text:
Contemplation versus meditation
Is there an obvious or well-understood difference between "contemplation" and "meditation"?
I'm reading a book -- modern, probably Tibetan-language originally, translated into English -- talking about the "lack of fixation" and "realization of the nature of the mind". It says that all the Buddhas have taught this and,

There are two ways we can come to know it: through study and inference or by knowing it directly. The way we need to know it is through direct yogic experience in meditation. We need to develop the discernment that knows this. This discernment is not the intelligence of either listening or contemplation; it is the intelligence of meditation.

I don't know how to distinguish "contemplation" from "meditation" -- or "direct yogic experience" as opposed to an[y] other mental experience or phenomenon.

In case it's relevant, it mentions "equipoise" nearby, and it's in a chapter describing the "resting meditation of a skilful person" ("skilful" meaning that they can just go ahead and start meditating easily), as opposed to the "analytic meditation of a scholar").

One way I've seen this difference defined was in a text about Dzogchen "meditation of non-meditation". They said that traditional meditation involves conditioning or shaping the mind, while contemplation involves watching without trying to manipulate. Dzogchen non-meditation was characterized as a type of contemplation, rather than regular meditation. Incidentally, the Zen meditation I was taught (a Korean type of Shikantaza) had also emphasized this non-manipulative aspect.
I don't think this is what "contemplation" means in your text though. It seems like when they refer to "contemplation" they mean "mulling over" as opposed to "seeing" directly. So it seems your book is making the same point as my sources ("just watch what's here") while confusingly using the opposite words to convey it.

The "conditioning or shaping the mind" sounds like Bhavana (sometimes I wonder how that co-exists with "non-becoming", Bhava, being an ideal). But OK, anyway, I think you answered the literal question: i.e. even if "meditation" and "contemplation" did mean something different, they seem to be used inconsistently by different people (so these two words can't be assumed to have a universal/inherent meaning, they might only highlight a context-specific distinction that's explained  within the adjacent text).

Normally, meditation is a word used for ''meditating on an object, as in a topic'', so it means what the quoted puthujjana calls ''listening or contemplation''. That's the christian and scholars sense, before secular humanists switched the word contemplation and mediation around. Descartes is the most famous meditator with his book called ''meditation''. To meditate means to considerate an idea for a long time.
THe good use of mediation for a puthujjana who wants to stop dukkha is as usual yoniso manasikara, typically, during or after contemplating, which means after getting the citta into samadhi, like the jhanas or sati-sampajanna.
Normally, contemplating is less intellectual, less discursive than meditation and the object of the contemplation is admirable, it is what matters. Contemplation is typically being absorbed by the topic (if it is ''intellectual'' like in yoniso manasikara) or by the senses (the usual meaning of contemplation), it is what today puthujjanas call ''meditation'', and with the christian it is contemplating jesus and his perfect love, sometimes the christian talks like they were in first jhana, but of course, christians struggle a lot to reach jhana, because they fail to have a good user manual and because they pollute their discourse (or interpretation like philosophers say) with their god and their cravings for true love, unconditional love, compassion and son on.
A puthujjana who wants to stop dukkha contemplate the famous ten contemplations, contemplation of anicca is 'Aniccasaññā '' meaning sanna of anicca, fighting directly sakkaya ditthi and lusts,
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.piya.html
or the various perfections of the buddha.
Puthujjanas swaps the two words around and it is really minor point. Puthujjanas love to intellectualize anything they hear, touch and experience, so they are bound to contemplate ideas, meaning they are bound to confuse meditation with contemplation.
Also, puthujjanas love to claim that ''intellectual knowledge'' exists and that ''inferences'' are not mere fairy tales.
Phutjjanas create a hierarchy of knowledge. Puthujjanas love to claim that there are

direct knowledge through the usual 5 senses
intelectual knowledge, knowledge by inference, created by intellectuals, philosophers, daydreamers, logicians, scholars, speculators, rationalists...
THose puthujjanas claim that truth is attained by ''inferences'' which are speculations or speculative statements  which are validated by ''some principle'' (or ''inference rules'') that those puthujjanas have themselves created. the most famous rule of inference is called the ''modus ponens''.
Afterwards, they build the concept of ''accuracy of a thought'', which is the fantasy that what they experience is captured by one of their  statement [=''defini-tion]. according to those rationalists, this ''accuracy of a thought'' is how to validate a statement by ''nature itself'', instead of validating a statement by a chain of statements outputted by  inference rules. When they claim that one of their statement is the truth, they claim that this statement describe accurately ''reality'' and if the statement was uttered before the event happened, they claim that ''the chain of inferences'' that they imagined which leads to this ''accurate statement'' describe the hidden workings of  the nature, reality, cosmos, universe (phutjjanas who are scholars love to claim that reality has a veiled ''workings'' and that the senses and perceptions cannot access the truth which is the ''hidden workings'')
the religious phutjjanas claim that the memory of the scriptures is also knowledge

The rationalist Puthujjanas love to turn their speculations into ''knowledge'' because speculating and fantasizing is what they are good at and they have nothing else in their life. Rationalists love to claim that the ''senses are corruptible'' and that perception cannot lead to truth. Those philosophers quickly create the idea of relativism, of solipsism of ''subjective reality'', subjective truths, create the moronic dichotomy of ''objective-subjective'', of dualities, of relative truth, conventional truth and so on.
The claim of the buddha is precisely that sanna of admirable topics is what leads to nibanna or truth.
Truth beyond an ''accurate statement'' is nibanna, truth beyond a statement is what gets you calm once and for all. Once you reach truth, you are not agitated and you no longer seek anything. Truth is what ends. ''Intellectual knowledge'' never ends.

When you wrote, "the various perfections of the buddha", I guess you're referring to Buddhānussati.

Oddly, I would define these two words exactly the other way around. But then, I would not define mediation as 'meditation on an object' especially as I like objectless meditation. I feel Chris is correct to say that these words have no consistent meaning across different teaching systems.  .

Let me give you a concrete example...

Mumonkan - Case 6: The Buddha Holds Up a Flower
The Case:
When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he held out a flower
  to his listeners.  Everyone was silent. Only Mahakashyapa broke into a
  broad smile. The Buddha said, "I have the True Dharma Eye, the
  Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the
  Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond
  doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa."
Mumon's Comment:
Golden-faced Gautama really disregarded his listeners. He made the
  good look bad and sold dog's meat labeled as mutton. He himself
  thought it was wonderful. If, however, everyone in the audience had
  laughed, how could he have transmitted his True Eye?  And again, if
  Mahakashyapa had not smiled, how could the Buddha have transmitted it?
  If you say the True Dharma Eye can be transmitted, then the
  golden-faced old man would be a city slicker who cheats the country
  bumpkin. If you say it cannot be transmitted, then why did the Buddha
  approve of Mahakashyapa?
Mumon's Verse:
Holding out a flower,  The Buddha betrayed his curly tail.  Heaven and
  earth were bewildered,   At Mahakashyapa's smile.

If you were given this koan in the Rinzai Zen tradition, your teacher would simply instruct you to say "flower" on your out breath leaving it up to you to determine why Mahakashyapa smiled.  Now, there's a couple of different ways you can go about doing this.  The way most people try initially is to sit down on the cushion and start mulling this over.  "Flower", flower", they might think. "The Buddha raises a flower".  "No doctrine".  "Ah," they say to themselves with their own private smile, "this koan must be talking about the 'thusness' of the flower!  Seeing that directly is to transmit the way without doctrine!"
And if you said that to your teacher, he'd laugh at you.
This is the method of inference or contemplation.  And it's really no different than getting a Bible verse or a poem and trying to wrestle out its meaning.  People do this all the time in Buddhism.  With the Heart Sutra, for instance, they may try to tease out the importance of the relationship between form and emptiness.  They might be able to talk for days about what form is and what emptiness is.  In fact, there are entire books dedicated to this sort of thing.  But none of that has anything to do with the Heart Sutra itself.  You actually have to watch form and emptiness collapse into each other to know what it's really getting at.
So what's the alternative?  In our example above, rather than mulling over the word "flower", you'd just focus on your breath and say "flower".  That's it.  Over and over again, on every exhalation, "flooooooooweeeeer, flooooooooweeeeer".  You would have no thought of what "flower" might mean in the context of the koan.  You wouldn't even be aware of the meaning of the word "flower" as you said it.  Just "flower, flower".
As you did that, your concentration would deepen just as it would with any other form of anapanasati.  You would just sit in samadhi - in emptiness - with a feeling of trust and openness.  And then you'd turn your mind back to the world of form.  If your concentration was deep enough and if your mind was properly prepared (and there is virtually no way of knowing when insight will strike), something somewhere in the world of form you might leap out at you.  It might be a feeling, it might be a verbal insight, it might even be a compulsion to get on your hands and knees and start hopping around like a bunny rabbit!  Something, somewhere becomes evident that is specifically related to the word you repeated on your out breath.  In that instant, form and emptiness collapse in a way specific to the koan.  You might use the exact same process with a sutta verse, or a vipassana subject, or any other vehicle of insight practice.  What's important is that you use concentration practice as a catalyst for insight.  We go down into the depths and return with pearls.  That's the real intelligence of meditation.

