Buddhism and vice versa, can one achieve nirvana through Taoism?

Buddhism and Taoism are usually both judged to fall under the heading 'Perennial philosophy' because they share the same metaphysical message.
Middle Way Buddhism rejects all positive metaphysical positions. For this reason when we speak about the world we are forced to do so in riddles since we are not allowed to make or endorse a positive statement. The doctrine of Two Truths explains this and gives us a way of speaking about Reality whereby we speak of the 'self' as existing and not-existing, the equality of emptiness and fullness and so forth, and get told off by outsiders for speaking paradoxically.
In the same way Lao Tsu tells us that we cannot state the world is this or that in any case and lays down the rule 'True words seem paradoxical'. True words seem paradoxical for reasons explained by Nagarjuna in Fundamental Wisdom. Only if Reality is as Nagarjuna describes would Lao Tsu's statement be true.
So underneath the different methodology and emphasis is the same doctrine and world-view. For many people this is 'True Religion' or the Perennial philosophy.
There are, of course, Buddhists who deny Naharjuna's metaphysics but those who do must also deny the metaphysics of Lao Tsu, Plotinus, advaita, Sufism and other expressions of non-dualism. It seems to make more sense to say that truth may be discovered by anyone who seeks it and this is why so many traditions share the same underlying doctrine.
I have a nice book here somewhere by a Taoist discussing the equivalence of the message of Lao Tsu, Buddha and Jesus and will post a reference if I can find it.
So my view would be that we can achieve liberation by way of either tradition and methodology. I find Taoist ideas very useful and treat them as complementary. Taoism and Zen are like twin siblings.
PS - It would important to distinguish between Philosophical Taoism (Lao Tsu, Chung Tsu et al) and Religious Taoism, which arrived 500 years later and introduced gods, angels, heaven and hell etc. in what seems to have been an attempt to popularise the teachings. Bad idea but it gained a lot of ground and muddied the waters.

I find the Buddha in the suttas doesn't talk using seemingly-paradoxical language like, "The last shall be first" -- but uses conventional language (perhaps assuming you're able to make sense of it), "skilful" versus "unskilful", wise and unwise, knowlege and without knowlege, virtue and non-virtue, anger and non-anger, and so on.

@ChrisW - The Buddha uses the device of the 'Three Turnings of the Wheel' specifically in order to avoid paradoxical language. It would only be the language of the third turning that is relevant here since only for an ultimate analysis would a language of contradiction be necessary. This was the 'skillful means', the use of three different languages as appropriate to the audience. He usually avoids speaking in a seemingly-paradoxical way by avoiding talk of metaphysics. He avoids such talk because it requires a language.that would merely confuse learners in the early stages.   .

With my very little understanding of Daoism I think you can approach Tao through Buddhism but one can't achieve Theravada Nibbana via Daoism perhaps Mahayana Nibbana.
I think the teaching of Daoism is very beautiful.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=30211&hilit=Daoism

Daoism is hard to define, isn't it? There's the Tao Te Ching but sfaik most Daoists are Chinese, and unless you understand e.g. the Chinese language it's a bit inaccessible.
So far as I know, "one" (i.e. a sense of self, identifying with the "five aggregates" of Buddhism) does not achieve either.
I find that the doctrine that "one" is a "straw dog" (Chapter 5 of the Tao Te Ching) is suggestive. :-)
I think that "Taoism" is quite broad though, e.g. here's an aspect to it which values physical/bodily immortality (e.g. as maybe manifested in martial arts, in traditional chinese medicine, in the Taoist Immortals) which, I don't know, is maybe rather different from Buddhism.
If you've read both you may see a lot of similarities -- I quite like how the Tao Te Ching ends with hearing dogs barking but people staying home, maybe "staying home" is a metaphor for not chasing after sensuality or something like that (or maybe it's meant as purely mundane advice for a populace).
Not that literally "staying home" is necessarily a feature of Buddhism (which advocates "going forth into homelessness", also maybe different stages e.g. as illustrated in the Ten Bulls).


text:
Are there detailed Buddhist teachings on/about energy (viriya)?
If memory serves correctly, the historical Buddha did mention contemplating/investigating energy (viriya). Also remember mention of energy leading to the cessation of dukka.
But does the Buddha, or other Buddhist teachings, ever expound upon energy in-depth, specifically techniques on how to raise/rouse energy — perhaps with the same level of detail the Abhidhamma does with the 121 types of consciousness — other than by intention? (as in:
“What is virya? It is the mind intent on being ever active, devoted, unshaken, not turning back and being indefatigable. It perfects and realizes what is conducive to the positive.” via: The Abhidharma-samuccaya from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vīrya )

Do you mean energy as vitality, effort,... or energy as defined in science?

