text:
Critique of interview with secular Buddhist author of "Why Buddhism is True"
I wonder what critique other self-identified Secular Buddhists on this forum would have of this new interview with self-proclaimed Secular Buddhist author Robert Wright.

What are the specific doctrines that are discarded as "supernatural?"

Now, for some questions for non self-identified Secular Buddhists:

Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?"
Towards the end of the interview the interlocutors discuss what Buddhism has to say about Tribalism/Racism. Is Buddhism a prescription for overcoming Tribalism/Racism as they say?

Cheers!

Is this an invitation for an opinion-based discussion?

I think this is inline with https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28504/can-you-criticise-or-improve-ven-bodhis-description-of-mahayana --> questions like this. Also, facts are not inherently existent. No ultimate distinction can be made between fact and opinion :)

I not sure this question is allowed here. We try to avoid topics where you're invited to disagree with or criticise other schools. Assuming that "secular Buddhism" is (a form of) Buddhism, imagine asking this same question about Mahayana -- "What critique do users have about Mahayana? Will it turn into a full and robust etc.?" I think it's OK to ask questions of or about secular Buddhists like "What do 'secular Buddhists' believe?" but not to invite general criticism.

In this topic I asked for a more-Mahayana perspective on allegedly-Mahayana doctrine.

That's true Chris. OTOH, I don't remember ever seeing any self-identified Secular Buddhists here, but maybe they are lurking. I'm also not sure if any self-identified Secular Buddhists would regard it as a tradition. But if anyone is offended or feels like this is an attack then it should be deleted. Can we wait to see if anyone so feels?

So, defense is allowed, not offense?

More like, where there is no controversy why invent one? Or where there is no problem why find a solution? I'm curious of the answers and think I might learn something, but if you and Chris think this is going to invite controversy then I am fine with deleting it. I'll just have to get over my attachment to it ;)

@AndreiVolkov I don't know what you mean by "defense", why that might be necessary: I think we hope to do without hostile questions.

I certainly didn't intend it as hostile but if others find it hostile, then it should be deleted.

@ChrisW like, your question about Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana was inviting "defense" of Mahayana (what you called "more-Mahayana perspective").

Right, I didn't think that question about Mahayana was hostile at all and in fact I found the question and responses very appropriate and illuminating.

Like if a question is inviting the views of others without making definitive statements that are controversial is that hostile? If I had said something like, "secular buddhism is definitely wrong so don't even try to defend it but just tell me why you think it is so wrong too" that would be inappropriate IMO.

I think members of the "Triratna" community (I've seen some here) consider themselves "secular". And I can think of at least one regular user who "discards" rebirth. I don't think the question is hostile, I fear it almost inevitably invites some seemingly-"hostile" answers i.e. which disparage any "secular" views.

Sorry. If you read something (e.g. an interview) elsewhere that you don't understand it's good that you should be able to ask about it here. But users (the community) on Meta when this site was started worried about the fact that this site is for all forms of Buddhism/Buddhist, wanted to avoid one school attacking another (which apparently they'd experienced more than enough of on other/previous sites), and so have a bit of firewall between schools. Ask about any school (or perhaps you call it tenet system) but preferably (or only) from within the context/perspective of that school.

I've edited the question now to hopefully be ok. Thank you both for helping me realize my own bias. I hadn't anticipated that self-identified Secular Buddhists would be answering and some of those questions are not appropriate for non self-identified Secular Buddhists.

Do you have any specific question[s] about the interview? Is it only a non-specific question like, "Does everything in this interview accurately portray secular Buddhism?" Are there any especially questionable bit[s] of the interview that you'd want to quote or highlight? I ask because the specific questions seems to be about the future of secular Buddhism (not about the interview), so I'm wondering a bit, what you're asking about the interview, what the interview has to do with it.

#1 and #2 are very general that occurred to me with interview as condition, but #3, #4 and #5 all occurred with interview as substantial cause :)

The only part of this question that I see as legit is #4. Everything else to me invites hypothetical future-looking speculation.

Read the interview? That was a big part of it :) Anyway, only responses seem to be you and Chris so maybe i'll just delete it again.

Look good now? If so, maybe delete these comments?

@Yeshe Tenley. Question #3 might invite to primarily opinion-based answers and/or discussions. Please see our policy on "asking questions".

@Lanka, I've edited #3. Better?

@YesheTenley I think we have a permissive moderation policy for questions. "Too opinion-based" (or even "Unclear what you're asking") isn't great, but I wouldn't close a question for that reason. But "comparisons" (e.g. "is secular better?") and "hostile" (e.g. "secular is bad am I right?") are possible reasons for closing, IMO. I'm not sure that you'll get good answers to the question as-is, or quick answers (perhaps the secular buddhists I'm thinking of aren't here any more, or not frequently), but I'm not against the question any more.

Maybe not too many answers, but thank you all for the exercise in helping me improve the questions.

... even if you were asking people to predict the future. They might not be able to answer fully/accurately but might (if they were expert) have some relevant datum by way of reply.

@YesheTenley. I think so, yes. Thank you for the effort.

Here are partial answers to "what beliefs are discarded?" -- Matthew's doesn't name specific beliefs but says it depends on what form of Buddhism (Pali, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan) they secularize -- Bakmoon's says something similar, "varies tremendously based on what tradition they are adapting their teachings from", and that there's a secularized vipassana, and (IMO may hint that it's not that they discard the supernatural elements but more) that they ignore them and concentrate on "just a few (texts or elements) that they consider important".

Yeshe Tenley. Please improve the quality of your question. Please choose some quotes from the interview for critique. Thanks

Just got this book as a gift, so far an interesting read

Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?"
I find two definitions of "fundamental attribution error":

One is the view that behaviour characteristics are innate (or inherent in the person) rather than situational -- Wikipedia:

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the concept that, in contrast to interpretations of their own behavior, people tend to (unduly) emphasize the agent's internal characteristics (character or intention), rather than external factors, in explaining other people's behavior. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are".

The author uses it in what may be a slightly different way -- e.g. here is the same author writing for Wired -- saying it's affected by our view of which tribe (friend or enemy) a person belongs to:

After all, we tend to interpret the errors of our enemies and rivals in an unfavorable light, while explaining away the errors of our allies in more innocent terms.
Indeed, this tendency itself involves a cognitive bias, one that is less famous than confirmation bias. It’s called “attribution error,” and it, too, is dividing America.
In a context of intense tribalism, attribution error works like this: If people we identify as members of our tribe do something bad—if they’re mean to someone, say, or they break the law—we tend to attribute the behavior to “situational” factors. They had been under stress at work, or they were pressured by bad actors into misbehaving, or whatever. If members of the enemy tribe do something bad, we’re more likely to explain the behavior in “dispositional” terms—the bad behavior emanates from their basic disposition, their character. It’s just the kind of thing that people like them do.

You ask for sutta references. I think an obvious example is the Buddha's attitude to what a "holy man" is.
That's conveniently summarised in the Dhammapada (but I think the same doctrine exists in many suttas too):

Because he has discarded evil, he is called a holy man. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.

and:

Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

and:

He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience — him do I call a holy man.

My analysis:

People used to be called "holy" because of their birth i.e. if they were born Brahmin -- i.e. their holiness was considered innate -- and Buddhism contradicts the view, that they are holy because they're born holy.
This also says that people are not holy merely because they're called (named) or viewed as holy, or merely bear the outward signs of being members of a holy caste.
I'm not sure about the converse:

Maybe Buddhism suggests (instead of their birth or caste or maybe even their view) there is a good test for when a man can or should be considered holy -- i.e. when a person's behaviour can be attributed to the person's internal characteristics -- i.e. for example,

He who without resentment endures abuse

Perhaps this is the right time to consider someone inherently holy, because it seems to be an example of when their behaviour isn't dependent on external situation.
(Not just "enduring abuse" -- other admirable qualities are described in this chapter.)
Maybe Buddhism suggests that a person is holy when they're serene because they're unaffected, when they are independent, i.e. because they are a recluse and renunciate.
Or, maybe a social psychologist, who holds that the "fundamental attribution error" doctrine is always true, might argue that even this is somehow an example of situational or something "dependent" (a reaction) rather than "inherent" (an action) -- I don't know (because I'm not a social psychologist and don't know exactly how they define and use their FAE doctrine).

