text:
Shikantaza vs counting breath
As we know, in soto-shu we don't count nor observe the breath during zazen.
I would like people who have a long experience with zazen meditation to explain if they consider that counting and observing the breath was helpful to progress in their meditation practice or not. Should a beginner start with counting breathing rather then go straight into shikantaza practice ?

In my practice at a Soto Zen center, I was never instructed not to count breaths; it seemed to be well accepted as a valuable beginner's practice.  I personally found it very helpful, as I would go from 1 to 10, starting over from 1 if I lost track.  You'd think that counting to 10 would be easy, but I've had times when I couldn't even make it past 1.  It's just so very boring.  That, for me is the key utility of the practice, as otherwise I find myself indulging in trains of thought and sensation without even realizing I'm doing it.  The counting is artificial and a crutch, but my mind can't be trusted to operate well unattended.

In response to the comment, here are a few more thoughts.
The center where I sat was in the US, so it could be that the style of teaching is somewhat different.  Here is an article where Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi answered a question regarding counting the breath vs. shinkantaza (at the very top in response to Student A); his answer was that there was not much difference.  He does say that counting isn't really easier though, since to do the practice properly, you have to count with your whole body.  He does slightly distinguish breath counting practice from shinkantaza (not 'much' difference), but the sense I get is that when you truly practice it correctly, they are essentially the same.
I was also told that shinkantaza does not stop when you get up from the cushion, perhaps suggesting we shouldn't get too attached to the 'sitting' part (or, perhaps, having a body to sit with?)

Thank you Dan, I asked because in the soto-shu temples (I live in Japan) they always say not to observe breath but really just to sit strictly in the position and avoid following our train of thought. While doing the formal posture of zazen, where/how do you observe your breath? Belly? Nose? Do you keep your eyes opened as required? Maintaining the strict posture require already such a need of concentration that I was wondering if it was not "too much" to count breath on top of this...(?)

@RaphaelTokyo, I added a bit more to the answer, including a link to a talk with Shunryū Suzuki-rōshi.  I was taught to keep eyes half open.  We would also maintain a mudra with the hands; the pressure of the thumbs (too little or too much) is a nice indicator of whether you are over-relaxed or excessively tense.  The breath was fair game as a way to help keep centered, but really the practice was to be present for everything.  When breathing, breathe.  When counting, count.  If drifting out of balance, notice, correct and continue.

I prefer to count to fifty in five groups of ten, and if I lose count anywhere I have to go back to the beginning. When the mind is being unruly this is a tough discipline and on a bad day it can take a long time. It's a warm-up only but I find it immensely useful. @BlackSwing - Just me but I prefer watching at the nose, and to have eyes closed. Practices vary. As Dan notes, our lives are 24/7 and we can't always be siting and counting. .

My experience with "formal" zazen comes from meditating at a local Korean Zen meditation center, for about two years, twice a week, two hours each time. Plus some meditation at home.
In my experience, counting breaths is useful on those days when the mind is very distracted with mental chatter / inner gossip.
There seems to be a progression here: from counting by mentally saying the numbers, to counting on phalanges, to simply watching the breathing, to watching the mind, to just sitting.
For beginner, "just sitting" is an impossible feat. So rather than lying to oneself and pretending to "just sit" while instead indulging in thinking, one is advised to watch the mind ("don't go with thoughts, don't go against the thoughts"). If that still does not work, one should watch the inhales and exhales, in the hope to see the emotional disturbances that the thoughts come from, and let those go. If the mind is so disturbed that one can't even follow the breath, then counting breaths is used as last resort to tie up the discursive mind.

I'm new here and really benefit from your answers. I don't know if you ever saw "When Harry Met Sally" in the great scene in the deli with the attendant remark: I want what she's having. In that regard, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me what your path/practice is if it's not an imposition. Thanks. With kind regards,

Hello there. No I have not seen the movie. I am mostly self-taught, drawing on a wide spectrum of Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions I've met through my reading, plus a number of live encounters with Tibetan lamas and several years of live meditation practice under a Korean Zen master.

Thanks for your kind reply. It's actually quite an amusing scene if I may. Harry and Sally the two romantic personae are in a deli, and she contends that she can fake an orgasm - which she does quite effectively. A waiter approaches another customer (decidedly advanced in her years) and asks what she will have; to which she replied: I want what she's having.

Well in this case the metaphor holds with minor tweaking. Inspired by all those ideas and encounters I did learn to orgasm on my own, in a manner of speaking, so wanting what I'm having is totally appropriate ;)

I'd like to give my view on that topic, even if the question is already old. I started sitting at a martial arts dojo once in a month without any sect or tradition. The second pillar was a book from Sekida ("Zen-Training" in german). He suggested to count your breath and while I was sitting mostly alone at home and had no real training, even at that dojo, I followed that advice and it worked very well for me.
I have to admit, since know, I haven't sit regular. It was something like "a few days in a row" than a few days not. Over time I stopped practice and started again.
Now I sit with Soto-Shu once a week and every day at home. We do Shikantaza. With the random training before I was able to adopt that way quickly. But when it comes to long periods or I have a troubled mind, I go back to counting my breath, just to stay on track. I do two or three cycle and then stop counting again.
While I see the help breath-counting brings for concentration, I found for myself, that with enough training, I can count in a half conscious part of my brain, while thinking about other things in a different part. I still now the next count and I still restart after ten. Just training.
And for me, there is always the danger of counting breath as a measurement of how long I still have to sit, since my breath is deep and low and of quite stable frequency. In my consideration that is just as unuseful as daydreaming.

For last two years i am practicing Vipasana meditation and by observing the process of breath. I am work-ably become thoughtless during meditation and helpful even any time for few seconds or a minute or two whenever i do it before doing anything even drinking water. After observing a single breath, I do not talk a single word. This practice helped me a lot.
           my problem is to get back through to only sit, and nothing else than sitting. i have no clue. Will you help me. You may contactt me on beyondheaven@gmail.com
Spiritually yours
     Sujan, an youngman of 81 years.

I started my zen practice with shikantaza. For a beginner, I would say I was doing really good. After 6 months, I got great personal transformation out of it.
Unfortunately, this small win caused me to slip and get lazy with the zen practice - I was looking for a shortcut. I started to think if I need any practice at all. This caused me to slip big and I was at square one after another 6 months.
When I had another attempt at it, it didn't went as good as with the beginning. I think I was doing the practice wrong, I thought I was doing it ok, but I was actually thinking a lot and I was not even that aware of it. It became a bad a habit. I lacked the ability to separate myself from my thoughts and trying to do an intense focus somehow mixed with those thoughts and it fueled a sort of negative energy state.
After realizing that mistake, I started the breath counting. And it was good, because I could easily benchmark whether I'm doing meditation right or not.
However, I was frustrated that sometimes I just can't hold my attention. I'm supposed to be counting, but I'm sinking in thoughts (I work as a software developer, my job requires me to think a lot). And then I reminded myself of shikantaza. And I felt it's just easier to focus. It's easier to stay present during the practice. I could cut thoughts at the first word rather than just observing thoughts. And this time I could tell if I was present and I could tell if I got distracted by thought.
I think that shikantaza is a more powerful method in our world full of distraction - but the practice of shikantaza is like a double edged sword, because unlike breath counting, it has no objective way to tell if you are doing it well or not. A person that is doing shikantaza well, knows it, but a person that is doing shikantaza wrong, thinks he/she's doing well. It's similar to how when you are awake, you know this is not a dream, but when you dream, you may think you are awake.
I think, doing breath counting for the first 6 months, then switching to shikantaza may be a good strategy - but then be really careful if you are really alert and objective. And if you think you were alert the entire session when you are just getting started, it's very likely you were unconscious the entire session. Also don't overdo it. After the session, relax. Try to be present, but relax. It's not possible to maintain that intense focus indefinitely.


text:
Living worried about the future and reaching mindfulness
I'm going through a lot. It's very easy to be lost in thoughts and worries about the near future, and that leads me to a life of unhappiness. I also feel guilty when I fell happy, because I feel I should be worried.
For me it's very hard to accept the idea that the universe is impermanent and hence I should live the present moment when I'm responsible for things to go wrong or right. How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities?
If I need to think about the future, there's no way to not be anxious.

How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities?

In a sense, the answer is because being immersed in the future is a large part of the problem.
Buddhism doesn't recognize the things you call problems as real problems. They are conventional problems that only obtain the designation because of your own views and beliefs; in reality, whether you solve them or not is mostly meaningless.
This is because Buddhism recognizes the impermanence of life, the inevitability of death, and the cyclic nature of the universe.