I don't mean to be rude but I don't understand  why deciding to hop like a bunny or anything like that might be compared to returning with a pearl -- it seems more like madness, does it not? Or like "the head of a dead cat", whatever that was supposed to mean. I suppose I'm missing something (i.e. uneducated) about the goal (if any) or method or theory of Rinzai.

It's just content coming up from the unconscious. Sometimes that manifests clearly in a way that seems logical to our small minds. Other times, the content of our bigger mind, our Buddha nature, doesn't fit so neatly. When working with a koan, how we express the answer isn't always as important as the fact that we came back up with something. Sometimes what we find is "wrong" in the sense that it doesn't fit with in the bounds of what the koan is getting at. The "right" answer, however, usually falls within a certain range of expression. And sometimes that could be hopping like a bunny!


text:
What exacly is the so-called "formless" jhana?
When reading the suttas, sometimes I come across to the expressions:
"dimension of the infinitude of space",
"dimension of the infinitude of consciousness",
"dimension of nothingness" and
"dimension of neither perception nor non-perception".
What exactly is the meaning of the expressions above? Why they are "formless"?
When the Buddha describes Right Concentration, he mentions only the four "form" jhana, why he excluded the "formless" jhana as Right Concentration?

Here is my understanding as of 2018.
When they say "form" (rupa) or "seed" (bija) in context of meditation, it's what we call an object of meditation these days. For example, your breath, an image of the Buddha, a particular repulsive image used as an antidote to lust - are all examples of meditation objects. An object of meditation is used as its focal point and directly correlates with the meditation's goal or objective.
Formless meditation, in contrast, is a type of meditation that involves no particular focal point, no object. As I understand, the formless jhanas refer to a step-by-step sequence of getting rid of any notion of object, however subtle.
But before we can talk about formless meditation we need to talk about the ancient model describing the process of perception. In that model, the way we perceive things is by identifying a mark (aka sign) that serves as the main determining characteristic of an object, and by matching that mark against our memory of previous impressions, making an associative interpretation that what we're looking at (hearing, thinking about) can be described with such-and-such concept. This initial hypothesis is then confirmed by finding other secondary marks (signs) that the identified object must possess and confirming they lead to the same association. This process repeats in cycles until one of the associations expands into a related concept or a memory, which leads down some train of thoughts with its desires, fears, and other problematic mindstates.
Since thinking was understood to be the root of all evil, and yoga was defined as "citta vrtti nirodha" (stopping the ever unfolding associative cycle), getting rid of all objects was the chief method for stopping the thoughts. This was the state of the art before Buddha.
Now that we understand what we're dealing with, we can understand the sequence of formless jhanas. First, you visualize infinite empty space with no objects. This is a good approximation of objectlessness, but if you think about it, you still have an object on your mind - the image of empty space. In fact, this image of empty space consists of some kind of mental "mark" or "sign" that the meditator assumes to be a good associative hook (e.g. a tactile sensation of moving and encountering no contact, or a spatial image of endlessly expanding in all directions etc.) plus the concept "empty space" that we are interpreting that sign into. So, upon close examination this type of meditation is not very objectless as it still involves what's these days is called semiosis or the act of interpreting a sign into a meaning.
So as a next step, you meditate on the empty mind with no objects. It's a mind that is potentially capable of perception, it could potentially have an object but it does not. At first you successfully imagine such a mind and in contrast with meditation on empty space, this does seem to involve no sign and no act of interpretation. It seems like a truly objectless state. But then, as you keep meditating on it, you realize that in fact your meditation still does involve a subtle kind of "sign" that is interpreted into a concept! The idea that serves as a sign in this case is a notion of time passing with no objects appearing in/to the mind! So while this meditation is closer to objectlessness, it still has a kind of very subtle object - the notion of time passing.
So you progress to meditation on Nothingness. You just sit there with no content whatsoever. Your mind is completely blank. There is no perception of space or time. It looks like, finally, you have succeeded. However, once you master that, you realize that this absence of content in fact disappears when you stop meditating, therefore your meditation still has a limit, still has a focal point. You still artificially restrict your attention to exclude whatever is going on, and that counts as form. It's a very-very subtle object, it's an object of no-object - but an object nevertheless. The thoughts are stopped while you're in meditation, but once you come out of this withdrawal, you're back to square one. So this state is non-sustainable.
So then, as the final step, you realize that complete withdrawal from all objects is not as effective as learning to stop the associative mechanism from cycling. So instead of trying to generate a state with no objects, you transcend that restriction and allow your attention to stay wide open to stimuli, without apprehending any single one of them. Things may happen as normal but you don't associate, don't conceptualize, don't get carried away by them. Your meditation is truly formless (objectless), because the mind is wide open without grasping at signs. Unfortunately, this state is still useless because you can't really function in it. Any human activity that requires association and interpretation is incompatible with this method of liberation.
This ends the progression and concludes the study of semiotic perception.
The reason Buddha de-emphasized this approach, which apparently was known before Buddha, is because it has no direct relevance in his own framework, that of the Four Noble Truths. In Buddha's system the principle problem of sentient existence is "wrongness" (dukkha) and the goal is "suchness". So in Buddha's sequence of jhanas, the progression is focused on working with sources of "wrongness" in one's mental continuum, his method is to abandon coarse and then progressively subtler sources of "wrongness" while generating coarse and then progressively subtler states of "suchness" (joy=>bliss=>peace=>etc).
The formless jhanas are a nice exercise in concentration and an easy example of progressively refined meditative sequence that many practitioners in Buddha's times must have been familiar with, but in and of themselves they do not lead to Liberation as Buddha defined it - permanent, unconditional cessation of dukkha.
This is why most traditional sources describe formless jhanas as optional. In the ancient metaphorical language, the subjective experience of meditator in a formless jhana is compared with that of a deity at a certain level of heavens, whose life has no suffering but is finite and inevitably ends with eventual return to Earth.
While Buddha's jhanas are a progressive unfolding of his Four Right Efforts:

"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for:
  "[i] the sake of the non-arising [anuppādāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  "[ii] ... the sake of the abandonment [pahānāya] of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
  "[iii] ... the sake of the arising [uppādāya] of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
  "[iv] ... the maintenance [ṭhitiyā], non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen."

And are a progressively closer approximation of the cessation of suffering declared in the Third Noble Truth.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.

In Buddha's four jhanas (known by contrast with the others as the "rupa" or form-jhanas), you examine your mind, identify the immediate sources of dukkha (cravings, attachments, hangups, mental conflicts etc.), as well as the various factors hindering your progress (distractions, pessimism etc.) and let go of those, while at the same time finding ways to generate the positive qualities that help you keep going, such as Motivation, Energy, Attentiveness, etc. as well as the approximations of suchness such as Pride, Joy, and Peace.
The culmination of rupa jhanas is liberation in the suchness of spontaneous presence, which involves no feeling of "wrongness" whatsoever and is endlessly sustainable because it is not limited by any condition other than the absence of aversions and cravings for things to be otherwise.
So unlike arupa jhanas which solve the wrong problem in the wrong way, Buddha's jhanas succeed by focusing on the right issue (that of the "wrongness" or "rightness" of one's experience) and then progressively refining the practice until it culminates in a fully sustainable, truly unconditional liberation.

