text:
Audio guided meditation recommendations?
I know how many of you feel about guided meditations, but I am introducing meditation to some fellow university friends, and one of them is telling me he is having an incredibly hard time while sitting in silence. He asked me for some audio guided meditations so that he can ease his way into silent meditation, and still be able to sit with us.
I have never used one before, so I have no idea. Would you have any to recommend?

The "How To Meditate" YouTube video playlist by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu is highly recommended. It includes both sitting and walking meditation. This is more like vipassana meditation based on the four foundations of mindfulness.
Another good YouTube video is "Guided Breath Meditation" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. This is more like a body scanning meditation.

This is great! Thank you so much for your suggestion

Unfortunately, Yuttadhammo's method of meditation is not as taught in the Suttas. For example, "cittanupassana" is not merely experiencing thoughts or formations, but moods and defilements. The third tetrad is not achieved easily.

Why not? Please see this page for details. For example "When happiness arises, one should create the clear thought, “happy.” When one feels peaceful or calm, one should create the clear thought, “peaceful,” or “calm” until that feeling goes away."

This has nothing to do with the four tretrads which are found in the Anapanasati Sutta. The last step of the 'Kaya' for example has Piti as its object, which resulted in a quite mind. Then, after Piti has arisen, it becomes the main object of meditation. This results in the transition from Kayanupassana to Vedanapassana. If the four tretrads really can be practised as you mentioned, how then do you explain piti in the kaya section or the last tetrad, 'Dhammanupassana"? Vipassana &Samatha go hand in hand. Vipassana is seeing the 5 aggregates as impermanent & non-self. This results in dispassion

This part of the video can be helpful(6:40-7:38): https://youtu.be/GDDY4gOexVA?t=400

The meditation video by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu is just basic formal meditation, based on the four foundations of mindfulness. It's meant for beginners. It covers the basics of the mindfulness of breathing and the basics of each of the four foundations of mindfulness. For the foundation of dhammas, it covers only the five hindrances. So, I think it is as taught in the suttas, just that it is at the basic level for the beginner. Furthermore, you should look at Satipatthana Sutta, not Anapanasati Sutta.

Ajahn Jayasaro has a lot of Dhamma talks, Q&As and guided meditation sessions. Just look up on YouTube.

Tell your friend to try out the headspace app. It's very beginner friendly and it helps create a sense on progression.
https://www.headspace.com/meditation-101/what-is-meditation

Nyom Pedros,
First Things First!
It's totally wise of your friend to seek after "audio guided 'meditation'" since path and right view does not come from 'meditation', but right meditation is caused by right view and comes naturally. And what is the cause of right view? Listening to the good Dhamma and having proper attention, since requiring to leave home, stand, at first place.
Hard to find the good Dhamma under so many wellness-Dhamma and trades of many kinds for favors... and hard to hold at this time proper attention, but here the advice of the Sublime Buddha how to get a "Audio guided meditation", the Buddhas recommendation on your question:

"There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion... The Way to Stream Entry

Certain guided meditations which are not just focusing on a certain marked, but on right view, a "tabu" under so called meditator, can be found at: https://www.dhammatalks.org/ and yes, also for the marked is plenty on food.
Maybe starting with a talk on basics like Generosity or even better in sound and script: Respect, Confidence and Patient
{Note: This is not given for any usual trade, exchange, stacks or Buddh-ism but simply to free one self and go beyond and may be deleted if not seeking for such here, i.e. not given for you.}


text:
Sensory Pleasure as a Hindrance on the Path
I recall reading, though I do not remember where, that jains and buddhists refrain from masturbation because it could cancel/hinder their spiritual progress. I somewhat wonder:
Does engaging in coarse pleasures as gluttonous eating or sexuality actively undo spiritual progress and virtue, or does it merely consist as a distraction and waste of time?
Thank you

The following quote comes from "Chapter Six: Daily Life" of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book entitled "How To Meditate".
Basically, the five precepts are an absolute must at all times for seriously practising lay persons and monks. Without them, your spiritual progress and virtue would be strongly hindered and possibly also undone. In this case, complete abstention is required.
On the other hand, overeating, oversleeping, too much entertainment and too much sex (without misconduct) are not as critical as the five precepts, though they would be a hindrance nevertheless. In this case, only moderation is required for a lay person, not complete abstention.
In addition, observance of the eight precepts from time to time is also recommended. This is the usual observance for meditation retreats.