As well as or instead of this (definition of "a holy man"), you might (I don't know) also view the FAE as having parallels with Buddhist the doctrine on emptiness (i.e. that things are dependent not inherent), and maybe the "non-self", "two truths", and "dependent origination" doctrines too.
The author's doctrine may come via doctrine on emptiness (not to mention, his own practice) -- e.g. as evidenced by the previous paragraph in the Wired article:

I think the more you go down the path, the clearer the connection between practice and your everyday moral behavior. As I said, all the way down the path is this idea of emptiness where you’re not projecting essences onto lamps or weeds or people, but if you just get a little ways down the path and are reacting a little less emotionally to people, you can make real progress. Can I talk about a cognitive bias that fascinates me because it's so subtle?

The article you referenced mentions morality too, by the way:

We talked about the illusion of self, the psychology of tribalism, how meditation can make us more moral, and why he thinks spreading meditation practice could be socially transformative

Buddhism has some "moral" doctrine too, as you know -- perhaps metta bhavana (meditation) for example, towards everyone (not just for "my own tribe" -- not to mention, whether it's proper to have a "my" tribe) -- not holding ill-will -- or in the context of contemporary American politics, Buddhism might frown on "fake news" (wrong speech) and, who knows, perhaps even any political, tribal, divisive (unendearing, unbeneficial) news and speech even if 'true'.
I don't want to start a discussion of "injustice (in America and elsewhere)" here, though.
In context, the main or final example he gave of what he called "fascinating" appeared to be "demonizing the leader of the country they want to invade" -- a reference to the year-long lead-up to (i.e. the media campaign to justify) the invasion of Iraq (which included what some people now call 'fabricated' evidence or false pretexts e.g. related to WMD).


text:
Does truth of emptiness imply that nothing existent ever ends?
Can emptiness be understood as a conservation law? In other words, is it true that to posit a true end to any existent is to necessarily presuppose that it truly existed before it ended? Another way of saying it, to posit that with death and the break up of the body that a person truly ended is to presuppose that the person truly existed in the body beforehand?
Doesn't viewing the true destruction of a chariot presuppose that the chariot truly existed in the first place?
Doesn't viewing the true destruction of the body presuppose that the body truly existed in the first place?
Can an illusion ever truly end? Or does illusion necessarily give birth to subsequent moments of new illusion?
To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death different? Doesn't supposing a true end for an illusion-like phenomenon necessarily imply that someone has mistaken the illusion for something real? Is this one consequence of the equation emptiness === form?

Like the first verse of Nagarjuna's Madhyamikakarika, Prasangika refute the four extremes of production. Nagarjuna says:

Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a
  cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

What is produced is not truly produced (in the sense that it is not inherently produced), and what ceases does not truly cease (in the sense that it does not inherently cease). There is (conventional) production from another, but not inherent (or true) production from another... and there is no production from itself, be it truly/ultimately or conventionality.
You say:

To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing
  phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from
  moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death
  different?

It's a great question. Death is different in that the mental continuum separates from the body. There is no such separation before death (except in rare cases of powa etc.) That is how death is different from the constant changes that occur in life. Even though no aggregate stays the same from one moment to the next, there is usually no such separation (of the mind stream from the body) before death.
In addition, since the aggregates belong to the same continuum, we can impute the same name on them although they have changed. It is what we do when we look a picture of us at age 10 and say "Look! It's me when I was ten."

How about the conservation law part or this as implication in equation of emptiness === form? iow, can anything at all said to truly end at death? either the body, the mind, the person, anything? is there any true end to anything at all? do illusion-like things continue to be illusion-like from the infinite past into the infinite future precisely because they never truly existed in the first place? BTW, so great to hear from you, you awesome illusion-like being! :)

When you burn a table into ashes, it becomes something else (ashes) and it ceases to be a [illusion-like] table. To paraphrase things, Vaïbashika posit that form will never become nothing, and I have never seen a refutation of that, be it by Prasangika or others. Still, the table ceased to exist - even though the form abiding in the table abides in or as ashes. Your body will cease to be a body. As far as I know, all Mahayana schools posit that the mental continuum never ends and that it is never severed, and so it is eternal (but impermanent).

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean with "emptiness === form".

"Vaïbashika posit that form will never become nothing," seems very close to a conservation law indeed. emptiness === form is shorthand for, "Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness." When I say that illusion-like things never truly cease it seems something like to say that conventional existents when they end always act as substantial cause for arising of other conventional existents..."

That the ending of any conventional existent is not a true ending in that the ending always acts as substantial cause to give rise to some new conventional existent? In much the way that burning table turns to ash...

As far as I know, it is indeed correct to posit that when an impermanent conventionality ends, it turns into another (and it is its substantial cause).

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Meditation, sleep paralysis, spinal vibration
I have meditated off and on since childhood, before I knew what it was, and since my 30s I have been interested in the spiritual concepts of Buddhism.  I had an experience in 2010 wherein I awoke from sleep but could not move, yet my eyes were open, not my physical eyes.  I could see a pale ceiling but could not look around.  I was aware of my cat half-lying on my stomach, and he was purring.  My ears popped, and suddenly I could hear differently, acutely.  I heard footsteps ascending my stairs and the swishing sound like that of a robe.  I heard footsteps cross to the left side of the bed.  I was frightened, and the hair stood up on end on my arms and head, but I deepened my breathing and relaxed.  I immediately felt a type of massaging, but not on my physical body, more the ethereal body, and also a warmth.  The light massaging moved from left leg and foot to right leg and foot to left rib area to right rib area, and then I heard movement toward my head.  The light in front of my eyes suddenly brightened, and my sinus passages popped loudly.  I felt gentle pressure like hands cradling under my neck, and this pressure began to lift my head and shoulders upward, and I knew that I was being assisted out of body.  Then my alarm went off and awakened me.  I sensed a vibrational peace which lasted several minutes.  Since that time, I have had several OOB experiences, always as I go to sleep or am awakening from sleep, some frightening, which set me back for a few years.
Recently, over the last 2 years, I have had several experiences after I fall asleep wherein I half awaken in that state again, and sometimes feel a presence near, but immediately I feel a very strong, pleasant, vibrational, almost humming flow of energy flowing from the base of my neck to the base of my spine and back again.  I always fall back asleep easily.
I don't know what is happening, and I have been trying to release any fear and simply let it be.  I want to trust that this is some type of healing or spiritual progression process, but I feel that I have no guidance.  Are there any Buddhist teachers who would be able to guide me through this? Any response or feedback would be extremely welcome!

Sounds like some effect of Dream Yoga practise? I remember reading something about practising Dream Yoga with some natural light experience.

Thank you ~ I haven't heard of Dream Yoga and will look into it.

It is worth being aware of the potentially adverse effects of meditation on people with a history of trauma. There is a small but growing awareness of this phenomenon in the scientific community. See, e.g. the work of Willoughby Britton (  here and here ) as well as David Treleaven's work.

Thank you, Shiri, for your advice, and I will look into these author's works.  I have just begun reading Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light, revised.  My experiences continue, and I cannot help but feel that these are occurring for a reason; however, I will continue with utmost caution.

Good luck, V Beth. Please take good care of yourself and don't push yourself too hard. Remember that part of the path is also loving kindness and compassion to yourself <3

Thank you for the gentle reminder, Shiri, and I will do so <3   I have begun reading Willoughby Britton and Treleaven's works, and they remind me of Living with Kundalini, Autobiography of Gopi Krishna, which provides a beautiful yet sometimes harrowing account of the power of meditation and transformation.

Dont be too much stuck with spiritual experiences.
What you explained accounts for nothing except that now you know what all things are there beyond normal experiences.
Since you have asked this question on a buddhist stack exchange I will suggest you explore more on meditation and start meditating.
There is lit more to experience.

Thank you for your response which has reminded me that these experiences have offered a most valuable realization, which is simply that I now know, in a complete sense and not only an intellectual sense, that energy/consciousness does not cease to be as in a concept of death, but transforms, transmutes, and continues.  I will explore more regarding meditation and practice more consistently.  Have you found it beneficial to join a sangha?

@VBeth Congrats now you know for sure and this trust will foster your practise. Joining a sangha is benificial depending on where you are and the honesty and authenticity of teacher. But since you are honest you will find a honest teacher. It always helps to be guided on the path.