I really like your answer but am a little nervous about upvoting it because of the lack of sutta references. Those references help me double check and continue individual study. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, please add some sutta references to highlight the critical points made.

Wonderful answer.

Great text, thanks! As you say, conventional wisdom is that the arupa jhanas are optional. However, reading Analayo's "Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation" (his comment on MN121 + MN122), the arupa jhanas seem to be the way into perfected emptiness. Maybe convert this into a separate thread...

Hi, so, in the four years since this was written, I came to see that arupa jhanas are the required path to the signless concentration. However, the signless concentration is just one of the several alternative gateways to the final realization (even if, evidently, Buddha's favorite one), so the idea that arupa jhanas are optional still stands. And thank you for your kind comment.

This conversation has been moved to chat.

Since they're "formless", they can't really be "exactly" described right? :-) Anyway, Ven. Bodhi's "Noble Eightfold Path" gave some idea about what they are. Also, while the four jhanas make up the usual textual definition of right concentration, that doesn't mean SammaSamadhi only involves just those 4 exclusively.

"Beyond the four jhanas lie the four immaterial states, levels of absorption in which the mind transcends even the subtlest perception of visualized images still sometimes persisting in the jhanas. The immaterial states are attained, not by refining mental factors as are the jhanas, but by refining objects, by replacing a relatively gross object with a subtler one. The four attainments are named after their respective objects: the base of infinite space, the base of infinite consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.[65] These states represent levels of concentration so subtle and remote as to elude clear verbal explanation. The last of the four stands at the apex of mental concentration; it is the absolute, maximum degree of unification possible for consciousness. But even so, these absorptions reached by the path of serenity meditation, as exalted as they are, still lack the wisdom of insight, and so are not yet sufficient for gaining deliverance."

AN9.41 provides a wonderfully detailed experience of renunciation into and through these dimensions.

Why don’t I, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space?’

The sutta also deals with the doubts you've expressed and basically states that faith and a willingness to shift outlook and renounce is the key to understanding and experiencing each dimension. They're progressive.

I haven’t seen the drawbacks of forms, and so I haven’t cultivated that.

Which leads to the following encouragement:

Suppose that, seeing the drawbacks of forms, I was to cultivate that. And suppose that, realizing the benefits of the dimension of infinite space, I was to develop that. It’s possible that my mind would be eager for the dimension of infinite space; it would be confident, settled, and decided about it. And I would see it as peaceful

Although we could discuss infinite space as the absence of forms, it wouldn't compare to actually experiencing that infinite space.
Note: this is inference, not experience. The earlier stuff has worked in this manner for me and has given me confidence to just keep going...

To understand the exact difference between the 4 rupa jhanas, and the arupa samadhi, the short formula for the 5th attainment, the base of infinite space, contains the details. The formula is too terse to understand on its own, so this article provides the glosses from other suttas that explain the detailed meaning of the formula.
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/smd5/index.html
In short, rupa are the 4 elements and 31 body parts, and in the context of 4 jhanas, rupa and kaya are referring to the same physical body. In the arupa samadhis, attainemnts #5-9, the mind faculty is divorced from the 5 senses - you can't feel the breath,  you can't feel mosquito bites, you can't feel leg pain, you can't find your body spatially with kinasethetic sensation.
As AN 5.28 jhana similes clearly describe explicitly, in 4 jhanas one does have kinaesthetic sensation of the anatomical body.

Going off sutta and abhidhamma;
Suppose a person would see a sight with the eye. If the person was to close the eye and recall in mind the forms that were seen, he could do that.
When he first saw with the eye, the 'eye' was implicated in contact with visible forms (shapes&colors).
When recalling the sight, the eye wasn't implicated, the contact was only at mind base and with ideation which was of shapes&colors as can be seen with the 'eye', resultant perception  is a different one from the ceased eye-consciousness but it was assosiated.
In arupa jhana the contact is also at the mind base and with ideation but the ideation has nothing to do with what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted or sensed with the body.
It is said that at that time intellect is devorced from the five faculties (senses derived from the body).
In the first example the object of recollection was tied to what can be seen. In the case of arupajhana one won't perceive forms & colors anymore nor feel with the body or imagine or recall what has to do with the world of form in principle.
If we imagine what the perception of infinite space is like, we can only visualize it in terms of darkness or some other color/shape; we can visualize nothingness no more than we can paint a music piece but we can perceive it with intellect by the stilling/fading of the other elements, form element in particular, arupa jhana.
Fading of form is pretty much the fading of senses derived from the body and any ideation that may arise of and in regards to the bodily senses.
Ie one is percepient of only space in the 1st arupa jhana.
Space unlike color&taste is of the mental sphere, is something we can't point to but we know it is there and can think about it, seeing it with intellect/discerning this space element when we think about what the senses present to make sense of what the senses present.
In this sense the space element can be seen with intellect, we know it plays part, comes into play, it is invisible but real.
In terms of game engine development; it as if an element or class of elements no longer get rendered into being, so there is then only the rendering of the remaining "physics", no rendering of environment or world. Maybe this can be a helpful analogy but in the dhamma that which renders is also the rendered, the system being talked about is closed, autonimously directing and self sustaining one.
Each arupa jhana is conveived, felt & perceived differently.
As to Right Concentration.
The entering into & remaining in this or that jhana is also called "a pleasant abiding".
And it's true that entering into & remaining in both rupa & arupajhana is called 'a pleasant abiding'; and only the entering into & remaining in rupa jhana is called Samma Samadhi (Right Concentration).
The Arupa Jhanas are probably not proclaimed to be a path constituent because they may be path for one person and not be the path for another.
In a sutta with Cunda(?) He askd whether those Arahants had magical powers or arupa jhanas and they being liberated by wisdom said no they didn't have the arupa jhanas, whereas other people do have these attainments not all arahts did; one can do without is the point.
Therefore it is probably not always true and is therefore not included in the universal expression of 8FNP.
Afaik Abhidhamma delineates the path constituent of right concentration for arupa jhanas.

The cessation of concious after all the jhana is exhausted and the life force still continue with its existing mind and body phenomenon. One cancelled this life binding contract upon cessation of mind and  witnessing this concious phenomenon with the highest concious cultivated in the journey before the
last stop of this world concious (human highest and most subtle concious after he return to continue to the final end of this life)upon the life expired the concious this time finally stop. (no more continue Concious to fuel life existing force) just like the candle lamp oil is exaushted no more flame will continue to burn.

The cessation of concious after all the jhana is exhausted and the life force still continue with its existing mind and body phenomenon. One cancelled this life binding contract upon cessation of mind and  witnessing this concious phenomenon with the highest concious cultivated in the journey before the
last stop of this world concious (human highest and most subtle concious after he return to continue to the final end of this life)upon the life expired the concious this time finally stop. (no more continue Concious to fuel life existing force) just like the candle lamp oil is exaushted no more flame will continue to burn.
What has to be done is done and the and any attempt to recirculate about further human concious will bring about ignorance and confusion and not wanting to let go of this only bring one back to attachment and thus continue the subject of mind purification taking every listener into a merry go round cycle of ignorance.
Hope practioner of mind purification be like the sky and allowing all kinds of cloud formation to take place without indifference as all compound things are subject to arise and decay.
But this time we have withiness the decay of all concious in the mind purification process. (withiness while as a living being)
BUDDHAM SARANAM GACCHAMI

The cessation of concious after all the jhana is exhausted and the life force will still continue with its existing mind and body phenomenon. One has withiness and cancelled this life binding contract of ignorance about reality of life and upon cessation of mind during the mind purification training brings one to direct awareness and witnessing this concious cessation phenomenon with the highest concious cultivated in this journey before the
last stop of this world concious (human highest and most subtle concious will return to continue this life to  final end)upon the life expired the concious this time finally stop(he return to claim the contract)
No more continue Concious to fuel presant life existing force.
Just like the candle lamp oil is exaushted no more flame will continue to burn.
What has to be done is done and that any attempt to respeculate about further human concious will bring about ignorance and confusion and not wanting to let go of this only bring one back to ATTACHMENT(the root cause of all sufferring explain by the BUDDHA) and thus continue the subject of mind purification taking every listener into a merry go round cycle of ignorance.
Hope practioner of mind purification be like the sky and allowing all kinds of cloud formation to take place without indifference as all compound things are subject to arise and decay.
But this time we have withiness the decay of all concious in the mind purification process. (withiness while as a living being)
BUDDHAM SARANAM GACCHAMI

With my subjective view and personal limitations, it is my opinion that these things can only be experienced. Its of no use to talk of them unless one has experienced them.