Thanks Codosaur and @SarathW — updated question from the input.

Buddha's many life stories are about the teaching of energy. More information from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C4%ABrya

Energy in science is tejo, form, in Buddhism.
The encouragement is indriya and bala in Buddhism. This is the method of jhāna meditation. It was used before the Buddha enlightened by jhāna practitioner. However, the enlightenment of Buddhism is jāna, supra-mundane jhana (lokuttara), as well, so the encouragement was mentioned in tipitaka and atthakatha as leading to the cessation of dukka.
For every 5 encouragements, see lakkhaṇādicatukka in the path of purification, some in aggregates lesson and some in kasiṇa lesson.

As I hear it daily, energy is the antidote to laziness:

Furthermore, a mendicant lives with energy roused up for giving up unskillful qualities and gaining skillful qualities. They are strong, staunchly vigorous, not slacking off when it comes to developing skillful qualities. --dn33/en/sujato (Tens)


text:
Meditation causing headaches
In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this.

@Chloe You're an experienced user, you should probably know when and how to comment -- see e.g. When shouldn't I comment?, as well as this.

@Chloe. FYI, I deleted the comments since the comment section is not for answers. Please follow our guidelines as outlined by my colleague.

In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.

Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?
If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the medial rectus muscle and the inferior/obliquee rectus muscle. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.

This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.
Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.

... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...

This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.
The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.
Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:

Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
Do these stretching exercises for the eyes. Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.

Hope this helps.
By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist.

The Buddha did not teach to observe breathing at the nose tip. The Buddha taught to simply let go and give up craving. Just sit quietly and naturally. The mind should be "open" rather than "focused".

i really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence i had when i meditated daily

There are other forms of meditation. We sit a lot in our offices. Perhaps sitting meditation is too much on top of that. Since I started walking meditation listening to suttas, much has improved for me. If you walk outdoors in western cultures, please do wear a yellow road work vest. I have had the police called on me when I wasn't wearing such a vest. Kind neighbors had thought I was in need of assistance wandering aimlessly. Yellow road vests offer instant and proper seclusion accorded to those who work. Earbuds also help regardless of whether you are listening to anything--"here is someone busy listening".
If you wish to download audio material for walking meditation, please see SuttaCentral Voice Assistant. SuttaCentral Voice Assistant lets you search for any sutta by English and/or Pali phrase (romanized or accented). You can play the suttas on your desktop bilingually with each text segment in Pali/English. You can also download an MP3 for any supported sutta (over 3000 and growing). SCV does also have links to other audio resources such as Pali Audio for certain suttas, but its own voice coverage of the suttas is, I believe, the largest currently. For example, I listen to DN33 daily. It is two hours long. We are continually expanding SCV's sutta coverage in English and, hopefully, eventually to other languages.

Could I ask what resources you use to listen to suttas?

D'oh. Thanks for commenting. Updated answer.

Could you tell me what is your object of focus?
Have you been concentrating on, for example, the space between your nose and your mouth?
If that's the case, I would recommend that you choose a different region of the body. Lower abdominal area, about three fingers below your naval, would be an option. Some Chinese masters believe that women should concentrate instead on the big toes or the bottom of the feet.
In any case, I think pushing the focus on the lower parts of the body will help. If this doesn't help, you should go talk to an experienced meditator.

If this is indeed a problem with forcing your eyes into a strenuous position to maintain focus somewhere, I've found a way that allows me to have my eyes rest, while still having them act as a center of focus.

Reach your hand out in front of your eyes, with you eyes open.
Focus on the position of your hand in front of your face, and learn to "feel" that position.
Once that's comfortable, close your eyes (with your hand still outstretched where it was), and again, focus on the position of your hand without seeing it.
Once you can easily focus on your hand without seeing it, lower your hand, and again focus on that same area; now occupied by empty space.

I've found the empty space in front of my face to be a very relaxing place to focus. I often use this to help me fall asleep. I haven't tried transferring this over into meditation (I really should practice meditating more), but I can see this technique being applicable.

Try a meditation practice like ‘Loving kindness meditation.’ Here, you first direct loving-kindness to yourself and gradually extend to people you know and even to enemies (if you have any) at the end (you should be able to find more info regarding this meditation on the web).
Another thing to try is to simply observe your thoughts – how they come and go. Then, “I miss the peaceful states” becomes merely another arising and ceasing thought. This meditation would also lead you to peace.