First, it is necessary to discuss activities that are harmful to one’s
  mental clarity; activities one must avoid in order for the meditation
  to bring about sustained positive results.
As I explained in the first chapter, “meditation” is the mental
  equivalent to “medicine”. When taking medicine, there are certain
  substances one must avoid; substances that will either nullify the
  positive effects of the medicine or, worse, combine with the medicine
  to create poison. Likewise, with meditation there are certain
  activities that, due to their tendency to cloud the mind, have the
  potential to nullify the effects of the meditation or, worse, pervert
  one’s understanding of the meditation, causing one to cultivate
  unwholesome mind states instead of wholesome ones.
Meditation is meant to cultivate clarity and understanding, free from
  addiction, aversion, and delusion, and therefore free from suffering.
  Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.
First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome:

One must refrain from killing living beings. In order to cultivate one’s own well-being, one must be dedicated to well-being as a
  principle, refraining from killing any living being, even ants,
  mosquitoes and other living beings.
One must refrain from theft. In order to find peace of mind, we must grant it to others as well; stealing is a denial of this basic
  right to security. Further, if we wish to be free from addiction, we
  must be able to control our desires to the extent of respecting the
  possessions of others.
One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to
  others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a
  cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
One must refrain from telling lies. If one wishes to find truth, one must avoid falsehood; intentionally leading others away from the
  truth is harmful both to oneself and others and incompatible with the
  goals of meditation.
One must refrain from taking drugs or alcohol. Any substance that intoxicates the mind is obviously contraindicative to meditation
  practice, as it is the antithesis of a natural, clear state of being.

Complete abstention from these activities is necessary if one wishes
  for meditation practice to be successful, due to their inherently
  unwholesome nature and the invariably negative effect they have on the
  mind.
Further, there are certain activities that must be moderated or they
  will interfere with meditation practice. These are activities that are
  not necessarily unwholesome in and of themselves but will nonetheless
  inhibit clarity of mind and lessen the benefit of the meditation
  practice when undertaken in excess.
One such activity is eating; if one wishes to truly progress in the
  meditation practice, one must be careful not to eat too much or too
  little. If one is constantly obsessed with food, it can be a great
  hindrance to progress in meditation since not only does it cloud the
  mind, over-eating leads to drowsiness, both in the body and mind. One
  should eat to stay alive rather than stay alive simply to eat. During
  intensive meditation courses, meditators eat one main meal per day and
  suffer no negative physical consequences as a result; whereas the
  positive effects of such moderation are clarity of mind and freedom
  from obsession over food.
Another activity that interferes with meditation practice is
  entertainment – watching movies, listening to music, and so on. These
  occupations are not inherently unwholesome but can easily create
  states of addiction when undertaken in excess.
Addiction is a form of insobriety in a sense, since it involves
  chemical processes in the brain that inhibit clear thought and clarity
  of mind. Since the pleasure that comes from entertainment is momentary
  and unsatisfying while the addiction and obsession carry over into
  one’s life, a serious meditator should determine to make the best use
  of their short time in this life by cultivating peace and contentment,
  rather than wasting it on meaningless activities that don’t lead to
  long term happiness and peace. If one wishes to find true happiness,
  one must therefore moderate one’s engagement in entertainment.
  Socializing on the Internet and similar activities should be
  undertaken in moderation as well.
The third activity one must moderate is that of sleeping. Sleeping is
  an addiction that is often overlooked; most people don’t realize how
  attached they are to sleep as a means of escape from reality. Still
  others become insomniac, obsessed with the thought that they are not
  getting “enough” sleep, leading to increased stress levels and further
  difficulty in falling asleep.
Through the meditation practice, one will find that one needs less
  sleep than before since one’s mind will become calmer. Insomnia is not
  a problem for meditators since they are able to meditate even in the
  lying position and keep their minds free from stress. People who have
  difficulty falling asleep should train themselves to watch the stomach
  rise and fall, noting “rising”, “falling”, all night if necessary.
  Even if they are not able to fall asleep (which is unlikely, given the
  calm state of mind while meditating) they will find themselves as
  rested as if they had slept soundly through the night.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that to truly gain results in the
  meditation practice, a meditator should set aside at least a period of
  time to remain entirely celibate, not just avoiding immoral sexual
  activity, since all sexual activity is invariably intoxicating and
  will be a hindrance towards attainment of mental clarity and peace.

The mind is an organ of habits and reactions. Those habits and reactions appear after sense contact, and it is based on the before learnt patterns of the mind. In turn, those patterns become ingrained due to repeated intentional behavior.
What I just mentioned is a -shallow- summary of kamma (intentional deeds) and the effect on the mind, in short and long term.
It's hard to know when will the mind establish a pattern, and when that pattern will become an habitual tendency, which is the source of habitual reactions and responses.
The mind is like a glass of water, but we don't know how filled it is. That's why we should be wise, prudent and cautious, because we don't know how much water does it take to overflow that glass; maybe it takes a lot of it, or maybe a few drops.
We don't know when our past actions will gave fruition to their consequences. We don't know exactly how the past kamma has influenced our minds and our habits/responses. We don't know for sure how will a new act affect our past kammic story.
In the Dvedhavitakka Sutta, it is said:

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
  becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with
  renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will,
  abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that
  thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
  imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness,
  his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
Have a wonderful day!