286. “Here shall I live during the rains, here in winter
  and summer” – thus thinks the fool. He does not
  realize the danger (that death might intervene).
287. As a great flood carries away a sleeping village,
  so death seizes and carries away the man with a
  clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle.
-- Dhp (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Buddhism doesn't advocate the acceptance of impermanence, so much as the realization that it is the truth; once you realize it for yourself, you will give up attachment to the future and the past, since you will understand that their importance is merely circumstantial.
A good advice is to accept that reality inevitably boils down to the six senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking. No matter what comes in the future, good or bad, it will only be some combination of these six categories of experience. This is how one settles ones concern about the future and the past. Even if you are homeless, living or dying on the street, it will only be an experience, not categorically different from living in a mansion.
The closer you come to realizing this, the better, not worse, your life will become (according to Buddhism).

Wow, what a great question... and how about those 3 brilliant answers?! @andrei volkov, suminda and venerable Yuttadhammo, your answers were so good that I will not even dare to add one! It is a pleasure to read such good points! Thanks folks!!!

If it is different from our viewpoints please go ahead and add an answer as I am also interested to know of alternative views.

Thank you for your answer. Still, even accepting impermanence, if my decisions have live/die impact in other people's lives, how can I keep my performance on doing the best decisions without thinking about them all the time and living in the future?

The mind's nature is to roll in the future or past. Nothing to get too upset about. What you have to train it is to live in the present moment.
Only way you can overcome this is:

repeated application
sustained application

... bringing your mind to the present moment.
When ever your mind wonders away:

realise that it has wondered away.
bring it back to the chosen object with no aggregation, disappointment. If any such tension does arises realize it too.

Keep doing it until this becomes second nature and effortless.
Then you will be in the present moment and many of your worries will go away.
Also the concept of impermanence is that the world / universe is in a flux of change. Weather, people, neighborhoods, etc. all keep changing. It is not that the world or universe will come to an abrupt end. Nothing to be too worried over. If you want something that changes not to change then you will be disappointed.

It's very easy to be lost in thoughts and worries about the near future, and that leads me to a life of unhappiness.

It's not thinking-about-the-future itself that makes us unhappy, it is attachment to a certain way we want the future to be, and fear of another way the future could end up being. The unhappiness is caused by our attachment to e.g. stability, comfort etc. First thing we learn in Buddhism is to give up our attachments to our preconceived notions of how things are "supposed to be".

For me it's very hard to accept the idea that the universe is impermanent and hence I should live the present moment when I'm responsible for things to go wrong or right.

We don't have to live in the present moment, we can do our best taking care of things, planning etc. -- as long as we are not too attached to the narrow concepts of "right" and "wrong". When you look at things globally, the right and wrong are not as simple as they seem. You can have a goal in the future, as long as you fully accept 1) where you are now, what you have now, exactly and completely, and 2) that despite your efforts the future may still end up not like you wanted it.

I also feel guilty when I fell happy, because I feel I should be worried.

This probably comes from a deep-rooted preconception that you don't see looming danger, that if everything is good it means you are missing something important. This is probably just a habit you developed over years. In this case, feeling happy requires letting go of the urge to be in control, to see everything in advance.
Another component of this is probably a fear of confidently taking responsibility for the decision you will have to make. Even though it is often impossible to guarantee that our steps are perfect, we have to lean firmly on each step, so we can make the next step. This is part of what we must learn in initial ("hinayana") training, to behave like a (spiritual) warrior calmly taking charge of things.

Thanks, I feel you are right but that's hard to achieve. It also may look a bit indifferent for the person that doesn't understand it completely. To give 100% of yourself and at the same time be ok with the outcome. I'd always think I could have done something differently if it goes the way I and the others weren't expecting.

Well, who said it was easy :) yes, it takes years of training.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Pagoda's symbolism of yogi's progress to Nirvana
This page shows each feature of a pagoda symbolizing the steps to Nirvana.
In Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta,  S. N. Goenka mentions a similar symbolism on how the pagoda relates to the Maha Satipatthana Sutta:

In every chapter the repetition of certain words indicates the importance of this sampajañña. Ātāpī sampajāno satimā applies to the observation of kāya, vedanā, citta and dhammā: sampajañña has to be present. Similarly samudaya-, vaya-, and samudaya-vaya-dhammānupassī, which apply everywhere in the Sutta, have to be with sampajañña and sensations. For example, in Myanmar there are many pagodas on plateaus, with four staircases, one each from the east, west, north and south. Similarly you might start with kāya, vedanā, citta, or dhammā, but as you enter the gallery they all intermingle in vedanā, and reaching the shrine room it is the same nibbāna. Whichever staircase you start climbing, you come to vedanā and sampajañña: and if you are with sampajañña you are progressing step by step towards the final goal.

Are there any other forms of symbolism regarding pagodas and the Maha Sattipattana Sutta and other suttas covering Samatha meditation subjects?

There are so many stupas (pagodas as you call them which are chinese versions of stupas) which architectural meanings are never recorded, they are symbols for the viewer to interpret, especially the modern ones.
Symbolism from Wikipedia
"The shape of the stupa represents the Buddha, crowned and sitting in meditation posture on a lion throne. His crown is the top of the spire; his head is the square at the spire's base; his body is the vase shape; his legs are the four steps of the lower terrace; and the base is his throne."[7]
Five purified elements
Although not described in any Tibetan text on stupa symbolism, the stupa may represent the five purified elements:[8]
The square base represents earth
The hemispherical dome/vase represents water
The conical spire represents fire
The upper lotus parasol and the crescent moon represents air
The sun and the dissolving point represents the element of space

Sri lankan stupas has the following symbolism:

Pinnacle (Kotha) - Enlightenment
Parasol (Chatra- Kothkerella) - The Whole of the Dhamma (Navalokottara Sri Dhammaskanda)
The Gods Enclosure (Devatha kotuva)
Square pile (Hatares kotuwa) - four noble truths.
Dome (Gharbaya) - The dhamma
The Three Terraces (Pesa valalu) - Seela, Samadhi, Praggna
Octagonal foundation (Atapattama) - the 8 noble path
Upper Terrace (Uda maluva) - bikku, Arahant
Middle Terrace (Deveni maluva) - Lay Disciples (upasaka)
Lower Terrace (Veli maluva) - Devotees

See: Buddhist architecture - Stupa/Chorten
The Burmese symbolism looks different as per this quote:

For example, in Myanmar there are many pagodas on plateaus, with four staircases, one each from the east, west, north and south. Similarly you might start with kāya, vedanā, citta, or dhammā, but as you enter the gallery they all intermingle in vedanā, and reaching the shrine room it is the same nibbāna. Whichever staircase you start climbing, you come to vedanā and sampajañña: and if you are with sampajañña you are progressing step by step towards the final goal.

If there is more information about this (Burmese or Thai or Other) symbolism please post and answer.

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


text:
Pursuit of raising children ok?
Is the pursuit of having children to raise and teach good morals unwholsome or wholsome?

potential duplicates: How to combine Buddhism with being a parent? and Should a Buddhist have Children. Also see http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2352/buddhist-path-x-romantic-relationships-and-sons

@AndreiVolkov yikes, they're all so similar. May be Jeff can tell us if any of the other questions have answers to his, and if not, maybe he can elaborate on this?

Using the words "unwholesome/wholesome" makes me wonder whether the question is related to kleshas. I guess that any activity can be "pursued" in an unwholesome way: e.g. with greed, with hate, etc. If so perhaps the only question then is whether this activity ("the pursuit of having children to raise") can be "pursued" in a wholesome way ... and whether 'academic-buddhism' has written anything about that.

Since you tagged this with "accademic Buddhism" I'll point you to "Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticism where the author reads all the various ancients rules for dealing with monastics that had family obligations of various types.  I've only read the first chapters-- I don't want to pay $41 for the thing. The author's thesis is that the ideal of the "Rhinoceros Horn"-- quitting all social ties to wander away alone, was an ideal that people liked the sound of, but didn't really want to follow through with it.  So they maintained contacts with their family after ordaining. Sometimes, married couples would ordain at the same time, ordain at with kids, and so on. What it remind me of were some sort of modern commune.
Anyhow, that's just ancient Indian Buddhism. The institution varies from place to place.


text:
Can you explain "nirvana"?
Can anybody explain to me about "nibbana" and how it is different form "nirvana"?
Are there views about it and ways to get to it?