Namo Thassa Bhagavatho Arahatho Samma Sambudhdhassa.
According to my understanding from what I learned from Lord Buddha teachings, please correct me if I'm wrong,
Formless Dyana, can only be achieved after completing all the form Dyana. They can be only achieved by Kasina meditation. Lift mind to the 4th Dyana and spread the Kasina light to the infinite. Then with the thought of the disappointed nature of the form, meditate on the space of the Kasina light but not about the Kasina Nimitta. Then Kasina light will disappear and infinite space becomes the object of the meditation. At some point while meditation   mind raise to the Dyana upon the infinite space. This Dyana referred as the Akasananchayatanaya. With this Dyana he's mind is completely taken away from senses. So no sound is heard... Etc. There are 3 more formless Dyana. It is said that Formless Dyana are more softer and calmer than form Dyana. If person doesn't lose Dyana he will born in one of the four formless Brahma world's according to their Dyana level. Formless Brahma levels are the highest lifespan starting from 16000 Maha kalpas.
According to my understanding, they are excluded since form Dyana are the best and sufficient Dyana for Vipassana meditation. Also the Dyana components of formless Dyana are same of 4th Form Dyana. They are Upekka, Ekaggata. Also target of achieving Dyana is to start Vipassana meditation. I believe Formless Dyana cannot be used to perform Vipassana for form(Rupa) but only on mind(Nama) since mind is detached from form.
Please note that it's not easy to even lift your mind to the first form Dyana. So even to think about formless Dyana one should poses all the form Dyana. Not possessing the form Dyana in other words rupawachara Dyana no one can lift mind to the formless level. So its useless if someone thinks it's easy and trying to lift mind to formless Dyana as his first step. It will not work that way.

You read "The dimension of nothingness"  and probably, if you have the wit, you will say 'But that which is nothing is dimensionless, if it has dimension then it is something?"
Don't stop there ask "what is small?"
Scientists are hunting for the smallest particle, but whatever the smaller particle they may discover, again if you have a wit you will say " But if the smallest is measurable it can be divided then it is not the smallest" Right there, you are declaring the dimension of nothingness, but only in reverse.
Some enlightened beings like the Buddha see pass this hurdle of emptiness, but for the rest of us, it is a confusing loop and end in suffering.
Keep meditating you may win the prize!

Perhaps you have some help if you understand the 40 meditation object. Ther are four formless objects hence the rest 36 should be form objects. My understanding is very close to the understanding of Santa100 above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamma%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADh%C4%81na

To perform those 4 one needs to do achieve 4th Dyana in one of the 10 Kasina meditation. Cannot directly meditation those 4.

I am so sorry for the long answer. It's required all of this knowledge to understand the meditation's idea.
What is jhāna?
Jhāna (concentration meditation) is the meditation method to cease the desire (chanda-rāga) of  the world (loka) by changing mind's attention to the opposite object of the  world.
What is the world?
Living being (satta) is the world (loka), 5 clinging-aggregates (upādāna-khandha[1][2]).
Loka means breakable thing. And what we can notice 3 characteristics must be break, breakable. What is unstable (anicca), stressful (dukkha), and non-self (anattā) is what we can notice it's instability-characteristic (anicca-lakkhaṇa), e.g. it's arising and vanishing, stress-characteristic, e.g. it's stressing to arise and to vanish in every millisecond,  and uncontrollable characteristic, e.g. it's variant variables.
Each aggregate has 3 characteristics, so every aggregate (pañca-khandha) is breakable, and it is called Loka. There are 2 kinds of breakable aggregates, lokiya (with clinging) and lokuttara (no clinging). However the practitioner should comprehend only clinging aggregates (upādāna-khandha)  to meditate insight meditation, Buddha called clinging aggregates  (upādāna-khandha), in first noble truth, not only aggregates (khandha).
The genius people can notice 3 characteristics of every living being, so they try to cease all possible cases of living beings' rebirth by the meditation.
There are many method of the meditation of those genius people which doing the difference methods and each method causes the difference results, some is not able to pause any world, some can pause 5 string world (kāma loka), some can pause form concept world (rūpa loka), some can cease all worlds (kāma loka/rūpa loka/arūpa loka).
How many kinds of jhāna?
There are 3 kinds of jhāna:

Form jhāna (rūpa jhāna) - meditation of changing mind's attention form five strings world (kāma-loka) to form's concept world
(rūpa-paññatti-loka)  to disable 5 sense attachments arising (kāmachandarāga). This meditation's step, 1st-4th jhāna, pause
attachment of five strings and mental factors which can drop the
quality of concentration down to five strings world. The attained
people are going to reborn in the world without five string
attachment, but it still has forms, such as eyes to watch the form
to meditate rūpa-jhāna.
Formless jhāna (arūpa jhāna) - meditation of changing mind's attention form form's
concept world to formless world (arūpa-loka) to disable all form arising, which make rūpa jhāna&world still nearby five strings attachment. This meditation change
the object to detach from mind and mental factors (arūpa-loka) as
much as they can. However, it's useless, the number of mental
factors still be the same, 30 factors, from the 1st formless jhāna
to the 4th formless jhāna. The attained people are going to reborn
in the world without form, but it still have mind and mental factors
(nāma-khandha).
Three characteristic jhāna (lakkhaṇa-jhāna) - vipassanā; insight meditation. Meditation of changing mind's attention form all worlds to nibbāna
(cessation of world). The attained magga people  do not reborn any
more in maximum 7 rebirths.

Jhāna bases vipassanā, especially for the practitioner who attach five strings strongly (taṇhā-carita).
How to disable 5 sense attachment?
Keeping the sixth sense mind on concept object (paññatti;paṭibhāga-nimitta) by practice to change the the sixth sense memory of the five strings (kāmaguṇa) to concept object (paññatti;paṭibhāga-nimitta) then meditate that practice to go on for a long period, a hour or a day.
How to disable all form arising?
Keeping the sixth sense mind on the object which has no any relation with form (arūpa) by practice to change the the sixth sense memory of form concept (rūpa-paññatti;paṭibhāga-nimitta) to formless object (arūpa) then meditate that practice to go on for a long period, a hour or a day.
What is the problem?
The jhāna practitioner still keep the self attachment of their meditation mind&mind factors as "it's mine. It's  me, not the other. It's myself, so I can control it". This is the reason why we need Buddha.

See Ma.Mu. Cūḷasīhanādasutta, Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta, the path of purification in pathavīkasiṇa chapter and aruppā chapter, and this article.

I downvoted this answer. It is a nice text and possibly a good introduction to Dhyana (as you put in your title). But itit really doesn't answer anything about the question here about the formless realm.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
*"... not the physical lama, ... but your own nature of mind ... That's the real lama ..."* Is that actually a concept in vajrayana?
In a recent comment in a blog I've read the following remark:

"(...) Not the physical lama, not anything or anyone outside of yourself, but your own nature of mind, the true nature of reality. That’s the real lama; that’s the essential point in the vajrayana ‘system of practice’, and that has nothing to do with a bully on a throne teaching you. His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, (…)
(...) His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, once you have that recognition, you no longer need the physical lama.(...)”

I asked in that blog for a source of this (in case it is more than a personal idea, of course) but it seems I could not find the attention of the writer so far.  So I ask in this forum:

Q: is this a statement which I can find in some scripture? Or, something from which it follows more or less immediately? Or is it merely the expression of an individual's conclusion?