There is not much guidance to give apart from what you already posted, namely,  to release any fear and simply let it be.
What is occurring is during sleep; where the intellectual facility appears to be half asleep and half awake; is possible & ordinary. For example, I have experienced real wisdom engaging during dreams (generally about death); where wisdom engages and reflects: "This is only a dream".
As for the sensations, this is just mental formations moving around & arising to purify (what you call: "humming flow of energy flowing"). Again, there is not much guidance to give apart from what you already posted, namely,  to release any fear and simply let it be.
Often, when my body-mind have releases of energy during sleep, the mind has dreams of literally flying in the sky; over oceans & cities at night; which is extremely enjoyable & refreshing. The mind can do these things because this is the creative or imaginative nature of the mind; that is all.
Also, the Buddhist scriptures mention supernormal mental occurrences, such as visions and perception of external events (called 'Divine Eye' & 'Divine Ear'). All of these things are mere possible mental happenings; that require release of any fear and simply let it be.
The core teaching of Buddhism is "non-attachment" towards all experience.

When a monk has heard that nothing is worth clinging to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully
understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully
understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or
painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating
(observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing)
fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating
(observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing)
thus, he does not cling (obsess about) to anything in the world.
Shorter Discourse on the Destruction of Craving

Thank you for your insight, particularly regarding the reminder of the core teaching of non-attachment.  I also have had vivid dreams about flying over cities and through dark space with distant, colorful points of colored lights at a high rate of speed.  And I have been fascinated and hopeful about these experiences as they seem to be both a creative, liberating, process and also perhaps an element or part of spiritual cleansing, healing, and/or progress.  I now remind myself not to become attached to these experiences and also to meditate more regularly and consistently.

Doesn't this sound like an Kundalini awakening or qi energy?

Kundalini  & Qi are not Buddhist notions. Buddhist meditation is about non-attachment.

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


text:
Is it correct to say that 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?
Buddha says in saṃyuktāgama:

“One who craves for and delights in bodily form, craves for and
  delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha will not
  attain liberation from dukkha. In the same way one who craves for and
  delights in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, craves
  for and delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha
  will not attain liberation from dukkha.

Clearly Buddha did not hesitate to say "One who craves for dukkha will not attain liberation from dukkha".
The "One who craves " should not be a valid statement because Dhamma says we can not frame statements like the above. We can only ask or say depending upon what the craving arises or ceases.
Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter :

“Venerable sir, who craves?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One
  craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a
  valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus.
  Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with
  what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid
  question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition,
  craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with
  clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.’

There is some contradiction is framing the statements above. One statement statement says 'One who craves'( a self is implied) and the other statement says it is invalid to ask 'who craves' instead we should ask depending upon what the craving comes to be(no self is implied)?
My question is : Is it correct to say 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?

When the question is asked the context of the question is about finding the observer or ultimate operator, which is a typical dispute on Self essence. The answer is in this context also. It would be nonsense not to use phrases and signs because of something, language has to be used skilfully. Doing otherwise indicates strong attachment to terms and signs which paradoxically reaffirms clinging.

I would suggest you investigate the 'Three Turnings of the Wheel'. This will explain why the Buddha may sometimes seem to contradict himself on these issues.

The Buddha indeed spoke of people or individuals, for example, in AN 4.98:

“Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
  “Cattārome, bhikkhave, puggalā santo saṃvijjamānā lokasmiṃ.

Puggala means individual or person.
Your question is different from this other question. The other question asks about the Buddha saying "I am the unexcelled teacher" - would that be considered as having identity view or conceit.
Your question is about the Buddha referring to a person or individual or self.
Does a self not exist at all? That's not what the Buddha says.
In the Attakari Sutta (AN 6.38), he says:

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

So, there are individuals. There is such a thing as a self.
On the other hand, the Buddha also says in SN 12.12:

“Venerable sir, who craves?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One
  craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a
  valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus.
  Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with
  what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid
  question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition,
  craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with
  clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.’

So, how can we understand this? The Buddha says on the one hand that there is a self-doer, that is an endeavoring being, who moves himself forth and back at will. But on the other hand, when it comes to explaining dependent origination, the Buddha prefers not to speak of a self, but rather speak of the 12 links of dependent origination. There is no suffering person, but there is simply suffering.
The Acela Sutta (SN 12.17) says (paraphrased here):

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"

So, this is an important principle in Buddhism. If you say there is no self, no being at all, then that is annihilationism. If you say there is an eternal being at the core of every person, that is eternalism. Both are to be avoided.
The self is existent. However, it is not permanent or eternal or standalone. This is explained using the vina or lute analogy in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205).

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Just as music arises from the inter-working of the different parts of a vina or lute, similarly, the self is like a piece of entertaining music which arises when the orchestra of the five aggregates are playing.
The only way self is related to suffering is according to Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85):

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form. (and the same applies to the other aggregates)

So, when we read the suttas, we need to understand the context of it. Is the Buddha speaking of beings who do exist in a conventional sense? Or is he digging into the nature of suffering and speaking of dependent origination?

"the self is like a piece of entertaining music which arises when the orchestra of the five aggregates are playing." This makes the Self innocent forever. Every self is innocent because it was not his mistake but five aggregate's. I guess this in not correct.

"innocent" doesn't come into play. viewing 'karma' as a law of universal justice is incorrect. karma is just an empirical fact. 'deserve' or 'innocent' or any such word implying universal justice does not apply.

It's very simple.
When there is an idea of a delight and craving for that delight - there's goal-making, when there's goal-making - there is acting towards a goal, when there is acting towards a goal - there's receiving of a result of that action, when there's goal-making, acting, and receiving result - there emerges an idea of Agent or Self that sets that goal, acts, and receives the result. This idea of Self keeps accumulating attitudes, tendencies, desires, opinions, motives, motivated actions, and appropriating results of those actions as further opinions and motives - thereby perpetuating itself.
The idea of Self supports Craving. Craving supports the idea of Self. Both support each other through Action motivated by Craving and through thinking about that Action in terms of Self.
As long as there's thinking in terms of Self, there's Craving. As long as there's Craving there's thinking in terms of Self. As long as there are both, there's Suffering.
Which is why Buddha said: One (=Idea of Self) who craves for delight, implicitly craves for dukkha. One who craves for dukkha will act to get more dukkha (by supporting idea of Self), instead of acting to attain liberation from dukkha.
So Buddha was very precise in his use of language. If there's "one who craves" - there's support for maintaining the cycle, there's more craving. And if there's craving, there's support for maintaining the cycle - there's "one who craves".
If someone understands conceptually that his own Self is an illusion, that's already a first step to liberation. But as long as there's still Craving, Attitudes, Opinions, Positions, Views - there's going to be more fuel for Self to seem to exist.
So the next step, is to abandon all Craving - and not just that but also Attachments, Attitudes, Opinions, Positions, Identification, Labels - and anything else that supports the Idea of Self.
Of course when Buddha speaks about the Problem he speaks inside the (Samsaric) framework that has Self. Because the problem only exists inside that framework. Outside of that framework, there is no problem.
When Buddha speaks about the Solution, he speaks inside a framework that does not have self. Because he wants to show an alternative.
When Buddha speaks about Result, he speaks about having no single position and about analysis of dharmas being the ultimate right view. Because both positions - Samsaric as well as the position of No-Self are just one-sided representations of Reality which is the Ultimate Truth.

The question or questioner in SN 12.12 obviously was phrased with "self-view", thus perceiving so, the Buddha answered accordingly.
However, in the Saṃyuktāgama, the language is obviously "conventional language".
The Pali is SN 12.12 is "ko nu kho", which when examining the Pali suttas, appears to have no special usage; being used both conventionally (in Udāna 3.9) & as wrong view (in SN 12.12).

“Now who, venerable friends, knows a craft (ko nu kho, āvuso, sippaṃ jānāti)? Who has trained in what craft? Which craft is the greatest of the crafts?”
Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of it, on that occasion uttered this exalted utterance:
“One who lives without craft, light, desiring others’ welfare, With restrained faculties, completely free in every way, Who wanders
  homeless, unselfish, not yearning, Having given up conceit,
  solitary—he is a monk.”
Ud 3.9

Why did he say one who craves when one who craves is a invalid way of stating the fact ? One who craves carries the burden or disease of self, which is just not a matter of convention. But when we fix our attention to Dhamma then ' who craves' becomes a invalid question. One who craves faces real consequence of rebirth and is not a matter of convention.