Nirvana (Sanskrit, also nirvāṇa; Pali: nibbana, nibbāna - it's all the same word)

Extinguishing the fires
In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires that cause suffering.
  These fires are typically identified as the fires of attachment
  (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya).   For
  example, Rupert Gethin states:  Literally nirvāṇa means ‘blowing out’
  or ‘extinguishing’ [...] What the Pali and Sanskrit expression
  primarily indicates is the event or process of the extinction of the
  ‘fires’ of greed, aversion, and delusion. At the moment the Buddha
  understood suffering, its arising, its cessation, and the path leading
  to its cessation, these fires were extinguished. This process is the
  same for all who reach awakening, and the early texts term it either
  nirvāṇa or parinirvāṇa, the complete ‘blowing out’ or ‘extinguishing’
  of the ‘fires’ of greed, aversion, and delusion. This is not a ‘thing’
  but an event or experience.  Contemporary Buddhist scholar Ajahn
  Sucitto emphasizes that when these fires are extinguished, the mind is
  freed. Ajahn Sucitto states:  The metaphors associated with nibbāna
  often liken it to the blowing out of a fire. When it is no longer
  burning, the fire has “nibbāna’d”—the elements on which it was based
  are no longer in a state of combustion. This may seem like sterility
  and lifelessness from the viewpoint of the fire, but from the
  perspective of the elements it means life and potential. That is, when
  the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion are extinguished, the mind is
  free to operate in terms of its fullest capacity.
Freedom from suffering
In the Buddhist view, when the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya)
  are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to an end. The cessation of
  suffering is described as complete peace. Bhikkhu Bodhi states:  The
  state of perfect peace that comes when craving is eliminated is
  Nibbāna (nirvāṇa), the unconditioned state experienced while alive
  with the extinguishing of the flames of greed, aversion, and delusion.
Freedom from rebirth
In the Buddhist view, the fires of attachment (raga), aversion
  (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya) are the forces which propel
  the cycle of rebirth (samsara). When these fires are extinguished,
  freedom from rebirth is attained.   Bhikkhu Bodhi states:  For as long
  as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the
  cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated,
  one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death.
  Paul Williams states:  Nirvana is broadly speaking the result of
  letting-go, letting-go the very forces of craving which power
  continued experiences of pleasure and inevitably suffering throughout
  this life, death, rebirth, and redeath. That, in a nutshell, is what
  nirvana is. It is the complete and permanent cessation of samsara,
  thence the cessation of all types of suffering, resulting from
  letting-go the forces which power samsara, due to overcoming ignorance
  (thence also hatred and delusion, the 'three root poisons') through
  seeing things the way they really are.
During life and after death
In the Buddhist tradition, a distinction is made between a person's experience of nirvana during
  their life and after their death. These two aspects of nirvana are
  described as:  Nirvana during life Pali: sa-upādisesa-nibbāna
  Sanskrit: sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa  Also translated as: nirvana with
  remainder; nirvana with residue  Indicates the experience of someone
  who has experienced nirvana in their lifetime but still remains in
  their physical body   Nirvana after death Pali: an-up ādisesa-nibbāna
  Sanskrit: nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa  Also referred to as: nirvana without
  remainder; nirvana without residue; or parinirvana  Indicates the
  experience of nirvana for someone after their death
Nirvana in this life
In the Buddhist tradition, it is believed that a practitioner can achieve nirvana during their life, or at the
  moment of death. When a practitioner experiences nirvana during their
  life, this experience is referred as nirvana-in-this-life, or more
  traditionally, "nirvana with remainder" (Pali: sa-upādisesa-nibbāna;
  Sanskrit: sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).   Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin
  explains:  Like the Buddha, any person who attains nirvāṇa does not
  remain thereafter forever absorbed in some transcendental state of
  mind. On the contrary he or she continues to live in the world; he or
  she continues to think, speak, and act as other people do—with the
  difference that all his or her thoughts, words, and deeds are
  completely free of the motivations of greed, aversion, and delusion,
  and motivated instead entirely by generosity, friendliness, and
  wisdom. This condition of having extinguished the defilements can be
  termed ‘nirvāṇa with the remainder [of life]’
  (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/sa-upādisesa-nibbāna): the nirvāṇa that comes
  from ending the occurrence of the defilements (kleśa/kilesa) of the
  mind; what the Pali commentaries call for short kilesa-parinibbāna.
  And this is what the Buddha achieved on the night of his awakening.
  The experience of nirvana-in-this-life is said to result in a
  transformed mind that has the following qualities:  free from negative
  mental states  peaceful  non-reactive
Free from negative mental states
The experience of nirvana-in-this-life is said to be free from all negative mental
  states. For example, Walpola Rahula states that one who has achieved
  nirvana is "free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and
  troubles that torment others."   Damien Keown states:  Nirvana [...]
  involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free
  of the obsession with ‘me and mine’.  Rupert Gethin states:  Any
  person who attains nirvāṇa [...] continues to think, speak, and act as
  other people do—with the difference that all his or her thoughts,
  words, and deeds are completely free of the motivations of greed,
  aversion, and delusion, and motivated instead entirely by generosity,
  friendliness, and wisdom.  Contemporary Buddhist teacher Ajahn Sucitto
  states:  When the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion are
  extinguished, the mind is free to operate in terms of its fullest
  capacity.  Anam Thubten states:  Nirvana or whatever you want to call
  it means the complete deconstruction of all of our rigid mental
  patterns and habits as well the deconstruction of all of our limiting
  beliefs. This deconstruction creates a space for true inquiry. When we
  open our hearts and our minds completely, we are in a place where we
  can experience something new, a new truth, a new reality, a miracle
  that we haven't experienced in the past. We can see things differently
  and they present new, expanded opportunities, new horizons.
Peaceful
Nirvana is described as a state of perfect peace that comes when all negative mental states are eliminated. For example,
  Walpola Rahula states:  He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāṇa, is the
  happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and
  obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental
  health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over
  the future. He lives fully in the present. Therefore he appreciates
  and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is
  joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free
  from anxiety, serene and peaceful.  Damien Keown states:  It is clear
  that nirvana-in-this-life is a psychological and ethical reality, a
  transformed state of personality characterized by peace, deep
  spiritual joy, compassion, and a refined and subtle awareness.
  Negative mental states and emotions such as doubt, worry, anxiety, and
  fear are absent from the enlightened mind. Saints in many religious
  traditions exhibit some or all of these qualities, and ordinary people
  also possess them to some degree, although imperfectly developed. An
  enlightened person, however, such as a Buddha or an Arhat, possesses
  them all completely.
Non-reactive
In the state of nirvana, the mind is no longer reactive. Phillip Moffitt states:  Nibbana literally means "cooled"
  and is analogous to a fire that's no longer burning. Thus, when there
  is cessation, your mind no longer burns in response to the arising of
  pleasant and unpleasant in your life; it isn't reactive or controlled
  by what you like or dislike.  Ringu Tulku explains:  Someone who has
  attained [...] the state of nirvana, will no longer react within the
  pattern of aversion and attachment. The way such a person sees things
  will be nondualistic and therefore non-conceptual. [...] When this
  dual reaction is gone, nothing is haunting or fearful anymore. We see
  clearly, and nothing seems imposing, since nothing is imposed from our
  part. When there is nothing we do not like, there is nothing to fear.
  Being free from fear, we are peaceful. There is no need to run away
  from anything, and therefore no need to run after anything either. In
  this way there is no burden. We can have inner peace, strength, and
  clarity, almost independent from circumstances and situations. This is
  complete freedom of mind without any circumstantial entanglement; the
  state is called "nirvana" [...]. Someone who has reached this state
  has gone beyond our usual way of being imprisoned in habitual patterns
  and distorted ways of seeing these things.  Ajahn Sucitto states
  "qualities like calm, clarity, and kindness are all enhanced [...] the
  tinder and the sparkiness of the heart are removed."
Nirvana after death
In the Buddhist view, when an ordinary person dies and their physical body disintegrates, the person's
  consciousness passes onto a new birth; and the person is reborn in one
  of the six realms of samsara. However, when a person attains nirvana,
  they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies,
  their physical body disintegrates and their consciousness is said to
  be completely liberated. They are not reborn in the ordinary sense.
  Their consciousness does not take rebirth into a physical form.
  Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin explains:  Eventually ‘the
  remainder of life’ will be exhausted and, like all beings, such a
  person must die. But unlike other beings, who have not experienced
  ‘nirvāṇa’, he or she will not be reborn into some new life, the
  physical and mental constituents of being will not come together in
  some new existence, there will be no new being or person. Instead of
  being reborn, the person ‘parinirvāṇa-s’, meaning in this context that
  the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a
  being cease to occur. This is the condition of ‘nirvāṇa without
  remainder [of life]’ (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/an-up ādisesa-nibbāna):
  nirvāṇa that comes from ending the occurrence of the aggregates
  (skandha/khandha) of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a
  being; or, for short, khandha-parinibbāna.[f] Modern Buddhist usage
  tends to restrict ‘nirvāṇa’ to the awakening experience and reserve
  ‘parinirvāṇa’ for the death experience.  The experience of
  nirvana-after-death (paranirvana) is said to be beyond words or
  description. Walpola Rahula explains:  Nirvāṇa is beyond all terms of
  duality and relativity. It is therefore beyond our conceptions of good
  and evil, right and wrong, existence and non-existence. Even the word
  ‘happiness’ (sukha) which is used to describe Nirvāṇa has an entirely
  different sense here. Sāriputta once said: ‘O friend, Nirvāṇa is
  happiness! Nirvāṇa is happiness!’ Then Udāyi asked: ‘But, friend
  Sāriputta, what happiness can it be if there is no sensation?’
  Sāriputta’s reply was highly philosophical and beyond ordinary
  comprehension: “That there is no sensation itself is happiness’.
No words to describe the experience
In the Buddhist view, there are no words to describe the experience of nirvana-after-death.
  Walpola Rahula explains:  Now another question arises: What happens to
  the Buddha or an Arahant after his death, parinirvāṇa? This comes
  under the category of unanswered questions (avyākata). [Samyutta
  Nikaya IV (PTS), p. 375] Even when the Buddha spoke about this, he
  indicated that no words in our vocabulary could express what happens
  to an Arahant after his death. In reply to a Parivrājaka named Vaccha,
  the Buddha said that terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in
  the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation,
  perception, mental activities, consciousness—with which the terms like
  ‘born’ and ‘not born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and
  uprooted, never to rise again after his death. [Majjhima Nikaya I
  (PTS), p. 486]
Physical existence is like a fire gone out
When a person who has reached nirvana dies, their physical existence is compared to a fire
  that has gone out. Walpola Rahula explains:  An Arahant after his
  death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is
  over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are
  finished.[Majjhima Nikaya I (PTS), p. 487] Here it should be clearly
  and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is
  compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāṇa, but the ‘being’
  composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāṇa. This point has
  to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have
  misunderstood and misinterpreted this simile as referring to Nirvāṇa.
  Nirvāṇa is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out.
Source: Wikipedia