Motivation: I've nearly no knowledge of tibetan buddhism (I like the reading in the pali-canon, in some older zen-literature and feel strongly connected with the way of Thich Nhat Hanh), and am getting in contact with it currently only initiated by my following of some blogs which concern themselves with the recent revelations of misuse and misconduct by teachers (and their inner circles). The above statement surprises me in recollection of all what I've heard and read of guru-orientated buddhism and makes me curious, whether this is really a basic or at least derivable conception.
(Ahh, nearly forgot: just for reference  comment-in-blog)

In Tibetan Buddhism there are many different lineages, broadly grouped into several categories known as schools or traditions. The exact details of the Dharma passed down from teacher to student in large degree depends on a particular lineage. In a more abstract sense, an overall teaching style is determined by the school. And then finally there are elements common to all of Tibetan Buddhism.
Then, within each school & lineage, there are different levels of presentation, targeted at students of different maturity levels.
There is a commonly held understanding among Tibetan Buddhism teachers and senior students, that the basic levels of Dharma are more focused on the outer forms of practice and simplistic concepts of teaching, to help complete beginners and outsiders get a "Micky-Mouse"-level introduction, before they can start delving into the real thing.
In my understanding the cult of the guru (formally known as the "guru-yoga") and the endless emphasis on compassion both belong at this basic level, along with some rather highly religious elements, and then, as the students mature, they are gradually introduced (or, rather, are allowed to discover for themselves) the progressively more direct teachings, with gradually less emphasis on the outer forms and gradually more focus on the inner personal practices of groundlessness, wakefulness, sobriety and composure.
Specifically, this idea that "your own mind is guru" is very well-known at the higher levels of teaching in Kagyu and Nyingma lineages (Mahamudra and Dzogchen respectively).
For example, here is a verse passed down Shangpa Kagyu lineage since ~12th century:

...
  Yes, gurus do point out how things are,
  But the guru who is natural being is within.
  Mind that is my guru, here is how you are:
...
  I can’t see, hear, taste, smell or touch you:
  You are not a thing, yet you are the source of all experience.
  Try as I may, there’s nothing I can point to and say, “That’s you!”
  But when I sit and don’t look for you, you are present in everything.
...
  Because you aren’t anywhere, you arise as anything anywhere.
  Yet you don’t belong to any one place.
  So, while you are not anything I can point to,
  You are my guru!
...
  Oh, mind that is my teacher,
  I meet you by recognizing what I am.
  I pray to you by letting go of doubt and hesitation.
  I revere you by letting go and settling naturally.
...
  I serve you by resting continuously in how things are.
  I provide you with food by resting without strain in empty clarity.
  I provide you with drink by knowing attention and distraction make no difference.
  I clothe you by knowing appearance and sound as enchantments.
...
  I have studied with many capable gurus:
  Each guru has given me his or her own advice.
  All advice comes down to one point – mind!
  So, mind that is my guru,
  I look at you, listen to you, and seek your instruction again and again.
...
  By doing so, I know directly that mind is the guru.
  Because this knowing arises internally,
  When I see writings that contradict or conflict with my experience:
  I consider the meaning, not the words.

Thanks Andrei, that's a great answer. I've to give it surely a bit of more time to get it settled well. I think it is also meaningful to set the accept-mark.

In many Buddhist traditions, including Zen, the teacher will state at the beginning of the relation with a student that he/she has nothing to teach. There is no "big secret" that is handed down from teacher to student. In Zen, this is referred to as "transmission outside the scripture" as the teaching is based on personal experience of the Dharma, not literature or knowledge. That is what is meant here as well. The teacher can only point you to something, but you have to experience it yourself. What is meant by "once you have that recognition, you no longer need the physical lama" is analogous to the Buddha's parable of the raft:

A man traveling along a path came to a great expanse of water.
As he stood on the shore, he realized there were dangers and discomforts all about.
But the other shore appeared safe and inviting.
The man looked for a boat or a bridge and found neither. But with great effort he gathered grass, twigs and branches and tied them all together to make a simple raft. Relying on the raft to keep himself afloat, the man paddled with his hands and feet and reached the safety of the other shore. He could continue his journey on dry land.
Now, what would he do with his makeshift raft? Would he drag it along with him or leave it behind? He would leave it, the Buddha said. Then the Buddha explained that the dharma is like a raft. It is useful for crossing over but not for holding onto, he said.

Hmm, I voted this up because of the work you did. But I really wanted to know what the source might be for that remark of a student of tibetan (vajrayana) buddhism. I mean, a reference to official writing. Not some consideration I could really do myself (I know a lot more about Zen and even more about the Palicanon than about tibetan schools, that's the problem here)

@GottfriedHelms, I took Zen as an example because I'm most familiar with it as well, but Vajrayana has the same concepts: the transmission of teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student (= transmission outside the scripture). Yes, it's more esoteric than Zen, but just like Zen it uses allegory, symbols and metaphores to "point to the moon". Anyway, I just felt the question transcends both lineages and the answer is very similar in both.

This book mentions "self/reality as teacher"

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


text:
How does one know which kamma-cetana and action is related to which kamma-vipaka being experienced?
For instance if I go to a forest and a dog bites me on my leg while there.
How do I know whether:
example 1:
a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life
or
b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being in that forest
?
example 2:
I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later.
How do I know whether:
c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did.
or
d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did.
?

Puthujjanas sure are obsessed with karma. Do not forget that the goal of the dhamma, expressed in terms of karma, is to end karma, not ''to know the precise workings of the karma'', not ''precise workings of the karma+ending karma''. THe only goal is to end karma.
Even if you manage to know the ''precise workings of the karma'', you still begin the path by relying, hour after hour, less and less on what is conditioned, typically karma, vedana, vinanna, birth, ageing, contact, and so on in order to base your action on something else than karma. And knowing the 'precise workings of the karma'' is not part of the method to end karma.
That being said, the buddha claims that indeed there are things that must be known

[5] "'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play
should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of
kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The
path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it
has been said. In reference to what was it said?
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the
cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced
in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three
sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which
arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that.
This is called the result of kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is
the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right
view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the
cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of
kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of
kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of
kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the
cessation of kamma.
"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play...
The diversity in kamma... The result of kamma... The cessation of
kamma... The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be
known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said.
Nibbedhika Sutta -- Penetrative (AN 6.63)

just like sanna, feeling, and all the other stuff which are conditioned should be know , their arising and their cessation.
In one word, puthujjanas and non-arhants must strive to know all this. In this sutta, the buddha does not say the method to know all those things. This sutta is about the goal expressed in terms of knowledge. This sutta is about the discrimination of teachings: there a teachings which are not the dhamma and there are teachings which are the Dhamma explanation. The buddha says all the things and only the things that constitute a ''Dhamma explanation''
SO to know karma, you must find another sutta. In the first sermon of the buddha, the buddha claims he directed his citta to know karma and rebirth [meaning, the diveristy of karma and the result of karma]
it turns out that even for other puthujjanas, knowing karma is about getting the citta into samadhi:
Here is a little exposition about samadhi.

The Samādhi Bhāvanā Sutta (A 4.41) mentions four uses or benefits of
mental concentration (samādhi), 1 namely, (1) for happiness here and
now; (2) for the divine eye 2 (clairvoyance and knowledge of the
working of karma); (3) mindfulness and clear comprehension; and (4)
spiritual liberation.
...
“The perception of light” (āloka,saññā) here is prescribed for the attainment of “knowledge and vision,” defined as the divine eye (that is, the psychic power of clairvoyance and the knowledge of the working of karma and rebirth). However, the perception of light is also efficacious in a more mundane way, such as the overcoming of drowsiness, as prescribed in the Pacalā Sutta (A 7.58). In psychological terms, the perception of light is also useful in keeping the mind “bright” in a positive sense, which pre-vents or cures depressive and negative mental states
The Samādhi Bhāvanā Sutta  (A 4.41)

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be  an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.

If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.

Well I like the approach of focusing on "the mind" because it seems a lot more robust and simpler.
The problem that still seems to remain (at least for me) is that it seems it sometimes isn't clear to me whether I have done something bad or not if there is no instant kamma-vipaka to indicate it and then I am left guessing or perhaps attributing the wrong kamma-vipaka to my past actions which means I might even stop doing something good because I think the consequences are bad.

@Angus See the five niyamas (buddhism), especially here (which says that "100% karma" is Jain doctrine rather than Buddhist) and here -- for example, this quotes SN 36.21 as saying that "all experiences ... is caused by what was done in the past" is overshooting, and mentions e.g. "change of climate" as a different kind of cause of things.


text:
How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant?
How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant?
Any suggestions? Recommendations?

It's good, in my view, to keep the perspective of looking for someone, a teacher by personal contact. I've recently come to the -a bit sarcastic, of course- reasoning that there might a tendency begin to occur to settle with video-stream-entering instead...