This answer doesn't address the above question

@Val   Hmm. I feel it's a good answer  it seems to suggest that the pursuit of sensuality hinders progress and may undo previous progress.

IMO it's saying that canonically our intentions after sense-contact create mental habits and reactions, which results in e.g. "thinking imbued with sensuality" (instead of e.g. "thinking imbued with renunciation " which "fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding"). I guess it says it doesn't "undo" spiritual progress, but that it is not the condition that allows the purification of the mind and spiritual progress from there. This answer says we also don't know how much sensuality might too much i.e. perhaps enough to be habit-forming, or to cloud not purify the mind.

Being at least temporarily celibate is required for intensive practise which can lead a person to enlightenment in a short period of time. Temporary celibacy and intensive mindfulness practise all day long with effort can lead a person to enlightenment in a short period of time. So refraining from sexuality and sensuality in general can make the spiritual progress easier. Ven. Yuttadhammo's teachings can be helpful for the people who has an intention to start an intensive practise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Lg9P-VekA
But most of the human actions can't stop progressing in the path or even attaining enlightenment(except things like hurting others etc. can lead a person to hell or hell-like future lifes instead of Nibbana), so it is better to not to see life through some of the belief systems wrong and harmful ideologies. Buddhism is not about suppression but is about understanding things as they are and becoming free from any kind of attachments.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Attachment vs legitimate need
I heard a talk by Ajahn Amaro that says that wherever I encounter dukkha, it is a sign that there is an attachment involved, that I can let go of and this way free myself from the dukkha.
https://youtu.be/-h_O_SuKOKE?t=2823
But this way, what prevents me from laying down and dying from hunger or thirst - if I feel hunger, it may be dukkha from my attachment to food, or to survival...
What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?
Thanks for answering a noob question.

Hi Alex! I suggest you to read this sutta. It can point you to the direction of the answer: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html

Nyom Alex,
"What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?"
Whats a legitimate need? One one would tolerate because having still the same incapacity, like laws are usually made, or common-society conducts. Desires are endless and most cause harm. Therefore better to actions than "material" things or fruits.
The Dhamma is not about "rights" but about "duties" to be fulfilled if wishing for certain aim. No right and legitimizations of improper given!
A legitimate action (by thoughts, words or deeds) is one that does neither take live, take others possession, takes away the truth, takes sensuality from others, takes away ones heedfullness (i.e. the precepts). That's probably not so good matched if just saying "let go" and the precepts help that defilements would not have a change to cheat and argue.
What then might be left as attachment, fine. One might just look inside in a more refined way, since dukkha would probably again arise.
As the Buddha told: it's much better to bear dukkha then to break the precepts.
And at least one could go just for alms. That's the highest way of conduct to provide ones "needs" (4 paccaya) to be able to cross to the other shore and/or to give others a possibility to make good and fruitful merits (to get a little bond to liberation).
Train Your Hunger (The Sea Squirt) might be a useful talk in addition here.
And what worth would it have to just let go before really free of Dukkha? It's most legitimate to seek for overcoming all Dukkha, since it benefits all, incl. oneself. Proper way (without violating precepts) to maintain one body (for ones safety here and later) and the entertainment of mind, livelihood for the mind, is also important, best if dwelling in Jhana 3+ or talk, deeds around Dhamma.
{Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and other entertaining's of and for the world but for release from bounds.}
And expanded answer and space for which might be no space here, like discussing, asking back... share ones merits..., can be found here.

Thanks a lot! I was very happy to read this talk - very inspiring and clarifying things! And also directly answers the question I asked!

+1 for the talk link.

In modern terms, Buddhism defines dukkha as a state of mind that is in conflict between "is" and "should". The logical opposite of dukkha is a state of peace and harmony with no such conflict.
The conflict between "is" and "should" can be resolved in one of three ways:

By changing the "is" (acting externally)
By changing our perception of "is" (acting internally)
By changing our idea of "should" (acting internally)

Now, when it comes to acting (whether internally or externally) all our actions and choices can be broadly classified in two types:

Those that lead to eventual peace and harmony.
Those that explicitly or implicitly provoke / sustain the state of unsatisfaction and cyclic pursuit.