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! We don't normally consider answers that are entirely comprised of a quotation as valid...

To further clarify, as per the help page: "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own".

@yuttadhammo Thank you for your welcome. My enlightenment about Nirvāṇa can only come by taking refuge in the dhamma which comprises exclusively quotations of those who have gone before. I do not understand why you reduced my closing text that acknowledged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) which is a well-worked collection of secondary sources (from which I in turn selected) to a cryptic "Source: Wikipedia".

I don't think the fact that your knowledge comes from quotations necessitates the conclusion that you should just repeat quotations when someone asks you a question. Your original citation was "With acknowledgement to Wikipedia", which felt too close to plagiarism, since you didn't identify it as an actual quotation copied directly from a source. You can't just 'acknowledge' Wikipedia, you have to make clear that your text is a direct quote, and that the quote comes from Wikipedia.

Thank you for your thinking about necessity. There is the case of a post that just names Wikipedia and a post that names a page in Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has over 4 million articles. There is no skill in taking away the page reference that gives much more good information than I have extracted, such as the several dharmic sources for what I posted. I suggest you consider that Wikipedia is not an original source for anything and that various views of nirvana are well elucidated by quotations such as I presented.

It seems unrealistic to ask for answers that are not quotations when the question is on the nature of Nirvana. Who is going to go public and say 'I can tell you it is like this...'. Even if one knows one is likely to say ' Thus I have heard'.

Nirvana / nibana is when:

you have calmed all fabrications
you experienced something beyond the 5 aggregates when the fabrications have calmed down
your worldly perceptions or ignorance has subsided or changed forever or become very thin thus causing some or all of the fetters to fall off

I'll add one meaning for this word Nirvana, I came across recently (YouTube). It was used in Aasivakam, a pre-Buddhist sramana philosophy / religion. Founder of Aasivakam was contemporary to Buddha / Mahavir.
In Tamil language, it's neer (water) + vannam (color). It's one of 7 colors used to represent 7 stages of enlightenment; black, dark blue, green, red, yellow, white and water color (colorless).
I'm just adding this here for your information, and for others to constructively comment / edit.

With all due consideration,
Nibbana and Nirvana are the same word in Pali and Sanskrit, respectively. As a one-word translation of Nibbana, it is the Unconditioned.
More precisely, all conditioned things are everchanging and transitory, sabbe sankhara anicca, while Nibbana is not a conditioned thing, it is always the same and eternal. Also, all conditioned things produce suffering, sabbe sankhara dukkha, while Nibbana is the complete and permanent absence of suffering. Last but not least, all things, both conditioned and unconditioned, have an impersonal nature, sabbe dhamma anatta, so it is worth noting that Nibanna is not to be confused with any notion of a self.
Concerning the ways to get to it, there are not a multitude, there is only one correct path that leads to the Unconditioned, namely the Noble Eightfold Path. Concerning views, there are many wrong ones, but only one right view, or right understanding, which is the first step on the path leading to Nibbana. Right view is truthfully knowing what is suffering, what is the cause of suffering, what is the eradication of suffering and what is the path that progresses towards the eradication of suffering.
As for a precise explanation of what Nibbana means in relation to the human condition, after completing all the steps on the noble eightfold path, having reached the last step of right attainment or right concentration, samma samadhi, at the last stage, jhana, of the last step, the Unconditioned state is described as "the abandonment of pleasure and the abandonment of pain, the disappearance of delight and distress, feeling neither pleasant nor painful, with completely pure equanimity and mindfulness"
So in the last words of the perfectly enlightened one: "evanescence is the nature of conditioned things; earnestly strive for the one true achievement"
Respectfully

Sorry to argue but nibbana is not eternal. Nibbana has been described as consciousness without surface and is not total annihilation of experience. Hence the reason the Buddha refuses to answer what happens after his death. It can be called as permanent release of mind which lasts as long as the body lasts.

I.e nibbana is an experience which is devoid of any craving whatsoever.

The definition of Nibanna is as follows:

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all
fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." — AN 3.32

The way to enter Nibbana is by following the Eightfold Noble Path: right wiev; right resolve; right speech; right action; right livelihood; right effort; right mindfulness; right concentration. Heedfulness leads one to Nibanna.

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


text:
How to use meditation to boost logical thinking (or avoiding suffering with unrational scenario)
Sometimes I catch my mind wandering and mixing up all the worst case scenarios for the future.
Currently I have a problem that will, most likely, have a small or medium impact on my life, however my mind has proven to have this hability of finding the worst of the worst possible scenarios, a real chaos, and when I think about this remote scenario I suffer really bad, eventhough the odds are very small, the feeling is terrible.
I try to use reason and use logic to show myself this scenario is highly unlikely, but it doesn't work very well, even the smallest possibility is a cause for strong suffering, so the question is: Is there anyway we can use meditation as a tool to calm ourselves AND show to us in a very effective way that this fear is unrational and this terrible scenario is highly unlikely?
Can meditation enable logical thinking?

I think it's a good starting point that you see these scenarios as irrational and improbable. Mind formations are habits. You don't really need to use logic: when these scenarios arise, you already realise that they are fantasies. If you keep watching them with equanimity and realise their faulty nature, they will eventually unravel by themselves and cease to bother you.

Seated mediation, as I've been taught to practice, is not about logical analysis.  That said, when it comes to 'thinking the worst', the practice of attention recognizes that these are just thoughts.  In a sense, it doesn't matter whether the events are likely or unlikely, because the thoughts are just thoughts.  There can be value in rationally analyzing fears, but meditative practice starts with just observing the fears as they are, regardless of whether they are rational.  When the whirlwind of doubt starts up again, just return to the object of meditation (often, the breath) and let things settle.  This isn't easy, but that's why we practice.
A bit of an aside, but here is a passage from the Dhammapada, Mind (translation by Ananda Maitreya), that I think relates to this:
Just as an arrowsmith shapes an arrow to
  perfection with fire,
So does the wise man shape his mind,
Which is fickle, unsteady, vulnerable, and
  erratic.