Into the Stream -- A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
and The Power of Judgment might help.
It's all a matter of having done what leads to blessings -- and "dwelling" in borderlands:

A monastery, traditional Wat (pi: vatta) is an outwardly borderland ...
A "borderland" is a "state" between home and homelessness, outer lands and noble domain ...

[DD, post not given for trade or any wordily exchange]

This @Medhiṇī seams to be... it's by an element that beings gather together, again and again... give a fool knowledge: all he would be able is to destroy his last little goodness....

@Medhiṇī I reversed this edit (see also Is the disclaimer necessary?).

Mirror of Dhamma:

Stream-entry is often called the arising of the Dhamma eye. What stream-enterers see with this Dhamma eye is always expressed in the same terms: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.

‘When you know for yourselves...’ --
The Authenticity of the Pali Suttas

A stream enterer understands that everything happens perfectly automatically according to conditions, and identity is only due to the illusion of unified experience.


text:
Did Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, Samantabhadra, and Kṣitigarbha exist before Śākyamuni?
In other words, did they exist first, and then Śākyamuni became a Buddha later on?

From a canonical perspective, Shakyamuni is one of many Buddhas (i.e. humans who attained satori) and many lived before him, so the answer would be yes.
According to Therevada, each Kalpa has 1.000 Buddhas. Theravada lists some of these as "the named Buddhas":

Vipassī (the 998th Buddha of the vyuhakalpa)
Sikhī (the 999th Buddha of the vyuhakalpa)
Vessabhū (the 1000th and final Buddha of the vyuhakalpa)
Kakusandha (the first Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)
Koṇāgamana (the second Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)
Kassapa (the third Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)
Gautama (the fourth and present Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)

In Mahayana, Amithaba was originally a monk called Dharmakāra in very ancient times (long before Shakyamuni).
From a historical research perspective, the Mahayana deities first appear in scriptures hundreds of years after Gautama's lifetime.

some addition: Maitreya seems to be the buddha after Gautama. Gautama is Śākyamuni. Vyuhakalpa is a Kalpa, and so is bhadrakalpa. According to Wikipedia, each regular Kalpa is 16,798,000 years long, and "a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years."

by the way, is Avalokiteśvara, et al, deity without being a human first? Śākyamuni and perhaps Kassapa and Maitreya are human first, and then became deity?

There's two perspectives on this: in Buddhist cosmology, someone who attains Buddhahood is no longer subject to Samsara. often depicted as the 6 realms. Avalokiteshvara and other Boddhisattvas are either regarded as inhabiting the Deva realm, or to be able to manifest in any realm. Buddhas are considered to be free of Samsara and therefore not in any of the 6 realms, or all of them - this varies between lineages. The other perspective is that Boddhisattvas manifest in any person who performs good acts or takes the vows.


text:
Passion or Meditation
I have a silly question following...
I have a passion for film making and also I like to meditate to attain peace. I am the cat on the wall right now. I have just a single life, so what should I choose between these both.
Go out and follow my passion or just be calm and meditate????

Why not both? You could follow your passion calmly and enjoy watching yourself do so. Human behaviour is endlessly fascinating and our own more so than most. .

Sometimes we may have to sacrifice one for the other, so that's why the question is posted.

How about combining both by doing film making on the topics of buddhist meditation and/or other wholesome humanist themes?

That's a great idea...

I would suggest that there nothing to prevent you doing both at the same time. Perhaps by meditation you just mean 'sitting', in which case what you say would be correct.

Mumonkan Case 35: Seijõ's Soul is Separated
Goso recounted:
  'During the T'ang dynasty, there lived a girl named named Seijo. Seijo
  was enamored by a boy named Ochu who lived in her town. The people of
  her village used to call them the "old couple" for everywhere that
  Seijo and Ochu went, they held hands and were inseparable. As Seijo
  grew up her father turned his attention to the question of a suitable
  husband for her and eventually selected a good and strong young man.
  But Seijo had no interest in him. She and Ochu had already promised
  their selves to each other.
The wedding went on as her father had planned and Ochu, unable to bear
  the prospect of witnessing the loss of his beloved, left the village
  without saying farewell. He took his boat and rowed into the night. As
  he rowed he noticed the outline of a figure running along the bank. He
  put into the shore to see who it was; and there was Seijo, tear
  stained and adamant. Together they traveled to a distant land where
  they lived as man and wife. Five years went by. Seijo gave birth to
  two girls. But though she loved Ochu and the children, she was weighed
  down by the dishonor she'd done to her father. All this she told to
  Ochu. And he admitted that he too longed for his homeland.
"Let us go back and beg forgiveness," he said.
And so they returned. At the port, Ochu left Seijo and the girls while
  he walked to the village. He went directly to Chokan's house,
  confessed the whole story, and bowed his head at their ungrateful
  behaviour. Chokan received him kindly.
"Which girl do you mean?" he asked.  "Your daughter Seijo," Ochu
  replied.  "That is not possible," Chokan said. "Seijo is here in the
  house with me. Since you left the village without bidding her farewell
  she has lain here; she lies here now."
Chokan took the mystified Ochu into the house. "She has not spoken
  since you left," he said. "It is as if she has been absent in mind, or
  drugged. Now I see that her soul left to follow you."  So saying, he
  showed Ochu into Seijo's room. Hearing the story, Seijo rose from her
  bed, still without speaking, and walked out into the village just as
  Seijo and her children stepped from the cart that had brought them
  from the port. The silent Seijo moved forward to greet her, and as she
  did, the two Seijos were united.'
Goso then said to his monks, "Seijõ's soul is separated from her being. Which was the
  real Seijõ?"
Mumon's Comment
  When you realize what the real is, you will see that we pass from one
  husk to another like travelers stopping for a night's lodging. But if
  you do not realize it yet, I earnestly advise you not to rush about
  wildly. When earth, water, fire, and air suddenly separate, you will
  be like a crab struggling in boiling water with its seven or eight
  arms and legs. When that happens, don't say I didn't warn you!
Mumon's Verse
       The moon above the clouds is ever the same;
       Valleys and mountains are separate from each other.
       All are blessed, all are blessed;
       Are they one or are they two?

So this is the koan that ends marriages, gets people to quit their jobs, and even results in others giving up their practice entirely.  Luckily, in your case, you probably haven't yet made a decision that'd force you into a similar situation.  Hooray!  :-D
A lot of people are drawn to Buddhism because they value a life of calm and peace.  I can't say I blame them.  Who wants to go around getting beat up in samsara with all of it's ups, downs, disappointments, and intense passions when an alternative is available!  But this is kind of a lie, isn't it?  Buddhism really doesn't work that way.  The real purpose of sitting isn't to find calm, but rather to open ourselves to our Buddha nature.  Sometimes that will result in peaceful states of mind, but more often than not, the more we open ourselves up, the more intimate we become with our own internal obstacles.  Instead of calm, we find turmoil.  Instead of peace, a storm rages within.  This can be a little disheartening at first.  When the peace dries up and we are left on the cushion, steeped in sweat and facing down all our internal bullshit, there is always a feeling that we must be doing something wrong.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
The question I'd ask of you is which of your two choices really rips open your heart and puts you in touch with your Buddha nature?  Is it the path of following your passion, of facing the headwinds of samsara straight on both on the cushion and in your day to day life, or does your Buddha nature lie waiting at the end of the path of peace and calm?  Down which road can you hear the singing of your heart?
Which Seijo will you be?  If the path you take is the one that opens you up to your Buddha nature, you have the opportunity never to be separated.

I have the same question too. Just getting to the stream that will take you to the destination. It is a gradual training. Do both with equal importance without attachment. But for the benefit of you and others. Follow your gut feeling.


text:
According to Theravada tradition, was Siddharta Gautama illuminated after meditating under the Bodhi tree?
I just found out what seems to me as a contradiction under Theravada tradition:
When Siddharta Gautama meditated under the Bodhi tree, I understand ho achieved illumination, he reached the Nirvana.
But Theravada tradition says that one cannot reach Nirvana while the five aggregates exist, since them are dukkha. Theravada traditions says that when one reaches Nirvana, one ceases to exist. Obviously, Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree.
My understanding is that after that meditation, Siddharta Gautama reached full understanding of the Samsara, and the path to liberation, but chose not to reach illumination, because he wanted to share what he learned.
Is that the case? Or how otherwise do Theravada explain that Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree?