The enlightened beings often speak with conventional personal pronouns; such as asked in this question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28626/buddhas-self-declaration-without-identity-view-and-without-conceit

ok. But suppose I say I crave then it is not a matter of convention. If I say I crave then  'I' will take rebirth. If I say I do not crave then 'I' will not take rebirth. In short if Buddha says I do not crave then is he saying out of convention or is it real ?

It is about realisation of no-Self and not about using means of language. This is a contextual response about who is the doer, or what is the experiencer. We have to communicate somehow and call things by convention but without having wrong perceptions about the doer/knower. You cannot just go to the bank and say “There is money to be withdrawn”, that would be plain silly and not really contribute to cessation of any suffering anywhere, it would just mean the person is obsessed about the use of pronouns.

@bodhihammer I understood your point of view about pronouns. But what I am asking is a straight forward question. Suppose Buddha says "I have given up craving" then is he using 'I' merely as convention or is 'I' real with real consequences? Similarly I understand Anatta but when I say "I have not given up craving" then am I merely using 'I' because of convention or is 'I' real with real consequences? (Remember if I say I have not given up craving then I am going to take rebirth.)

Saying “I” does not necessarily imply that identity view arises. When you look in the mirror and say, “there I am” do you for even one moment conceive that you actually are inside that mirror? Do you mistake that mere reflection for even one moment as you? Or are you just using convention? Whenever someone who is no longer fooled - in the same way you would not be fooled by that mirror - by illusion like identity view says “I” it is just like you saying “there I am” to that mere reflection in the mirror.

Our existence is just like that illusion like reflection in the mirror. Most of us don’t know that though and mistake the reflection for something real. Therefore when we say “I” we are actually fooled. To be clear, if isn’t saying “I” that is the mistake. It is being fooled into thinking illusion-like existence is real.

As for craving, think about seeing the reflection of some ice cream in a mirror. Do you for even one moment crave the ice cream in the mirror? Or do you realize that illusion of ice cream is utterly unreal and how could you crave something so unreal? If you saw your own reflection and said “there I am” and then said of that reflection “I have no craving for that ice cream at all” wouldn’t that be true?

@YesheTenley Buddha said the idea of self arises due to attachment with the five aggregates. When I look into the mirror I am already attached to my form , when I see my form in the mirror I get attached to the reflection of myself. Reflection of myself is a mental construct, a mental phenomenon.. i.e understanding reflection requires us to interpret an image and then proceed with the interpretation. Mind and Mental phenomenon are impermanent. I can not say I am mind. If you look carefully there is no reason to say or experience I AM. It is all impermanent. Yet Buddha says I.

The idea of "Our existence is  just like that illusion" is still a self-view because of the "our".

@Dhammadhatu so you draw a distinction between "our" as necessarily indicating self-view, but "I" or "you" or other personal pronouns as not necessarily indicating self-view?

There is apparent contradiction, but no real contradiction. The Buddha gave different teachings to different people based upon their skill level and predilection. That is why context is so important to understanding buddhavacana.
Certain teachings are provisional and certain teachings are definitive. If you insist on a dogmatic literal reading of sutta at all times or employ naive historicity in attempting to divine which teachings are provisional and which are definitive you will end up very confused.
So how should we figure out what is provisional and what is definitive? We should use reason, logic, empirical research (ie., putting the teachings into practice and observe the results) and finally try to retrace the accounts of valid teachers.
Now, with this in mind...
Saying “I” does not necessarily imply that identity view arises. When you look in the mirror and say, “there I am” do you for even one moment conceive that you actually are inside that mirror? Do you mistake that mere reflection for even one moment as you? Or are you just using convention? Whenever someone who is no longer fooled - in the same way you would not be fooled by that mirror - by illusion like identity view says “I” it is just like you saying “there I am” to that mere reflection in the mirror.
Our existence is just like that illusion like reflection in the mirror. Most of us don’t know that though and mistake the reflection for something real. Therefore when we say “I” we are actually fooled. To be clear, if isn’t saying “I” that is the mistake. It is being fooled into thinking illusion-like existence is real.
As for craving, think about seeing the reflection of some ice cream in a mirror. Do you for even one moment crave the ice cream in the mirror? Or do you realize that illusion of ice cream is utterly unreal and how could you crave something so unreal? If you saw your own reflection and said “there I am” and then said of that reflection “I have no craving for that ice cream at all” wouldn’t that be true?

"The Buddha gave different teachings to different people based upon their skill level and predilection." - This is critical when observing the Sutras. One should select teachings in the same way an expert garland maker would select flowers. (A little dhammapada in that last part)

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.’


text:
Is experience dependently arisen?
We experience birth , death , cravings , feelings, contact etc.. We also 'experience' ignorance(like self). We also experience choices. We can experience the whole existence as a human or a dog or as a insect.
But we do not find origination of experience in dependent origination.
My question is : Is experience dependently originated ? If yes then at what stage in dependent origination ?

When you say “experience” I think we have to nail down what that means and what it doesn’t mean in order to answer properly. Do you mean mere qualia? That it is something like to be? Do you mean mere awareness? That we are capable of knowing? Are you getting after that we are sentient as opposed to a rock for instance?

In western philosophical parlance “qualia” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia might be what you are about with “experience”?

Everything is dependently originated as things don’t appear from themselves, there is always a reason for phenomena to occur.

I never originated. Whatever originated was not me. Which means if I exist I am eternal. Eternally I have been suffering. Which disproves the theory of morality. Therefore I originated as a whole of five aggregates. But that which has a beginning must have an end. Therefore I must have an end. Which proves the requirement of morality wrong. Therefore I couldn't have originated nor originated. Which means I was an illusion which was broken , a disease which was cured, a burden which was laid off  (Yet Buddha says I am the teacher). Everything is not dependently originated for example Self or I.

There’s a lot of grasping of inherent things in your statements, just because your consciousness wasn’t present doesn’t mean you didn’t exist. There isn’t you but aggregates that gathered due to proper causes. You existed in your father and mother in their dna, genes, semen and you inherited their biological characteristics along with character, it is outer phenomena origination. When you cease your energy doesn’t just disappear due to laws of preservation of energy in the universe, you just become something else; the soil, the dust, the air. But from these the aggregates may form as well. –

DO describes experience itself.

@Medhiṇī Yes. DO describes experience at every stage. Ignorance is experienced, Consciousness is experienced...But is experience itself dependently originated ?

In case it's not clear from my answer, yes, experience is dependently originated (in multiple steps). DO describes this step-by-step emergence of experience. Ignorance and Consciousness are not experienced, they are the early stages of the emergence of experience. Feeling is experience fully matured. Birth and death is experience developed to its logical conclusion.

@DheerajVerma Consciousness is experienced... No, consciousness is part of experience. Ignorance hides the conditional chain and let's you experience everything skewed (like, f.i. 'I am'). With ignorance gone you can see the every bit of experience is conditioned by what was there before. You will actually see the chain happening: one thing leading to the next.

@Medhiṇī probably you are right. Without experience of suffering ignorance can not be removed