Like a fish taken from the safety of its watery
  home
And cast upon the dry land
So does this mind flutter, due to the lure of the
  tempter.
Therefore one should leave the dominion of
  Mara.

How good it is to rein the mind,
which is unruly, capricious, rushing wherever
  it pleases.
The mind so harnessed will bring one happiness.

A wise man should pay attention to his mind,
Which is very difficult to perceive.
It is extremely subtle and wanders wherever it
  pleases.
The mind, well-guarded and controlled,
Will bring him happiness.

One who keeps a rein on the wandering mind,
Which strays far and wide, alone, bodiless,
Will be freed from the tyranny of the tempter.

A man of fickle mind
Will never attain wisdom to its fullest,
Since he is ignorant of the Dhamma
And has wavering faith.

The heart of the fully conscious man
  is fearless--
He has freed his mind of lust and anger,
He has transcended both good and evil.

Observe this body, as fragile as an earthen vase.
Build a mind as solid as a fortified city,
Then confront Mara with the weapon of
  insight
And (proceeding without attachment)
Guard what you have already conquered.

Certainly before long this body will lie on the
  ground,
Lifeless and unconscious,
Cast aside like a useless log.

A mind out of control will do more harm
Than two angry men engaged in combat.

A well-directed mind creates more well-being
Than the wholesome actions of parents
Toward their children.

I think that the point of meditation isn't to enable logical thinking. If you let yourself be carried away by the trains of thoughts, it doesn't matter if it makes you feel bad or good. Meditation is to be present and aware.

Is there anyway we can use meditation as a tool to calm ourselves AND show to us in a very effective way that this fear is unrational and this terrible scenario is highly unlikely?

Meditation is more about perceiving that there is no sense to imagine too far, or to get excessively concerned with thoughts. I'm not saying that thinking is bad, but be more pragmatic. Instead of thinking too far away and producing suffering, try to do something practical. Try something like "ok, this scenario don't look very good, what is the simplest thing I can do now to reduce the possibility of it?"
Meditation, I think, is very related to pragmatism. When you meditate, you just meditate and nothing more. And bringing it to life, instead of becoming overwhelmed by the possibilities, try to find what you can do right here and right now that can contribute to avoid the bad cases.
It is a change of focus. Instead of feeding the image of some possible future, come up with something that can be done immediately. And if you can't do anything about it, let it be.
Again, instead of improving your thinking or changing the feelings that thought produces, meditate to be more pragmatic, more present and more aware.
And lastly, a book recommendation. I think that being pragmatic is one important point in Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind".

To an extent, yes. Meditation stills the intellect, and expands wisdom. As your wisdom expands and your intellect stills, you will end up closer to experience. This closeness facilitates a sharpness and mental clarity that can make problem solving more natural.


text:
Examples of early Buddhist art
I was reading that early Buddhist art doesn't actually depict the Buddha. Instead it shows an empty space, a dharma wheel or a footprint where you would expect the Buddha to be shown. It was only later (maybe 1st century CE?) that the Buddha was represented in art. I would be really interested to see any examples of this kind of art. Could anyone post some links or the images themselves of this kind of early Buddhist art.

This one is useful, The Beginnings of Buddhist Art
by A. Foucher
http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Reference/Beginnings-of-Buddhist-Art/The-Beginnings-of-Buddhist-Art.pdf

One of the oldest Buddhist stone structures in India is the Great Stupa at Sanchi, and it has a lot of stone reliefs that have this kind of thing. Here's one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanchi#mediaviewer/File:Sanchi_Carving.jpg

Here are pictures of Buddha's footprints: https://www.google.com/search?q=Buddhapada&tbm=isch
The footprints are a.k.a. Buddhapada.

This is off-topic because it is later than "early" buddhism, but your question reminded me of the "10 bulls" illustrations (which are, if not early, at least famous, and use an emptiness to represent enlightenment).

Here it's the 8th of the 10:

Or in the second of these two series it's the last of the ten.

See also this (alternatively often shown as an open, unclosed circle):


text:
How is body language linked with meditation success?
Body language (smiling) seems to be linked to meditation success as per Bhante Vimalaramsi:

smiling is an important aspect for the meditation. Learning to smile with mind and raising slightly the corners of the mouth helps mind to be observant, alert and agile.
Source

What are the mechanics behind this or how it works?

In addition these talks through not related to make suggestion that there is a link between body language, smiling and our well being:

Your body language shapes who you are
The hidden power of smiling

It does not need to be any body who study under Bhante Vimalaramsi. If you can successfully formulate a explanation to a more neutral psychology view on the matter we can get to how it works according to Buddhism (http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are).

interesting. i hear this sort of thing from a lot of secular meditation teachers. not just with smiling, but also with straight back, open chest, etc.

in my observation these techniques seem to counter frustration, negative states of mind, etc.

Do you have any material I can go through?

Thich Nhat Hahn is the only one I have read who attributes a significance to smiling. It may have to do with the challenging times he has had to endure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-schnall/beliefs-buddhism-exclusiv_b_577541.html
The interview with him contains much of his practice, but here is an excerpt about smiling

We humans have lost the wisdom of genuinely resting and relaxing. We
  worry too much. We don't allow our bodies to heal, and we don't allow
  our minds and hearts to heal. Meditation can help us embrace our
  worries, our fear, our anger; and that is very healing. We let our own
  natural capacity of healing do the work.
Total relaxation is the secret to enjoying sitting meditation. I sit
  with my spine upright, but not rigid; and I relax all the muscles in
  my body. Breathing in, I bring my attention to one part of my body;
  breathing out, I smile with gratitude and love to that part of my
  body. For example, I breathe in and I bring my attention to my face.
  On my face there are about 300 muscles, and whenever I get worried,
  angry or sad, these 300 muscles harden, and anyone who looks at me can
  see that I'm tense. But if while breathing in I can be aware of my
  face, and breathing out I can smile to my face, then that tension
  immediately dissipates. It's almost like a miracle. In just a few
  breaths we can feel peace, happiness, and relaxation on our face. Our
  face becomes light, fresh, like the kind of flower it was before.
  Every face is a flower.
After breathing three or four times with "breathing in I am aware of
  my face; breathing out I smile to my face," then I can breathe in and
  bring my awareness to the muscles in my shoulders, because our
  shoulder muscles are often tense. As I breathe out, I relax and smile
  with my shoulders. Gradually we can move through the whole body, so
  after just a few minutes we can already normalize our body so it feels
  light and relaxed.
This is something everyone can do in the first minutes of sitting, and
  not only when we are in the meditation hall. Wherever we sit, we can
  sit beautifully, just like we are doing sitting meditation, and we
  will feel stability and freedom. Sitting down to eat or do paperwork,
  we sit upright and relaxed. Let us sit like the Buddha.

A person who is advanced towards realization of emptiness will typically display a calm, peaceful, and blissful demeanor, even during trying circumstances. I would say that smiling is a natural part of such a demeanor.


text:
How To Keep Loving Without Reward?
Changes can easily come about in all of us, even those we love and trust.
When this happens, how do we keep loving them without expecting anything?

Being married I often see change(impermanence) and so I sometimes want to change it back but find it's beyond my control(anatta) and so it's often a cause for suffering(dukkha). I see these marks of existence all the time in my marriage. I hope this helps.

I think this is a question we all ask ourselves at some point
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/attachment.htm

What Is Attachment?
In order for there to be attachment, you need two things -- the
  attacher, and the thing to which the attacher is attached. In other
  words, "attachment" requires self-reference, and it requires seeing
  the object of attachment as separate from oneself.
The Buddha taught that seeing oneself and everything else this way is
  a delusion. Further, it is a delusion that is the deepest cause of our
  unhappiness. It is because we mistakenly see ourselves as separate
  from everything else that we "attach."
Zen teacher John Daido Loori said,
"[A]ccording to the Buddhist point of view, nonattachment is exactly
  the opposite of separation. You need two things in order to have
  attachment: the thing you’re attaching to, and the person who’s
  attaching. In nonattachment, on the other hand, there’s unity. There’s
  unity because there’s nothing to attach to. If you have unified with
  the whole universe, there’s nothing outside of you, so the notion of
  attachment becomes absurd. Who will attach to what?"
Because we think we have intrinsic existence within our skin, and
  what's outside our skin is "everything else," that we go through life
  grabbing for one thing after another to make us feel safe, or to make
  us happy.