According to Theravada tradition, was Siddharta Gautama illuminated after meditating under the Bodhi tree?
There's a summary here:

The Buddha and His Dhamma
Now he was alone, and complete solitude allowed him to pursue his quest undisturbed. One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.
For several weeks the newly awakened Buddha remained in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree ...

I think that's a paraphrase of what's said in several suttas, e.g. MN 26 and Ud 1.3, and others.
But Theravada tradition says that one cannot reach Nirvana while the five aggregates exist, since them are dukkha.
I don't think so.
The first noble truth (in SN 56.11) says, something like, that that the "clinging aggregates" or "grasping aggregates" are suffering (or if not "are suffering" then something like, "are unsatisfactory") ...

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

... that dukkha arises with craving ...

It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is,
yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṃ—
craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.

... and ceases with the cessation of craving (it doesn't say "with the cessation of the aggregates") ...

Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—
It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not clinging to it.
yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.

I think that "with nothing left over", there, doesn't mean "without aggregates", it means with no craving nor any tendencies that gives rise to craving, e.g. āsava and anusaya.
Conversely, the Buddha is liberated -- I think that's said or implied in so many suttas that it's difficult to choose one reference to cite, but see e.g. Why is the Buddha described as trackless?
Or how otherwise do Theravada explain that Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree?
I think that you're associating the Buddha with the aggregates, i.e. that you're arguing something like:

Siddharta Gautama is the aggregates
The aggregates didn't cease to exist
Therefore Siddharta Gautama didn't cease to exist

However identifying the aggregates as "self" is contrary to the anatta doctrine -- and the Anuradha Sutta for example says it's inappropriate to regard the Tathagata as being the aggregates, as being in the aggregates, as being without the aggregates.
I think that Theravada (and/or the Pali suttas) identify two types of nibbana, i.e. nibbana-with-remainder (with aggregates remaining) and nibbana-without-remainder -- the latter is called parinibbana, see e.g. the "parinibbana sutta" -- see also e.g. AN 4.23 which refers to anupādisesa:

From the night when a Realized One understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise.
Yañca, bhikkhave, rattiṃ tathāgato anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ abhisambujjhati yañca rattiṃ anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā parinibbāyati, yaṃ etasmiṃ antare bhāsati lapati niddisati sabbaṃ taṃ tatheva hoti, no aññathā.


text:
Buddhism Perspective on Frustration
I noticed I rarely get mad at people, but when I engage in a task, I get extremely frustrated when things go wrong. My head hurts, I despair (e.g. this is pointless, worthless), and often avoid the task.
1) What is this? What is it caused by?
2) What is the remedy to such frustration?

From the perspective of training I received, this is a (very) obvious case of "attachment" - to things being "right", and likely also to success and praise.
I suspect, your frustration and anger are your reactions to dukkha generated when in your mind there is a mismatch between your expectation of how the task is supposed to proceed, and how it actually goes.
In my understanding, there are two steps here: one, attachment to an idea of things going perfectly generates dukkha; and two your aversion to dukkha generating frustration and anger. I would not be surprised if there were an element of self-reflection going on as well. As in, thoughts like "why don't other people run into these problems and I do?" or "this is my bad luck". And probably some reverse projection of these back onto the world e.g. "I'm running into these issues because someone else did a sloppy job." and/or "This world is broken! Things never go right and everything is in a mess! It's hopeless!"
From Buddhism's perspectives these are all pathological thoughts rooted in attachment, aversion, and confusion. The root of all this is ignorance - an incorrect expectation of how things are supposed to work, based on an incorrect (overly simplified!) idea of how things work in general.
So, naturally, the remedy is to meditate on how things work!

why exactly things don't go perfectly?
where do the obstacles come from?
if it's the other people who did it imperfectly, why could they not do it perfectly?
what are all the factors at play?
can things ever be perfect?
what is "perfection" anyway, and does my mind play the role in defining it?
is my definition of "perfection" truly objective, or is it partially biased and somewhat one-sided?
aren't things already perfect in some global sense?
does my attachment to idea of how things should be, that leads to frustration, does it help me or others?
does being in a frustrated state lead to my long-term happiness?
when things go different from my idea of how they were supposed to, can I learn to not lag behind reality in my mind and to keep updating my idea to always match reality?
if I learn to stay in sync like that at all times, would I not be stable and at peace?
could it be that this is what Buddhism is actually about?

The last question is obviously a leading question on my part, sorry about that ;)
But yes, analysis like this, and resulting change in perspective is how these things are to be resolved, in my opinion.

Quoting a topic on Dhamma Wheel:

From MN 20:

Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome

And Ven. Bodhi's note:

MA: When thoughts of sensual desire arise directed towards living beings, the “other sign” is the meditation on foulness (see MN 10.10); when the thoughts are directed to inanimate things, the “other sign” is attention to impermanence. When thoughts of hate arise directed towards living beings, the “other sign” is the meditation on loving-kindness; when they are directed to inanimate things, the “other sign” is attention to the elements (see MN 10.12). The remedy for thoughts connected with delusion is living under a teacher, studying the Dhamma, inquiring into its meaning, listening to the Dhamma, and inquiring into causes.

The first quote (from MN 20) and probably the second are taken from Bikkhu Bodhi's THE MIDDLE LENGTH DISCOURSES OF THE BUDDHA.


text:
Ānāpānasati (mindfulness of breathing) -- concentrate on nose, or on whole body?
I am meditating for the last three months, about 30 mins a day (or a little longer than that). I followed Ajahn Brahm's "Basic Method of Meditation" to bring the mind to be in the present relatively steadily (still it wanders, but not like when I started the practice). I started with trying to quiet the mind (too much internal thought etc.) by keeping my attention sometimes on the breath, sometimes on a sound without strictly sticking to a single meditation object. My understanding of Ajahn Brahm's description of the first stage was to bring the mind to the present and then make it quiet.
Now I am kind of there, I am trying to figure out how to proceed. Meditation books recommend keeping your attention at the tip of the nose, but my mind is naturally drawn towards knowing the breathing as a whole (through most parts of the body, chest area, belly and sometimes the face also). I tried to go back to paying attention to the nose, but it made the meditation really hard. When I came back to the whole body experience, it was easier. Just wondering whether I am doing this wrong. If so, how should I proceed?
I am particularly interested in knowing whether this way of meditation is what Buddha mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta when he says:
"'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself.

I described ānāpānapabba at https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24514/10100

In this context, body is used to refer to the gaseous nature of rupa of which the breath is made of.

My understanding of Ajahn Brahm's description of the first stage was to bring the mind to the present and then make it quiet.

Correct.

Now I am kind of there, I am trying to figure out how to proceed. Meditation books recommend keeping your attention at the tip of the
  nose...

You seem to be abandoning the instructions of Ajahn Brahm. Ajahn Brahm does not teach to deliberately watch breathing at the nose.

my mind is naturally drawn towards knowing the breathing as a
  whole (through most parts of the body, chest area, belly and sometimes
  the face also). I tried to go back to paying attention to the nose,
  but it made the meditation really hard. When I came back to the whole
  body experience

The practise is to make the mind quiet; to abandon craving & abandon ambition. When the mind is quiet, the mind will feel the breathing where ever the mind naturally feels the breathing.

'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out,'
  thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I
  shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the
  activity of the body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains
  himself.

While the translation above is not accurate, it is good enough. It says to experience the "whole body" therefore there is no need to watch only at the nose-tip. When the breathing & body are eventually calmed, the mind will naturally converge towards the nose-tip.
The purpose of Buddhist meditation is not to manipulate phenomena. The purpose of Buddhist meditation is to practise letting go of craving & attachment. Ajahn Brahm has said "jhanas are states of letting go" (as Buddha taught in SN 48.9 and SN 48.10).
You should stick to the instructions of Ajahn Brahm and ignore other teachers (except me!).

Thank you very much for the clarification. In fact, I re-listened and re-read Ajahn Braham's method and realized what you mentioned. Letting the breath come to the awareness when the mind is quiet and in the present and be there with it. Also, thanks for the advice on ignoring others. Trying to follow many usually complicate things.