Yes, experience is dependently originated (in multiple steps). Dependent Origination describes this step-by-step emergence of experience. Ignorance and Consciousness are the early stages of the emergence of experience. Feeling is experience fully matured. Birth and death is experience developed to its logical conclusion.
The entire chain of dependent origination is a spiral. Its basic components are consciousness, craving, and action. It starts as vague and undifferentiated and proceeds in cycles getting more and more concrete over time.
In the beginning it is completely undifferentiated. While undifferentiated, it is still structured and active. It's called ignorance but what it really is, is the undifferentiated Ground of All.
Then, after many many cycles of activity, because similar things happen again and again, the imprints of the repetitions lead to formation of tendencies. At first these are very vague, very abstract tendencies - but after many cycles they start getting more and more specific. We call this "samskaras" - which can be translated "formations" or "imprints" or "tendencies". This is made from the same exact stuff as what we called "ignorance" - but now it is a bit more defined, it has slightly more specificity.
As more cycles pass, and things keep interacting and imprinting, imprints/tendencies/formations keep getting more and more specific, until they start resembling something like a (very-very vague) EXPERIENCE. At first, this experience is not vivid at all, rather like a vague recognition: "something like this was before". This basic recognition, the rudimentary inklings of experience, is what we call Vijnana or consciousness. This is still the same stuff as what we called Ignorance and Formations - now developed into something much more specific.
Just like this, things keep getting more and more specific. As tendencies get more and more defined, recognition grows into habit and attitude. Now it's not just "something like this was before", now it is also: "this has always been so and so" or "X always comes with Y" or "It's always A and then it's followed by B". In other words, as consciousness learns to recognize repeating patterns, it gets used to them. Whatever it gets used to, it is established in. From this it begins to form its attitudes: "This is the way it should be. This is right." and "This should not be this way. This is wrong".
And so, tendencies grow and develop, until they become several distinct things:
 - Consciousness, or ability to recognize patterns and situations, the basic capacity of Experiencing the world.
 - Habits and attitudes, aka pre-dispositions for and against certain experiences.
And then, after many, many more cycles - things get even MORE defined.
Consciousness grows into a full-blown ability to delineate and experience OBJECTS. While habits and attitudes develop into DESIRE and AVERSION towards these objects. Until this time, there was no "inside" and "outside". This point is the first inkling of the separation. The experience of recognition of objects will later develop into a full blown experience of "the world". And imprints/habits/attitudes will later develop into a full blown "psyche" or "sentient being".
All this time, activity never stopped. The Ground Of All kept moving and stirring. In fact, activity is exactly what supported formation of tendencies, consciousness, objects, and attitudes. As things were getting more and more defined, activity was getting more defined too! Influenced by habits and attitudes of attraction/aversion to objects, activity was getting increasingly more directional and purposeful, until it became full-blown KARMA -- action towards or away from the objects. Mind you, this karma always existed in rudimentary form, even since the times of Ignorance, and developed in lockstep with Consciousness and Craving (=attraction/aversion). Ignorance, Imprints, Recognition of patterns, Consciousness, Objects - is one branch. Ignorance, Tendencies, Habits, Attitudes, Attraction/Aversion (=craving) - is another branch. Ignorance, activity, attraction&avoidance, pursuing, goal-making - is third branch. They support each other and help each other grow and get more concrete.
Interaction feeds imprints, imprints feed recognition, recognition feeds habit, habit feeds attitude, attitude feeds interaction. It's a cycle that perpetuates itself, propelling itself forward, helping things get more and more concrete.
When we say "things get more concrete" we mean the Experience of The Outside and Experience of The Inside gets more concrete.
First, there is only recognition of "this was before", then it's "this has always been like this", then "when this is so - it's right and when it's not so - it's wrong", then it gets to the level of objects and feelings.
"When this object is here - it feels good", "When this object is here - it feels bad". Things get more concrete like that, consciousness gets more concrete, experience gets more concrete, the attitude towards things get more concrete, and action towards things gets more concrete. And along with all this, our sense of SELF gets more and more concrete.
This is called "Dependent Origination". It's a self perpetuating cycle that proceeds from complete vagueness to increasingly more and more concrete EXPERIENCE of the inside and outside, experience of objects and the world, sense of self, attitude towards things, and intentional action towards things.

What was present when there was Nothing to Experience?

The undifferentiated ground of all, hiding in itself the potential for differentiation.

Can you quote Buddha on that ? When there was nothing to experience there was craving. A potential desire for experience. A craving for existence.

Even in Theravada they have commentaries and explanations, not everything is a quote. Here I'm commenting on DO and explaining its meaning to you. First there is Ignorance, then Consciousness, Craving, Action develop and take shape, until it becomes "sentient being" and "the world". Before Craving there was Ignorance, which serves as the Ground (base, foundation) for all that follows. In Ignorance there's no discernment and discrimination, hence it can be described as undifferentiated. Craving was not there right away, it developed along with Consciousness, from Tendencies.

Experience, to my understanding is the link in dependent origination known as feeling or vedana.
From MN 44:

"Now, lady, how many kinds of feeling are there?"
"These three kinds of feeling: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, &
  neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling."
"What is pleasant feeling? What is painful feeling? What is
  neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling?"
"Whatever is experienced physically or mentally as pleasant &
  gratifying is pleasant feeling. Whatever is experienced physically or
  mentally as painful & hurting is painful feeling. Whatever is
  experienced physically or mentally as neither gratifying nor hurting
  is neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling."
"In what way is pleasant feeling pleasant, lady, and in what way
  painful?"
"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing,
  friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in
  changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in
  occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without
  knowledge."
"What obsession gets obsessed with pleasant feeling? What obsession
  gets obsessed with painful feeling? What obsession gets obsessed with
  neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling?"
"Passion-obsession gets obsessed with pleasant feeling.
  Resistance-obsession gets obsessed with painful feeling.
  Ignorance-obsession gets obsessed with neither-pleasant-nor-painful
  feeling."

How does feeling arise?
According to MN 18:

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
  the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future
  forms cognizable via the eye.
"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The
  meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the
  perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard
  to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.

What is Consciousness then ? Is it not experience ?

Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness arises from the mind, and cognizes or is aware of its specific sense base (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, intellect or thoughts)

The most important & crucial reality is suffering is Dependently Originated, as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition,
  consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with
  name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense
  bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with
  feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging;
  with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition,
  birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this
  whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent
  origination.
SN 12.2

To say conscious experience is "Dependently Originated" does not sound correct because Arahants have conscious experience without ignorance; even though some suttas loosely say conscious experience in general is Dependently Originated; as follows:

Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a condition?
Nanu mayā, moghapurisa, anekapariyāyena paṭiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ vuttaṃ, aññatra paccayā natthi viññāṇassa sambhavoti?
MN 38

All experience happens to consciousness & nama-rupa, as follows:

There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness,
  body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality.
MN 9

The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful
  or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its
  indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what?
  Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of
  delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with
  sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.
SN 35.28

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated,
  contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by
  clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s
  craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and
  lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental
  troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s
  bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and
  mental suffering.
MN 149


text:
Can a girl & a boy be friends
I didn't use to have much boys as friends but with time I made several boy friends from which some were really close. I want to know what has Lord Buddha chanted about a girl & a boy being friends?  Will it be something bad when I get married?

Yes, I'm married and celibate. No problem, if you have the right partner.

If you are not married, the Buddha said to look at opposite sex friends like brother & sister:

'Come now, monks: with regard to women who are old enough to be your
  mother, establish the attitude you would have toward your mother. With
  regard to women who are old enough to be your sister, establish the
  attitude you'd have toward a sister. With regard to women who are
  young enough to be your daughter, establish the attitude you'd have
  toward a daughter.'
SN 35.127

If a person wishes to get married, the Buddha taught a suitable partner has the same life goals & attitudes; particularly living according the five precepts:

Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present time but also in the future, they should have
  the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity and
  the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this
  present time but also in the future.
AN 4.55

Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four? A male wretch lives together with a female wretch; a male wretch lives together with a female goddess; a male god lives together with a female wretch; a male god lives together with a female goddess.
AN 4.53

When both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
  with pleasant words, Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell
  at ease.
AN 4.53 & AN 4.55

If one or both people had many sexual partners before they get married and do not respect the precept of sexual fidelity then, as the Buddha taught above in AN 4.53 & AN 4.55, their marriage will most likely (but not always) have problems. The Buddha particularly emphasised sexual misconduct should be avoided by and towards women, as follows:

242. Unchastity is the taint in a woman.
242. In a woman, misconduct is an impurity.
Dhammapada

Thanks a lot. This answer helped me a lot. No, I didn't mean any sort of a sexual-relationship but a general friendship in which we share many things. The thing is, being a girl from an Asian country, not all boys understand to be just friends with a girl. Some understand the whole thing in a wrong way when I try to maintain a good friendship with them.

OK. Thank you also. You are welcome. With metta

According to Bodhisattva, if you are unmarried then treat every boy and girl like your sibling. So, your question can be boiled down to, "Can siblings be friends?" to which I will answer, "Siblings are almost always friends!" The Buddha never spoke explicitly about this, though he mentioned that adultery is a sin and a hindrance to Nirvana- and anybody who commits his mind to such thoughts is also as much at fault as the one who actually commits the sin. There is no place for lust in friendship, so I think, yes. Boys and girls can be friends.

For the monastic, celibacy is a precept. For the lay follower planning to get married and become a householder, the consideration is much gentler, with a clear prohibition against illicit sexual conduct.