Living without attachment is a lot like living without trying to get some outcome in the world. It is living life but not defining ourselves essentially as a companion or a worker or a studier or being just the body.
So not being attached or not having expectations involves loosening up our own self identity that is wrapped up in the world and how it appears. If we are totally comfortable in this moment it is far easier to accept the relationship we have with that person.
Keep practicing meditation every day and have meditation be part of your relationship could be a good start.
Thank you

I'll start practice meditation and learn more.

Sherly, thanks for the question. I learn more as people ask relevant questions.

There's a question here about being a parent (which is a kind of love).
I especially admired this answer which identifies different types/aspects of love (Metta, Karuna, Muditha).

You haven't said much in your question: it was not specific.
Depending on the change, depending on how the people and the "trust" were changed, maybe you shouldn't keep loving someone, or maybe you can't;
maybe you should love them in a different way;
maybe you don't control how you feel;
maybe Buddhism can help you to live with less expectation.


text:
What is the meaning and/or purpose of life?
According to Buddhism, if exists, what is the meaning of life, and if different, what is the purpose of life? And where does this meaning and purpose come from?

I think that, in the zen soto tradition, the answer would be the famous word of Dogen Zenji: "あるがまま" (read: arugamama) which kind of translate as "things are so".
Zen encourage a radical acceptation of "things as they are", and it is believed that through this radical acceptance of "things as they are", right here, right now,  a deeper and non-intellectual understanding of life can be reached, one that words can't describe.
Therefore such question can not be answered. The Buddha himself simply remained silent when such metaphysical questions were addressed to him.

This is a good answer from the Theravada tradition as well, I think.

Marking this as answer as it seems to be the first and most appropriate. From all the generous answers below, to be happy and to cease suffering appears to be more of challenges than the purpose or meaning itself, which may be undefined. Thank you all.

I think that the ceasing of suffering isn't even a challenge. Because a challenge implies a Goal, and a goal implies meaning, purpose or desire, thus suffering. But in Zen terms, the process of ceasing of suffering is something you do or something you don't.

First, I think it's important to realize that Buddhism doesn't place special significance on this life, in the sense that it is simply part of a constant stream of never-ending lives. So, many of our Western preconceptions about purpose and meaning do not apply. The Buddha joined many other religious teachers in denouncing conventional purpose and meaning in the world and worldly existence:

171. Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.
286. “Here shall I live during the rains, here in winter
  and summer” – thus thinks the fool. He does not
  realize the danger (that death might intervene).
287. As a great flood carries away a sleeping village,
  so death seizes and carries away the man with a
  clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle.
-- Dhp. (Buddharakkhita, trans.)

The only possible purpose would be to effect a lasting change to this cyclical existence; in Buddhism this means breaking the chain of causation and freeing oneself from the endless cycle of birth and death:

153. Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered
  in vain, seeking in the builder of this house (of
  life). Repeated birth is indeed suffering!
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build
  this house again. For your rafters are broken and
  your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached
  the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction
  of craving.
-- Ibid

I don't see this as being a valid answer to "what is the purpose/meaning of life", though. Buddhism, being inherently atheistic focuses more on the nature of things than their meaning or purpose. Meaning and purpose must be assigned by an external force, either human or divine. Both such assignations are considered conventional constructs according to Buddhism. Even the four noble truths are called paññatti - designations or conventions.
This idea is quite clear throughout the Buddha's teaching, which is mostly concerned with describing the nature and interactions between realities rather than ascribing a particular purpose or meaning to them. Even the so-called goal of Buddhism is simply the most reasonable/logical choice - given that all beings seek happiness, they should therefore rationally seek out freedom from suffering.
So, here's how I would answer your questions:
What is the meaning of life and where does it come from?
Meaning, according to Buddhism, must come from an external source and is artificial and relative. The only true meaning of life is, as was answered already, life.
What is the purpose of life and where does it come from?
Purpose as well must come from an external source, though there is an argument to be made from logic and reason that a being wishing for happiness should take as their purpose the attainment of freedom from suffering.

For sentient beings, the meaning of life is to be happy. Without happiness, nothing else matters, right? And when you are happy, you don't need anything else. So, for a sentient being, there is no meaning or purpose higher than being happy.
In one of the teachings I received, there is this concept of Five Levels of Happiness:

Happiness of having your natural needs satisfied (food, sex, survival)
Happiness of possessing things (money etc.)
Happiness of success or achievement
Happiness of helping society: teaching, healing.
Happiness of Enlightenment

On each level, there is always desire for more. No matter how happy they are, sentient beings always want more happiness. In this sense we can say that the sentient beings are hardwired to want to attain Enlightenment.
Now, in order to attain Enlightenment, we have to pass so-called Three Gates (basically, clearly see and thus accept three facts):

That life at large is never without suffering. Trouble is part of the way the world operates.
That nothing is stable, every combination, good or bad, is temporary.
That in the absolute sense, life at large has no single meaning. Or we could say it has an infinite number of meanings, which is the same as to say it has none.

As you can see from #3, the concept of "meaning" exists only in the relative sense, from a perspective of a sentient being. And like I said above, sentient beings want to be happy, that's their meaning.
According to Buddha, the highest and the most stable happiness is Bodhi -- the state of having transcended ignorance, the basis of happiness/unhappiness juxtaposition, which (basis) includes the illusion of ego and the notion of Enlightenment. And what happens when you transcend ignorance and illusions? You see things as they are, in all their infinitely multi-faceted suchness!
But sentient beings seeking happiness get confused about what's bad / what's good and do all kinds of things that get them further and further away from happiness. Only when we awaken to things as they are ("attain Bodhi"), our quest for happiness is over, the meaning of life is actualized.
This realization is the source of compassion: when we understand that numberless sentient beings suffer because they are so confused, we naturally want to save them. Hence the vow of Bodhisattvas:

Sentient beings are numberless -- we vow to save them
   Desires are inexhaustible -- we vow to end them
   The dharmas are boundless -- we vow to master them
   The Buddha's way is incomparable -- we vow to attain it.

P.S. also see my answer to the follow-up question.

Can I read more about the so-called "Three Gates": are they describes in a specific sutta or elsewhere, do they have a specific name (in another language)? If I Google for "Three Gates" I find many other uses of those words (i.e. other sets of 3 gates, but not those 3 gates).

Three Gates are a part of the commentary tradition around Three Marks Of Existence in context of Vipassana meditation.

Is this view specific to a certain branch of Buddhism?

roughly, Vajrayana

I guess the classic answer is as follows.

Life exists, and suffering exists (death, poverty, illness, etc.) -- that's observable
Suffering has a cause, there's a Way to end suffering, and that Way (which leads to the end of suffering) is Buddhist practice

Life may not have a "meaning" as such, but it is experienced.
Sooner or later that experience might inevitable seem unpleasant.
Buddhism lets you to separate yourself from, not become to subject to, that suffering.
Sorry if it sounds negative.
There are versions of Buddhist cosmology which teach that there's a heaven, you can go to heaven ... but that's temporary, everything is temporary (a.k.a. "samsara"), that even heaven is unsatisfactory (e.g. because it's temporary), and Buddhism gives you the means to escape from that endless cycle.

There's also a strongly compassionate side to Buddhism. The meaning/purpose of life is to alleviate suffering, and not only your own suffering but of "all sentient beings" or something like that.

According to Buddhism, if exists, what is the meaning of life, and if different, what is the purpose of life?

The goal or ambition (is that the same as "purpose"?) is therefore to become more 'enlightened':

Don't cause more suffering (for yourself, or for others)
Help (yourself and others) to become immune to, not subject to, suffering

And where does this meaning and purpose come from?

Well, the world (including life and suffering) has no discernible beginning: a beginning point is not evident.
However you don't need to know too much about the past. The parable of the arrow suggests there are various questions which aren't skillful/useful to ask, and that the Buddha himself asked the right question: i.e. "what is the cause of suffering and how can I end suffering?" It's the right question because it's like asking, "How can we remove that arrow without killing the patient?" Relatively speaking, in that situation, other questions aren't important.
Perhaps you're asking, 'Why would we want to "end suffering"? Why is "ending suffering" the goal or purpose of life?'
I'm not sure that Buddhism answers that.
The fact that "suffering exists" is observable. The Buddha observed that aging, illness, death, and separation exist, and that people find these to be cause for suffering. Suffering is defined as (or means) "unpleasant". And "sentient beings" are assumed to not want suffering, to be wanting to avoid suffering.
So far as I know, that's:

Inherent in the definitions of the words
Observable through (everyone's/anyone's) personal experience
Axiomatic (assumed rather than proven)

The meaning of life is life.
Contrary to all conventional wisdom, I'll even go to answer the next question, because the parallelism is so beautiful: the meaning of death is death.