If you decide to follow a certain teacher's advice then stick to it faithfully. If after giving it a thorough trial, it doesn't bring progress, then look elsewhere. But we should take care to avoid listening to different teachers. Regards

The way I understand the object of Anapanasati is the breath.
So, Keep your attention on the breath whichever form is presented.

Although I scored your answer up, in reality, keep your attention on the quiet silent craving-free mind.

Of course it's hard!  ;-)  But for now, if it's helpful, you can keep focusing on the whole breath as it moves through your body.  Just remember that this is training wheel meditation.  Eventually, they need to come off.  Even focusing on the breath as it moves through the body - a consistent entity - isn't a stable focal point.  As your focus moves along with the breath, suffice it to say your mind is also moving.  For proper, stable meditation, the point of focus has to remain stable.  Your mind has to stay put.  And that's only going to happen if you pick a single point of meditation and stick to it.

Thank you. Just wondering, in the Sathipattana sutta, Buddha mentions (updated the answer) the meditator meditates focusing on the whole body after focusing on the in and out breaths, I was wondering whether my experience of breath was something similar.

LMAO!  You do NOT want to bring up that particular passage on here.  E.g. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2521/how-is-the-pali-phase-sabbakayapatisamvedi-assasissami-passasissamiti-sikkha/ .  Honestly, though, for now just work on developing your concentration.  Maybe in a couple of months consider whether you want to take up a vipassana or samatha practice.

I marked this answer down because of its conclusion. In reality, if the mind is to develop VIPASSANA (insight) of how the mind-body-&-breath are interrelated in relation to the arising & ceasing of stress and also insight of the impermanence & not-self of the breath, the mind must naturally follow & track the movement & sensations of the breath throughout the body.


text:
How does Buddhism see Islam?
I am a Muslim living far away from Myanmar. I always hear about the prosecution of Muslims in Myanmar. The Rohingya people are classified by the UN among the most prosecuted minorities in the world. There is a rich history of Muslims prosecution by Buddhists. I have read about Buddhists not liking Muslim rituals of animal slaughter. I have also read about individual cases of crimes supposedly committed by some Muslims. However, what I have read does not justify this massive retaliation by Buddhists, what makes me think that maybe there is something in Buddhism clearly against Islam and Muslims. Maybe it is not only a political issue.
I would like to know how Buddhism sees Islam and Muslims? How is Islam pictured in the eyes of Buddhism and Buddhists?

I'm sorry I have to close this question. It's an important topic, but it looks like a discussion, while this is a q&A site.

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

See also How can killing of Muslims by Buddhists in Myanmar be justified?, and, Is what is taught under the term “Radical Buddhism” consistent with Buddhist values?

@ChrisW Thank you. Very useful links, clear the issue totally up!. I was under a false impression by generalization due to my ignorance of Buddhism. It seems to me that radicals exist everywhere and true Buddhism does not accept violence.

I have no idea why this is on hold. Buddhists would see the Sufi tradition as the authentic heart of Islam. Al-Halaj and Rumi would be authentic teachers and Attar's 'Conference of the Birds' would be a sound teaching story. Thus Buddhist have no reason to deny the Sufi claim that they are the 'True followers of Mohammed', just as they would not need to deny the claim that Eckhart, de Cusa, Julian of Norwich and their like are true followers of Jesus. It is the dogma of these Churches with which Buddhists cannot agree, not the teachings of their founders. .  .     .

@PeterJ I think that Andrei doesn't really trust questions about other religions (i.e. other than Buddhism) -- see e.g. here. It's probably better if this site can't be used to post "your religion is wrong, only mine is right" kind of answers, so I don't mind if he wants to keep this topic closed. OTOH there's a new chat room here where you can still post an answer if you want to.

@ChrisW - I suppose that's a fair worry. It's a shame though, since it also stops us from discussing and exposing the unity of religion.

@PeterJ That's the other thing, i.e. this is a Q+A site, not a discussion site. but if you'd like to start to discuss it, the chat room is there.

I am very sorry to hear about the Rohingyas crisis. I have no knowledge how it is started. Does not matter how it started there is no justification to kill or displace innocent civilians.
Buddha never spoke about Christians or Muslims. Buddha was born 2600 years ago. Christ was born about 2000 years ago. Mohemed was born about 1500 years ago. Buddha had a great compassion for all beings. So-called Buddhist involve in killings are not true Buddhists. I had many great Muslim and Tamil friends.
I am glad you raise this question here to clarify your doubt, I suggest you start reading bit more about Buddhism.
Kind regards
SaratW

Thank you for your answer and compassion. Does this mean there is a good proportion of Buddhists who do not approve such killings? In accordance with @NuWin answer, I deduce there are also radical Buddhists (like radical Muslims) whose actions are unjustified by most Buddhists?

Of course. Sri Lankan government compensate for many Muslims suffered from recent clashes in Sri Lanka.

FYI,  Buddha was prophesied about Islam and Mohammad and that too in negative way.

Talking about Rohingyas puts your question in a completely different category. The conflict in Myanmar is a political conflict. Rohingyas are originally from Bangladesh. These people invaded Myanmar and slaughtered the people living in the bordering villages, putting their heads on spikes.  When the Myanmar army fought back to protect the citizens, suddenly some media in the West and some officers in the UN with vested interests started talking about human rights. Nowadays it's pretty common knowledge that Western powers use Human rights organizations as tools to create conflicts in countries.
If you did not talk about Rohingyas in your question, the answer would be that Buddhists see Islam in the same way as they see Christianity. It's just another religion based on the belief of an almighty, all creating, all compassionate God. That puts it under Sassatavada, one of the 2 fundamental misbeliefs.
Generally Buddhists are not against anyone's right to believe in whatever they want to believe. They do not put people in jail, stone people to death or butcher them just because they believe something different. But if you think that a Buddhist society will stay idle if you start grabbing their land and butchering them, you are in for an ugly surprise.

Thank you. Nice answer. You know many things are not obvious for people living thousands kilometers away. I understand from your answer that Buddhism does not have anything in particular against Islam and all what happens there relate in some way to history and political reasons and not because of religion. Purely from religious prespective, Islam, Christianty and Judism are the same in the eyes of Buddhism.

You're welcome!

I think your last sentence in the first paragraph generalizes your belief of Western civilization and you are indirectly falling into the same indiocracies as the OP.

@NuWin saying that western powers use human right organizations to create conflicts does not mean all western countries are involved in such crimes. It just means such behavior has become a clearly observable practice among Western powers. Besides, all western countries are not considered as western powers. I hope this clears it up for you.

@SankhaKulathantille No worries. TBH I do not disagree with your statement. This question is quite subjective and opinionated so IMO, by adding that statement it does not fulfill an entire objective answer.

That statement was added because a part of the question talks about Rohingya crisis. It's not purely a philosophical question.

I disagree with this answer for three reasons: the first paragraph makes claims about history (violence, migration, politics) that are off-topic (so can't be assessed/discussed) on this site but which may be misleading; the second paragraph implies that all theistic religions/beliefs are the same because they're theistic, conversely IMO a Buddhist might assess them e.g. according to the Kalama sutta; the third paragraph about Buddhists not killing people isn't entirely true in fact/history, though perhaps it ought to be.

@ChrisW it requires a political answer since the question states a political situation. It makes the answer no more off topic than the question itself. The second paragraph implies that Islam is fundamentally same as Christianity. It doesn't imply that all teachings in theistic religions are identical. The third paragraph starts with the word 'Generally'. So perhaps you ought to pay more attention to detail. :)

As a side note: I did not want a political answer. I wanted to know how Buddhism sees Islam from a purely religous view. My first part of the question about the Rohingya people was only to say why I am interested to know about Buddhism's view of Islam. However, all additions were indeed helpful and appreciated :)

I believe my answer covers all aspects of your question. If you wanted a purely religious answer, you could have left out the part about the UN and Rohinjya

People of any background, religion, etc may have opinions of a group but that does not mean the entire population has the same view. For example, radical Islamist kill in the name of Islam but other Muslims of the world do not accept or condone their actions.
The answer to your question is that Buddhism accepts all. Your happiness and liberation of suffering, no matter what religion or belief is the ultimate goal.