And what is the treasure of virtue? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking life, abstains from stealing, abstains from illicit sexual conduct, abstains from lying, abstains from taking intoxicants that cause heedlessness. This, monks, is called the treasure of virtue (AN7.6 Thanissaro)

Notably, the lay path will be difficult:

“… the sentient beings who refrain from sexual misconduct are few, while those who don’t refrain are many. …”


text:
Is this talk just a convention?
In this question it was said that Buddha said  "I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened ... I am a conqueror (of evil qualities)."
The answer seems to be that Buddha used 'I' for sake of convention.
Given Anatta , is the following talk a mere convention?
I have craving for music.
Do you have craving for ice-cream?
Is the 'I'and 'you' used in the talk above merely a convention or is it real?

It's all about mental context, my friend. If in your mind there's a (silent) conviction that you see, you act, you were born, you will die, this is you etc. - if your subjective experience is like that - then for you there is Self. Even if you don't use the word "I", there's is still belief in I in your mind.
If in your mind there's a silent understanding of how things work, how mind works, and how illusion of I is generated - then for you there's no "Self" or "No-Self" - you clearly see how it really is. Even if you use the word "I", there's no belief in I in your mind.
All talk is conventional, because "conventional" means we assume we are more or less in agreement what each word means. What matters is your mental context.

If I tell you: "Your future is in your hands."
Would you look at your physical hands and reply, "but where is it? I can't see it!" I don't think so.
"In your hands" is a mere conventional figure of speech, not to be taken literally.
Similarly, the terms "I", "my", "mine", "you", "your" etc. are simply conventional terms when used verbally by the enlightened ones. They don't literally think that "I" refers to their body or consciousness or mental fabrications or feeling or perception.

The last two lines of SN 1.25 for example,

Skillful, understanding conventional usage,
  they use these terms as no more than expressions.”
Loke samaññaṃ kusalo viditvā;
  Vohāramattena so vohareyyā”ti.

I think the word "conventional" translated there is loka which means "world".
That word is also used in phrases like "loka-dhamma" (affairs or phenomena of the world, e.g. "wealth" etc.); and some schools mention "conventional truth", etc.
I think that the kind of speech you question (i.e. "I have craving for music. Do you have craving for ice-cream?") certainly does sound 'worldly', or conventional.
I suppose an important question is whether that speech is also "skilful" or kusala -- and unfortunately maybe it isn't.

According to wisdomlib on samaññā, it means "designation, name", and "loka samaññā" means "a common appellation, a popular expression". According to wisdomlib on loka, "Derived from this meaning is the use in compounds. (loka-) as “usual, every day, popular, common”: see e.g. lokāyata, lokavajja, lokavohāra."

The answer seems to be that Buddha used 'I' for sake of convention.
The Buddha doesn't use personal pronouns for "the sake of" convention. He uses them because they are useful in communicating with others. That's why we all use them. It is not like he only does so because others are deluded. Again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong, mistaken, or incorrect with using personal pronouns. Using personal pronouns does not contradict the absence of identity-view at all.
Given Anatta , is the following talk a mere convention?
All talk is convention. Or better put, all talk takes place via the rules of mere convention.
I have craving for music. Do you have craving for ice-cream?
If someone says this they are using words - which are governed by the rules of mere convention - to relay an idea of something to someone else. In this case, they are relaying that they feel a strong desire or attachment for music and are asking whether another has a strong desire or attachment for ice-cream.
Is the 'I'and 'you' used in the talk above merely a convention or is it real?
Absolutely everything in the above talk is mere convention. That is, "I" and "you" and "ice-cream" and "music" and "craving" and "having" are all mere convention and are not the slightest bit real. However, only enlightened Buddhas and Arya beings (in meditative equipoise on emptiness) directly perceive the unreality of all the above. For the rest of us, we are usually fooled in believing the above are real. Some of us have doubts about whether they are real and some of us are tending to believe (without being thoroughly convinced) that they are not real. Understanding emptiness at a conceptual level or with reason is when we incontrovertibly know that nothing is real.
What I am describing for you is the Middle Way. Saying that clearly existing things - like the self - don't exist at all is annihilationism and is incorrect. Saying that things such as the self truly exist is eternalism and is incorrect. Instead, there is a subtle middle that is hard to see. It is the in-between of existing without falling to the extremes of annihiliationism or eternalism. It is hard to see or understand, but that is how things actually exist: in the in-between of those two extremes. This is the Middle Way.
As ruben2020 pointed out so well in this previous answer the Middle Way was taught by the Buddha even in the Pali-canon. See this sutta:

"'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 Mahayana expounds upon this Middle Way by teachers such as Nagarjuna who gave a full and detailed account of how the Middle Way works in his Fundamental Treatise:

"Nagarjuna's influential Mūlamadhyamakakārikā deconstructs the usage
  of terms describing reality, leading to the insight into śūnyatā
  "emptiness". It contains only one reference to a sutta, the
  Kaccāyanagotta Sutta from the Samyutta Nikaya:
"Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't exist":
  That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, The Tathagata
  teaches the Dhamma via the middle."

"Using personal pronouns does not contradict the absence of identity-view at all." Are you saying that there is no self and yet it is ok to use pronouns like me , I , you , he , she , they , them etc?

Yes, there is no inherently existing self and yet it is entirely ok to use pronouns. Similarly there is no inherently existing ice-cream and yet it is entirely ok to use "ice-cream." Why? Because ice-cream does exist. How? It exists conventionally. How does it not exist? It does not exist inherently. Does this help clarify?

What I am describing for you is the Middle Way. Saying that clearly existing things - like the self - don't exist at all is annihilationism and is incorrect. Saying that things such as the self truly exist is eternalism and is incorrect. Instead, there is a subtle middle that is hard to see. It is the in-between of existing without falling to the extremes of annihiliationism or eternalism. It is hard to see or understand, but that is how things actually exist: in the in-between of those two extremes. This is the Middle Way.

I think @ruben2020 explains it pretty well here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28651/13375

Middle Way sees all phenomenon as dependent upon other phenomenon and as transient, not worth identifying as self. The one who understands dhamma never says I have craving. He says craving arose depending upon the feelings. Or given the craving the attachment will arise. He doesn't cling to feeling or attachment or craving. But if he clings to it then there is real case of rebirth which is not the rebirth of same person nor the different person but a person made up of past deeds. Now here lies the problem. This Self , a product of karma and craving ,which takes rebirth, is real.

We disagree. The self is not real, but does exist. One who craves does not, through the power of craving, render that which is unreal to be real. IOW, craving is not a magical incantation that leads to a real self or leads to a real rebirth.

It is all about common sense; pronouns are just words, they don't automagically make you something. I don't know how to explain it further, but an example from the top of my head: by using a toaster I don't automatically become toaster. In the same way skilful thoughts are okay as skilful language; language that conveys meaning without confusion. In Mahayana we are told not to be caught up in sings, but also use them skilfully at the same time, for the sign is not a sign and therefore its a sign.

Conventionally, this heap of bones types an answer to that heap of bones, I think. But that may just be my conceit.

The heap of bones says that people suffered innumerable times but when one sees with perfect wisdom that there is no self which must be realized by entering 3 or 4th jhana which is realized by walking 8 fold path the suffering ends.

People are not their bodies. Saying we are just a heap of bones ignores the five aggregates entirely :)


text:
Definition of perception
How do I describe this?

It is the formulation of a conception of an idea about a particular object of experience.

What I am wondering is what the difference is between the above and:

It is the formulation of an idea about a particular object of experience.

Where does this quote come from?

Buddhism teaches there are five aggregates. Consciousness (vinnana) is one aggregate; feeling (vedana) is another aggregate; perception (sanna) is another aggregate; and mental formations (sankhara) are another aggregrate. A 'conception' is a 'sankhara' ('mental formation') and is not a perception.
'Perception' is distinguishing differences in conscious sense impressions (such as different shades of color) and is inseparable from consciousness; as follows:

Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?" 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus,
  friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It
  perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives
  white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be
  'perception.'
Feeling, perception & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
  to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.
MN 43

Where as a 'conception' is a subjective idea or thinking that is added onto a conscious perception, as follows:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one
  thinks about.
MN 18

He perceives fire as fire. Having perceived fire as fire, he conceives himself as fire, he conceives himself in fire, he conceives
  himself apart from fire, he conceives fire to be ‘mine,’ he delights
  in fire. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
MN 1

The difference between 'perception' and 'conception' is (when conscious sense experience occurs) perception is unavoidable; where as 'conception' is avoidable.
Right now, my mind cannot avoid perceiving the 'shapes' & 'colours' that make up my computer. However, my mind can choose to not make 'conceptions' about those 'shapes' & 'colours'. In other words, those shapes & colours can be observed without the conception of the thought or word "computer".