I like this answer, even though others have flagged and downvoted it... welcome to Buddhism.SE

Since I can't seem to find any explicit Buddhist meaning or purpose of life, I am left to deduce it myself.
There is no purpose of life in the conventional sense of a grand and ultimate calling for human beings. Our immediate purpose in life is assigned by our parents who bring us to this world in the first place. We should ask our parents, "Why did you give birth to me?", then we ask the people around us "What do you want me to do for you?" and finally we are also free to ask ourselves in a third-person pespective "What do I want to do with this life that I have control over". Each living human being have control over at least one life, and the purpose of that life is therefore tailored according to needs of the environment and circumstances.
Meaning of life on the other hand is a different attribute. Meaning is not assigned, but rather created through living the life, or in other words, through steering the life that we have in control. At the end of the game of life, we look back and see for ourselves if the life/lives that we have steered, the deeds we have done, the purposes we have fulfilled; whether they are meaningful or not. Meaning of life cannot be concluded until our game is over.
This, i think is the purpose and meaning of life, and where they come from.

In the sense of your Question and your Answer, I think that you are correct: each person gets to see / define meaning and purpose. Maybe your parents had you because they felt it was their purpose to do so. In that case, their answer cannot be yours: you did not create yourself. But in terms of a larger question - what is the purpose of Life - in general, I cannot see how anyone can state that. I think that the Void gave rise to Experience so as to know itself, and that is all that can be said. Would any other answer be acceptable or satisfying to everyone?

In a similar response citing immeasurability when buddha is asked to pick between two alternatives regarding arahant after death: annihilation or eternal freedom from illness. The buddha responds: there is no measure of him who achieved the goal. That by which one could define him, that is not for him. When all phenomena (dhamma) are removed, then all means of description are also removed.
What i interprete from this all is that description over description can never end. I am afraid that this question can never get an anwser, because who ever will have the actual anwser, can not describe that anwser.

According to Buddhism, if exists, what is the meaning of life, and if different, what is the purpose of life? And where does this meaning and purpose come from

Be here now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Here_Now_(book)

"We're all here to do what we're all here to do." - The Oracle, in the movie The Matrix

As someone said before, meaning of life is life, meaning of death is death.
But, contrary to what everyone else said, I am going to challenge the bit about the absolute purpose of life; the general purpose of all life is to procreate, therefore preserving life, and ultimately die.
In its essence, described as such, life is just fleeting revolt against impermanence comparable to passing storm clouds in the sky. And life's sole purpose is this constant cycle of fruitless denial of impermanence. All organic life stems from this struggle by its nature. Note how even evolution makes us more adaptable to new conditions so we can preserve life continuity better.
It is very similar to the deluded nature of our mind, and the desire of both self-improvement and attachment.
But even in the scenario of humanity achieving a completely non-organic immortal form of life such as synthetic human being with transferable consciousness; it will too, eventually die out along with the death of the universe as it is due to all matter decay and laws of thermodynamics.
Life is just "Rage, rage against the dying of the light". Note that this is not nihilism, because absolute purpose of life isn't the same as relative purpose of life of individuals, and suffering, that definitely exists here and now. As what Andrei Volkov said "(...) for a sentient being, there is no meaning or purpose higher than being happy", and this matters, because suffering matters.

You have to define the premises clearly.
Obviously, for those of us far from liberation the purpose is to tread our way to enlightenment and for the enlightened to be compassionate and a light for us yet suffering.


text:
How to accept things as-is and live according to as-is?
In the search for meaning and purpose of life, it seems that Buddhism is silent on this issue that many modern people are concerned with. The way to reconcile seems to be "accept things as it is".
However, I personally know people who have trouble living without a "meaning of life". They ask themselves questions like "Why do I need to do this? Why can't I do that instead?". They are not nonconformist, but just does not see the point of doing anything at all. These thoughts can actually lead some of them to become suicidal as a form of release.
What does Buddhism teach about how lack of meaning of life can make someone so negative, and the method, procedures and way of thinking that can help people to "accept things as it is"?
Notes to my personal understanding to help with better quality answers.

"Meaning of Life" and "Purpose of Life" are not necessarily the one and same thing.
Not finding the meaning/purpose does not mean it doesn't exist

Clarification:
I am not blaming Buddhism for "lack of meaning/purpose of life", although some of those troubled people claim to be Buddhists themselves. Instead, I am exploring the real Buddhist way of managing this anxiety. In other beliefs and religion, the meaning is prescribed and the troubled people find peace in that. But my views are similar to the Buddhist view, so I hope to find a way to cope without resorting to those religions or "artificial comfort".

As I answered in the other question, meaning and purpose are artificial assignations from external sources. It is impossible for anything to have more meaning than is intrinsic in its nature; therefore, the meaning of something is its nature, and the purpose is subjective and relative.
As to how this makes one feel, it almost sounds as though you are blaming Buddhism for what is really just the nature of reality. That would be akin to blaming climate change researchers for exposing the dismal truth of climate change. Which is better - to live in denial of reality or to be forewarned and actually able to act logically and rationally in accordance with that reality?
It is true that some truth often seems to cause depression in people, even leading them to suicide. In reality, though, it is not the truth that leads to depression or suicide, it is delusion and ignorance in the face of what is feared and abhorred. Just like any other unwelcome phenomenon, the truth of suffering is met with horror by those who do not understand it. This is the case whether it is explicitly related to them in advance or whether they find out by themselves when they get old, sick, die, etc.
Truth itself leads to freedom; truly realizing that the meaning of life is nothing more than life, that there is no set purpose in life, and that the only logical path for one seeking happiness is to become free from suffering, leads only to peace and contentment. Depression and suicide, on the other hand, are caused by a desire for meaning and purpose fuelled by delusion.
As to acceptance, this is not exactly what I understand to be the prescribed "goal" in Buddhism; rather than acceptance, the goal is understanding (specifically of the four noble truths) and subsequent rejection* of rebirth (and thus life).

Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth.
-- DN 16 (Vajira, trans)

This rejection does indeed lead to a sort of apathy towards what is therefore seen as meaningless; such apathy is a necessary bi-product of the understanding of meaninglessness. Depression and suicidal ideation are, as stated, not - they come, rather, from the inability to accept the truth, which is in turn born of desire and craving, which is in turn born of the ignorant belief in purpose / meaning.

* On the use of the word "rejection" in regards to rebirth and life:

But if this [knowledge] sees Nibbāna, the state of peace, as peaceful, it rejects the occurrence of all formations and enters only into Nibbāna.
-- Vism. XXI.64 (Nyanamoli, Trans)

and

“Bhikkhus, just as even a trifling amount of feces is foul smelling, so too I do not praise even a trifling amount of existence, even for a mere finger snap.”
-- AN 1.328 (Bodhi, Trans)

-1 for "rejection of rebirth (and thus life)". Perhaps you could rephrase this to use something more positive than "rejection" (of life), e.g. "letting go".

@AndreiVolkov, Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but my reading of the "rejection of rebirth (and thus life)" is that it addresses more directly the problem that the suicidal person imagines they are solving.  Dying doesn't end birth and death; rather, it perpetuates it.  If you want to really solve the problem, you need to cut at the root, ignorance.  This is a far more radical action than suicide.

@AndreiVolkov I don't understand the problem... the Buddha clearly rejected further rebirth, and since rebirth is a requisite of future life, he therefore rejected life as well.

This answer is a little difficult for me to comprehend. Do you have a slightly more elaborated explanation on "rejection of rebirth (and thus life)"? Like what does it mean to reject? To refuse to reborn? Or to reject the idea of rebirth?

@yuttadhammo I suppose this is where our paths depart :) For me, understanding and disenchantment lead to acceptance rather than rejection. Or I guess someone could nitpick and say it is beyond acceptance/rejection duality, but for practical purposes it functions as acceptance. It is Ok for us to disagree on this, since we represent different traditions.

I think I'm probably missing something. Didn't the Buddha say not to crave to be or become so there would be no more rebirth(nirvana)? Am I wrong to say the Buddha didn't accept or reject life, he just did what was appropriate moment by moment?

@AndreiVolkov I think you are proposing a false dichotomy; I know it's semantic, but 'reject' doesn't imply aversion or inability to accept, it means 'to dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste'. An enlightened being rejects future rebirth, even future existence, as being without value: “Bhikkhus, just as even a trifling amount of feces is foul smelling, so too I do not praise even a trifling amount of existence, even for a mere finger snap.” (AN 1.328)

Reject as "inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste" smells like vibhava-tanha, no? If you phrased it e.g. "dismiss as having no intrinsic value", I would not argue too much.

@AndreiVolkov "reject" does mean "dismiss as having no intrinsic value"... the definition I gave above is the dictionary definition. It doesn't mean "dislike", or "wish to be free from".

Like I said, "reject" and "to dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste" sounds to me like vibhava-tanha, more so than "dismiss as having no intrinsic value", which is Ok but still falls short of "beyond acceptance/rejection". I'm afraid I don't have anything else to add to this conversation.

@AndreiVolkov it sounds more like a semantic argument than anything else... reject and dismiss, in my vocabulary, mean a total disregard for the object as having any value or benefit whatsoever. They do not imply aversion or "desire for non-existence" (vibhava-tanha).

Understood. You may want to make that clear in your answer above.

@AndreiVolkov I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it... I think the words don't mean what you think they mean. I've added a couple of quotes that might help defend the use of the words.

While this answer gets a lot of upvotes, I think its focus is less of actually explaining "How to become accepting/reject rebirth", and more leaning more towards defensive against the presumption that my question is blaming Buddhism for depression. I hope you can add a bit more information on "how to reject rebirth". Thanks.

@Jake The answer to that question is "Buddhism", I think... it's not a question that can easily be answered in full in a few paragraphs, though I did make mention of the fact that understanding (specifically of the four noble truths) is what leads to rejection of rebirth.

I wonder if it would be possible to soften the message, to use a less ... a less violent word than "reject" (the etymology of "reject" includes "throw"); maybe "discard" or "drop" or something like that. And "rejecting life" sounds like it could be pretty negative: I wonder, is it life itself that's being rejected, or is it "life's illusions", "life's disappointments", "life's preconceptions" ... specifically life's suffering, life's angst, etc.

First of all, "there is no single absolute meaning" does not equate with "nothing matters at all". Despite the absence of absolute meaning, suffering is still bad, and no suffering is still good. Here is your relative purpose: solve your own suffering, and help others solve theirs. Is this not the greatest, most beautiful challenge?
How to accept things as they are? By clearly seeing. Clearly seeing what?

That when we don't accept things as they are (that is, when we cling to illusions that mismatch the way things are) -- then the acts we perform are based on a wrong foundation, and therefore lead to wrong results! Hereby is suffering.
That when we do accept things as they are -- then we can deal with them properly! Hereby is cessation of suffering.

Now, to accept does not mean to give up. Enlightenment is not powerlessness, it is the state of power, spontaneity, joy, wisdom, and compassion. You stop maintaining yourself in maimed and injured condition, and learn to dance like no one is watching. And once you've learned it yourself, you pay it forward and teach the others.
Absence of single absolute goal means you are free to do anything you want! Is this what depresses your friends, freedom? We are free to create. Within the constraints of the framework that provides the building blocks to play with, we can create stuff. True, there is no final purpose to creation -- like having your thing win some kind of Universal Competition, or having it sold at some kind of Cosmic Auction for the Real Money -- so what, you can still create just for the fun of it!
Is this not enough? Suffering, cessation of suffering, compassion, dancing, creation -- or would you rather prefer some single "meaning" that would force everyone to go one way?

Is this not enough? -- My experience is that some people do not enjoy freedom because they don't know if what they do is right, and they fear bad consequences, especially in far future that they cannot see or comprehend. If they have some guideline, like a purpose, then they can adjust their actions; or if they have someone else to be responsible for their actions, they feel more secure. In other words, trade freedom for certainty.

in Buddhism, amount of suffering an activity leads to serves as such guideline for assessing the activity. (Not just your own suffering though, but suffering of others as well)

It will be trivial if suffering can be foreseen, but most of the time, this is not the case, thus the fear. Maybe I am answering my question already, that fear is the root cause and the solution is to manage fear/risk. But I still would like to hear from Buddha's point of view.

Yes, fear of free fall - essentially, fear of potential suffering. Hence grasping and clinging to security / stability / ability to forecast with 100% certainty. Mind is very fond of its plastic models of reality and starts panicking when it loses its ground. The corollary of this: we can't exercise our freedom while we are held back by the fear of suffering. We must fully accept inherent possibility, almost inevitability, of suffering, only then we can dance without fear.

Most schools of buddhism advise to live a balanced way of life.
It never says there is no meaning or purpose in life. Indeed it remains silent for this matter but encourage to accept things as they are which means also of course accepting to live! Don't run away from life, look deeply at it, accept it, and love it.
Which means also means to accept yourself and others as they are, assume your responsability toward them, treat them with compassion and treat your body and mind correctly.

All is good, but the question is how to accept?

this question makes a valid point. the key issue is how to explain to people that there is another option available. it is very easy to read about buddhism and find that it justifies a feeling that there is simply no point in doing anything. that existence is without meaning. this can indeed lead to feeling of total futility. i would also add that telling a depressed person to accept things as they are is really not a good idea. when you are feeling that awful, your perception is skewed. from the perspective of a depressed person you are being asked to accept that life is futile, cruel, painful etc etc. it's no different to telling someone to suck it up, deal with it or grow a pair. such an attitude could indeed lead to suicide if that person were to experience it again again. it is first necessary to carefully and considerately define things as they are, (in an ultimate sense) then to demonstrate the practical steps towards genuine non-resentful acceptance. acceptance and grudging acceptance are not the same.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE - this reads more like a comment than an answer... can you try clarifying what exactly is your answer to the question? Otherwise I can convert this to a comment if you like.

It's not so much that Buddhism says 'Life has no meaning' but more that the question 'What is the meaning of life' must be re-examined and reformulated before being answered. The question presupposes that meaning is something that exists as a property of life itself, but according to Buddhism, concepts such as meaning don't exist in things themselves, but are created by the mind with reality as its basis.
In other words, Buddhism answers the question 'What is the meaning of life' by saying 'Meaning is created in the mind'. Life doesn't come with a meaning and purpose already stamped on them, but is something that individuals create and can decide for themselves.

by learning to look deeply at life with a cleared mind which means practicing meditation.

Is there a specific train of thought that one should use? Like I mentioned, those people I know spent a lot of time reading and meditating but still fail to accept it. I thought there must be a logical flow thoughts to arrive at acceptance.

I can speak only from my japanese zen practice, but precisely they should rather detach from any train of thought, that's at least the process in zazen. Their negative attitude toward life sounds more like nihilism than buddhism and result from a negative train of thought more than anything else.

As someone mentioned, those people you refer to are taking a passive nihilist stance, which is essentially that everything is meaningless. I rather prefer the aggressive nihlist stance, which can be summed up with a quote from the TV series, Angel: "If nothing we do matter, all that matters is what we do." Essentially, we create our own purpose and meaning in life (within the context of the 10 precepts).
To answer your questions within the context off (Zen) Buddhism, stop trying to use logic; that's a delusion. Reading on methods to accept life with do nothing but fill your head with more perceptions that will need to be wiped away. Simply sit, breath, and count. Focus on nothing more than the breathing and counting. Let any thoughts slip away like water. The goal is to unite with your breathing, to comprehend that each breathe is whole and complete as it is, with nothing more that needs to be added and nothing that needs to be taken away.

Ultimately there is no extra meaning in life other than what things are but  when it is appropriate we can make use of  conceptual reality to make up our own meaning in life. Ultimate truth gives us a clean slate so to speak and we can make use of conceptual truth to make up our own meaning on that slate as long as it's in line with the eightfold path or right livelihood.  Of course, conceptual truth is not our enemy, it can be put to great use inside the path.

I find that in most cases, these sorts of questions cannot be solved in the context in which they were raised (like the famous quote by Einstein, I think it was). To get an answer, you need to change your context, which means to practice for now in the faith that there is an answer, and it will come. Your faith is what you bring to the game: your "ante". Without that, you cannot get anywhere. But like any game, you do not know the outcome in advance (the answer you are seeking), so you have to play to find out. The basis of Buddhism is taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. You begin with only that.
So, press on and the answers will come. No one can do that for you (or your friends who question the meaning and purpose of life). You begin any form of education knowing that you do not already know the fullness of it, or where it will lead. Could I tell you "the meaning and purpose of Calculus" either? Yet people still go to school. Trust that the millions of seekers who came before you did actually find. Enjoy the journey. This is what my Guru teaches about beginning a spiritual path. It has worked for me and others that I know.