I agree with what Dhammadatu writes.
Perception is simply perceiving of a sense input/impression.
Conception is basically everything that follows that.
Seeing colour and form is perception.
Seeing a man and/or a woman is conception.
I know of an arahant who no longer sees man or woman; he just perceives colour and form.
Seeing colour and form in a mirror is perception.
Having the sense and/or idea that you see yourself in the mirror is conception.
It's the I-making and My-making Dhammadatu points to.
At a certain point the sense of seeing yourself in the mirror for instance falls away (with meditation). That shows that the sense and the idea of I or My is just that: a concept.
I think it's the most simple to remember that everything after perceiving the sense input is conception.
Or, also simple to remember, as Buddha said to Bahiya: Let seeing just be seeing.

If I can just talk about the English-language words ...
"Perceive" comes from a Latin root which means:

"per" -- wholly, thoroughly, entirely
"capere" -- to take, to grasp

So "perceive" means "take entirely" or "grasp all there is of it".
In English it's used metaphorically (i.e. you perceive something mentally), in French it's usually used literally (e.g. you would perceive the money for the rent when you receive it, when it's given to you).
The "con" in "conceive" comes from a root meaning something like "with" or "and" or "in parallel to" or "as a result of" -- it's used in the word "consequence" for example, i.e. it's something which exists "with" something else in a sequence.
So I think that (in English), to "perceive" is to grasp everything about (the totality) of something; and "conceive" is something separate or additional which happens in parallel.
For example if I hit something solid, if I walk into a table accidentally because I'm walking without paying attention, then there's a perception of a physical sensation (the sense of touch).
I may conceive of other things beyond that, e.g. "I am hurt, I am angry, something attacked me, I should attack in return, that table attacked me" but those are consequent to the initial perception of sensation.
I guess (not based on scripture) that "formulation" maybe includes all use-of-words. So for example, seeing green and saying "I am seeing grass" is a conception. I think that even "I am seeing green" is a conception, "I" is a conception and even the word "green" is a conception (and whatever color you're actually seeing might not be an ideal green but might instead be a bit blue or brown or etc.). Anyway maybe seeing what you see is perception, and describing it after that is formulation and conception.
The two sentenes quoted in the question seem to me the same -- I think that "formulation" and "idea" and "conception" are all more-or-less the same, all "conception" (except I don't know what the distinction is between "conception" and "sixth type of sense-object" i.e. "sense-object of the mind").

However reading The Five Aggregates -- A Study Guide that the way it's used in the canon isn't exactly as I described it above.
One thing it says (which agrees with what I said above) is that perception isn't the same as feeling. Now "feeling" is ambiguous in English (e.g. it can mean "I feel the table" to refer to the sense of touch), but when it's used as a translation of vedanā it means something like, "I have feelings about the table" e.g. "This feels pleasant" or "This feels painful". This kind of feeling isn't (or is distinguished from) perception.
But (unlike what I said above) perception does include:

Labeling (assigning a name to)
Recognising (e.g. shape and function of a physical object, what it's used for)
Abstract concepts, e.g. one is able to "perceive impermanence".

It's hard to talk about words, because some people assume a word has one precise meaning but then you realize that in the actual usage one word may often refer to several different things.
"Perception" is one of such words. According to Google's dictionary,

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.

As you can see, it is defined as becoming aware of something through the senses. It's not clear, however, what exactly that means. Some people may think that "awareness of something" refers to raw sensory input, while other people assume raw input is not enough to be aware of something, there has to be some kind of interpretation or evaluation going on -- as shown in the third definition.
In Mahayana Buddhism, perception is one possible translation for samjna or sanjna (Pali saññā), with other translations like "conceptualization", "distinguishing", and "recognition". Samjna is a process of capturing a "sign" (the key identifying feature) of an object, and using it to identify or to label the object.
For example, you see something black on the beach -- that's an object of experience. If you close your eyes, you can remember exactly the way it looks -- that's an idea about an object of experience. The shape has something on top of it that looks exactly like a keel -- that's an example of a "sign".
Once you see the keel, you realize it's a boat turned upside down. That notion of "boat" is a conception of an idea about an object of experience.
It may take you some effort to notice that keel and figure out that what you see is the upside-down boat half buried in sand. That process of figuring out is formulation of conception. In my understanding, this is what is called perception in your quote -- a process that takes raw sensory input and turns that into objects.
P.S. some quotes from external sources:

"The characteristic of perception [saññā] is the perceiving of the qualities of the object. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that "this is the same," or its function is recognizing what has been previously perceived. It becomes manifest as the interpreting of the object...by way of the features that had been apprehended. Its proximate cause is the object as it appears. Its procedure is compared to a carpenter's recognition of certain kinds of wood by the mark he has made on each" ~ Bhikkhu Bodhi
"[saññā] has the characteristic of noting and the function of recognizing what has been previously noted. There is no such thing as perception ... without the characteristic of noting. All perceptions have the characteristic of noting. ... Its manifestation is the action of interpreting by means of the sign as apprehended." ~ Buddhaghosa
"Perception consists of the grasping of distinguishing features." ~ Mipham Rinpoche
"What is the absolutely specific characteristic of saṃjñā? It is to know by association. It is to see, hear, specify, and to know by way of taking up the defining characteristics and distinguishing them." ~ Abhidharma-samuccaya

Agree with you about words and meaning and the fuzziness of it all. Disagree that 'perception' in Mahayana Buddhism is conventionally used as such. I'd say 'perception' occurs in first step of 'something black on the beach' ie., that first contact of 'knowing' something else without any kind of conception of what it is. But again, you are welcome to use the word however you like :)

Perception is a pretty common translation of saṃjñā in Mahayana texts, and saṃjñā most definitely refers to "it has keel therefore it's a boat" stage, not to "something black" stage.

No doubt you are right about that word. I accept your definitions of that word. I'm just noting that 'perception' is used elsewhere in Mahayana - I think - for "something black" stage. Note, that even at this stage we have distinguished or known something.


text:
Does the absence of the son of a barren woman truly exist?
In Je Tsongkhapa's, Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path Volume 3 pages 343-344 we have this:

Therefore, as I explained before, the sword of reasoning cuts through
  phenomena, revealing that they lack even a shred of the two selves,
  and brings forth certainty about selflessness. So if a thing possessed
  of the two selves does not exist, then how could the non- existence
  which is its negation be established in reality? The con- ception that
  the nonexistence that is the absence of the son of a barren woman
  really exists must be based on the observation of a barren woman and
  her son. If those two are never observed, then no one thinks to
  construct the expression, “The nonexistence of the son of a barren
  woman truly exists.” In the same way, when you see no truly existent
  thing anywhere at all, you also do not give rise to the conception
  that the nonexistence of that truly existent thing is something truly
  existent. Therefore, you stop all thoughts conceiving of signs,
  because if a thought conceives of true existence, it must be a thought
  that conceives of the true existence of either an existent or a
  nonexistent. So if the larger category is negated, then the
  subcategory is negated. This is what KamalaŸıla’s Stages of Meditation
  says.

The context of this passage is a debate on how to generate the direct perception of emptiness. To my understanding, Je Tsongkhapa is refuting the notion that the Path of Seeing can be attained by eliminating all conceptual thought after one has used reason (ie., conceptual thought) to thoroughly conceive of the truth of emptiness.
The above passage to me seems to be saying that we have to use analysis/reason/conceptual thought during meditation to establish that, "the nonexistence that is the absence of the son of a barren woman really exists." In other words, that emptiness (the nonexistence or negation of the existence of the son of a barren woman) truly exists is the conclusion of analysis directed at the ultimate. Is this so?
However, right after that it says to enter into signlessness you have to stop all thoughts (emphasis in the original) of true existence ie., even the true existence of emptiness.
I'm confused. Is emptiness a true existent (ie., not mistaken with regards to its appearing object)? I think it is. However, in order to enter signlessness do we have to stop thinking this?
What is the correct interpretation of this passage?
I think Je Tsongkhapa must be using "true existence" or "real" existence synonymously here with inherent existence rather than the alternative defintion of, "non-mistaken with regard to its appearing object."
Why? In the very next passage he says this:

Thus, to achieve the nonconceptual sublime wisdom, you alter- nate (1)
  developing certainty, profound certainty, that there is not even a
  particle of true existence in any thing or non-thing whatso- ever, and
  (2) stabilizing your mind on the conclusion thereby reached. You
  cannot achieve such wisdom by simply constricting mental activity
  without any analysis of an object, because this ap- proach does not
  make it possible to eliminate the conception of true existence. This
  is because it is merely not thinking of true existence; it is not
  knowledge of the absence of true existence. In the same way, it is
  merely not thinking of a self, but is not knowledge of the lack of
  self, so cultivating it does not stop the conception of self. There-
  fore, you must distinguish between (1) not thinking about true exist-
  ence or the existence of the two selves, and (2) knowing the lack of
  true existence or the nonexistence of the two selves. Remember this
  critical point.

Thus, I think he must be using 'true existence' synonymously with inherent existence.

@TenzinDorje, is Tsongkhapa here using 'true existence' as non-mistaken with regard to its appearing object or the alternative definition as synonymous with inherent existence? My guess is the latter... as the former seems to yield contradiction.

You are most likely correct. Consider, for instance, "In the same way, when you see no truly existent thing anywhere at all". If 'true existence' meant 'true' in the sense of 'appearing as it exists to a direct perceiver' then this statement would be incorrect.

No, it does not.
One nice book on the topic that I encountered is Mario D'Amato's translation of Madhyāntavibhāga and its Vasubandhu’s commentary. In addition to providing an excellent translation, Prof. D'Amato does an awesome job retelling both texts in his own words, elaborating and clarifying the meaning. Another solid book on the topic is Mahāmudrā, The Moonlight, by Dagpo Tashi Namgyal.
Both books discuss the enlightened mind's perspective, particularly emptiness and signlessness.
In general, it is my understanding that emptiness refers to the fact that all conceptualized representations whatsoever are mere schematic models of the ontological reality and that signlessness refers broadly to the direct experience of reality beyond conceptualized representation, and specifically to direct ("intuitive") experience of emptiness thereof.
In Mahayana Buddhism there are many ways of inducing direct experience of reality beyond conceptualized representation -- most of them involve overwhelming or exhausting the discursive (conceptual) mind one way or another. The methods range from sleep deprivation, to teacher making sudden loud noise during student's meditation session, to koans, to analytical methods. The latter are particularly popular with Madhyamaka and Gelug students inclined towards intellectual speculation.
One particular pattern of demonstration involves showing the limits of basic descriptive constructs that pertain to "entity" - by deconstructing their underlying assumptions - which at that moment leaves the student with more or less clear idea of emptiness in their mind. However, in reality, the student is actually grasping onto the "sign" of emptiness (i.e. the handle of the abstraction) while mistakenly assuming to be experiencing the emptiness itself.
So the next step in the demonstration necessarily involves some sort of analytical debunking of the concept of emptiness itself, which hopefully leaves the student with no conceptual ground to stand on. The resulting experience of being "lost" is a door into signlessness.
In this passage, Tsongkhapa uses one particular technique for the second step of the demonstration, the debunking of the concept of emptiness. This particular technique employs simple logic that exploits the dependency between negation and negandum. If negandum does not exist, it says, how can its negation have any existence? The traditional example of a son of a barren woman is an example of a negandum. This impossible son metaphorically stands in for the svabhava of entities -- the intrinsic nature whose emptiness was demonstrated on step 1. This emptiness of the intrinsic nature of all phenomena (including all objects as well as the perceiving subject, "the two selves") is metaphorically compared with the non-existence of the son of a barren woman. The author says: if the son (the intrinsic nature) does not exist, how can its negation (the empty nature) not be a mere figure of speech? The purpose of this passage is not to discuss the intricacies of the notion of "existence" vs "true existence" vs "intrinsic existence" etc. - but to simply knock the concept of emptiness from under the student's feet.
Once the student lets go of the sign of emptiness and enters signlessness, he or she can hopefully see the emptiness of everything directly. This seeing involves actual direct and clear understanding of the limits of conceptual mind and the profound contrast between all models and reality. Hence in the next passage Tsongkhapa comments on the resulting state of "nonconceptual sublime wisdom", "developing profound certainty, that there is not even a particle of true existence in any thing whatsover", "eliminating the conception of true existence", "knowledge of the absence of true existence" and "knowledge of the lack of self".

Thanks for the book recommendations. When I begin to study tantra in more depth I'll keep a look out for it. One thing I'd note is that Tsongkhapa argues in that same passage strenuously against the idea that merely stopping discursive conceptual thought is any kind of realization or leads to a direct perception of reality. He states that the only method leading to direct perception of emptiness is the latter one I think you've explained pretty well.

Few corrections. 1) This is Madhyamaka, which belongs to the general category of "sutrayana". Tantra is a different animal altogether. 2) RE: "mere stopping" - it's a bit complicated. On one hand, having no thoughts "like a fool" is certainly not It. On the other hand, if Madhyamaka's analytical approach were the only way, the other 83999 methods of Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Tantra, Dzogchen etc. would not exist.

Ah, my reference to tantra was in assuming that "Mahāmudrā, The Moonlight" was a tantric text book recommendation as I associate Mahāmudrā with tantra. This is correct, yes?

On the other... I wonder if those 83999 other methods might be highly effective on the path for certain realizations that might be distinct in some subtle way from what Tsongkhapa is after? Because I know that Tsongkhapa advocated Tantra in the highest possible terms. For him, Tantra was the way of the truly advanced student and he thought it indispensable. Speaking personally, I don't think I'm anywhere near advanced enough to go there :)

Correct, Mahamudra is a tantric-style framework. That book, however, starts with a thorough review of "sutrayana"-style meditation and that's where it talks about emptiness. I can't possibly give justice to Tashi Namgyal's analysis - but in my limited understanding, he argues that the final equipoise of the meditation on emptiness must necessarily have an element of insight - in other words, it cannot be devoid of representation...

...While I agree that the final equipoise of the meditation on emptiness cannot be devoid of representation, in my personal experience that representation actually is "signless" -- i.e. it lacks any conceptual labeling. So while it's not a blank state of mind, it is a state of mind without "traditional" (discursive) thoughts - instead it feels rather like a more robust version of intuition, if that makes any sense. The object of that super-intuition is "how things work" in general and "emptiness" in particular.

Anecdotally, this act of letting go of conceptual labeling and switching over to direct intuitive perception can be induced by non-analytical methods, but the end state is supposed to be the same. As always, all of the above is in-my-understanding, which may be completely or partially off.

According to Je Tsonkhapa, the entry to the Path of Preparation is a union of samata and vipassana on emptiness, which is also an inferential cognizer realizing emptiness. This knower if the first wisdom arisen from analytical meditation.
Since an inferential cognizer is a conceptual consciousness, this wisdom realizing emptiness realizes its object by way of a mental image appearing to it. Since the mental image of emptiness is a conventional truth, it appears to the inferential cognizer accompanied with the appearance of true existence. Thus, if one conceives, at this stage, that emptiness exists as it appears, he conceives that emptiness is truly existent in the sense of inherent existence.
Je Tsongkhapa simply means that emptiness (a complete negation) is empty of inherent existence, just as the basis of emptiness is empty of inherent existence.
The first direct realization of emptiness (a union of calm abiding and special insight as well) is the entry to the path of seeing, and it realizes emptiness in a non-dualistic manner. So it is free from both: the appearance of true existence, and the conception of true existence. But Je Tsongkhapa spoke in relation the inferential cognizer in this context.
Additionally, in the Middle-Length Lam Rim, Je Tsonkhapa posits that the 'a inherently existent mine' is utterly non-existent, like the son of a barren woman.

At that time, inherently established mine will not be found by the
  reasoning analyzing suchness, just as, for example, when the son of a
  barren woman is not observed, the mine of the son of a barren
  woman—eyes and so forth—are not observed.

In this context, he uses the analogy of the son of a barren woman to explain that phenomena (as opposed to persons) also are empty.

Do you believe signlessness can be entered through other means than this back and forth between samata and vipassana? ie., can it be entered through 83999 methods of Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Tantra, Dzogchen?

In the Middle-Length Lam Rim, LTK says "First there is the need to check reality and realize emptiness or selflessness and enter the yoga of signlessness. There is no more the appearance of the signs of true existence. Analysis, conceptuality, is done in order to directly realize emptiness. The non-conceptual realization arises from conceptuality." So, what he believed is quiet clear. With respect to tantra, the idea is to realize emptiness with a more subtle mind but doesn't refute the samata-vipassana scheme. I think we should create a chat room on your question but I don't know how...

Here you go.