When you feel hunger, would suppressing the hunger lead to peace (of health) or to unsatisfaction (of sickness)? It depends on your dietary condition, of course. If you are overweight, abstaining from food intake may have a positive effect on your overall health. Alternatively, would acting externally to obtain food lead to peace or would it lead to trouble? It depends on how you obtain food, doesn't it? If you steal it, it would lead to short-term peace but long-term suffering.
This is the basic formula of Buddhist karma.
What's called "attachment" in Buddhism refers to a mistaken idea about either the "is" side or about the "should" side, due to some sort of misinformation or overgeneralization. For example, in case of hunger, attachment could be an invalid idea about priorities. You could be mistakenly prioritizing feeling of cheap satisfaction from eating pastries or fast food over genuine goodness of healthy diet. Or, on the opposite end of spectrum, it could be an invalid idea about spirituality vis-a-vis fasting - that extreme fasting leads to spiritual breakthroughs etc. In short, attachment is always some kind of irrational idea the person is stuck on.
Like, when you're in love and the person is irreturnably gone, an irrational idea (attachment) would be to keep wanting the person back. Or as you get old an irrational idea (attachment) would be to keep wanting to stay young. That kind of stuff.
Why do we get stuck on irrational ideas? Because they carry emotional significance to us. They bring us a (fake) sense of comfort. They help us sustain a comfortable image of ourselves (Ego) and its mirror projection, comfortable image of the World. So in a way, attachment to irrational ideas is a primitive coping mechanism against dukkha, just not a very efficient one. Sooner or later, reality gives us a wake up call, and then we get hit by dukkha really hard. So holding on to attachments, to illusions, to an idealized image of self (ego), to generalizations about the world is definitely something that long-term leads to eventual suffering, not to peace.
Understanding this in practice was a big part of my own training back when I started. In Mahayana we are taught to prioritize the Global Good over individual gratification. From this perspective, any idea that we hold on to, out of a subconscious desire to protect our ego, as opposed to it being objectively-strategically-globally good, is considered an attachment.
So the rule of thumb for recognizing attachments is to ask yourself the following questions:

Will this lead to long-term good (peace, health, harmony) for myself and others? Or will it serve to sustain conflict, pursuit, and passions?
Is this truly objectively so or am I being biased because of subconscious desire to protect my ego or my generalizations?
Even if both 1 and 2 are true, what is my primary motivator? If it looks like it's genuinely good, but the reason I'm doing it is to congratulate myself on being holy and awesome, then it still counts as an attachment.

You have to question yourself really hard, especially regarding #2 and 3 - because the normal mind has a very strong tendency to not see its own biases.

Thanks for the detailed answer. Well it's really common sense that it's better to live in harmony, peace and health. The real trick is the question 2. Most of us don't harm others or indulge in things for the sheer fun of it, we do it with the best intentions or as a "necessary" evil. You know, should you become a meth lord to provide for your handicapped son types of rationalizations ;) What does buddhism have to say about overcoming these biases?

Buddhism teaches us to analyze things in depth, instead of getting stuck on superficial generalizations. In Mahayana Buddhism there's this thing called Emptiness, which basically signifies that everything we ever deal with is inevitably an abstraction subject to leaking. Once you really get this idea, you don't get attached.

It is possible that the body can feel hunger but the person can be mentally free from that hunger. Or the person can feel physical pain but can be mentally free from that physical pain. It's just "hunger" and "pain". Not "my hunger" or "my pain". That's how life is for the people who achieved these two goals: Becoming free from belief to self and completely disidentifying from it. Then people can rationally decide to eat food without mentally being attached to the food when their body feel hunger.

Yes, but how can I differ pain from "dukha" of pain, or differ pain from "my pain"?

If it were taken literally then your question would be related to Apocarteresis in Buddhism (and even to other topics, labeled suicide).
There is another religion, i.e. Jainism, with a practice or doctrine which may be like what you describe (i.e. Sallekhana) -- I don't know about Jainism, and it's even not on-topic on this site; but if that were meant as a holy death or something, I think that isn't Buddhist and that Buddhism is in contrast about life and how to "live the holy life".
The sutta MN 36 says that before the Buddha's enlightenment, he tried various practices -- including not eating, or eating very little, however ...

But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?

I think that hunger is treated as an illness and that you'd take food as medicine (and not e.g. for gluttony).
In the rules of monastic discipline, which Buddhist monks take on, there are some things considered "necessities" or "requisites" -- these include food (perhaps only each morning, not all day), clothing (kind of minimal though, i.e. pieces of cloth as robes), medicines (if needed and available), maybe shelter of some kind too, and a few trifles like a water filter, a bowl, razor, needle -- I think these are what are considered necessary for a monk to live and therefore what it's "allowable" for a monk to accept. Some other things too, I think a monk is allowed to accept a ride in a vehicle, my point is that some food (e.g. enough to live) is considered a necessity, a "legitimate need".
I'm not sure, maybe there's doctrine too which says that because you can't simply stop eating altogether, therefore the attachment to eating is harder to overcome (compared with other attachments perhaps to bad habits which you can simply try to simply stop altogether and live without).
I think too that doctrine says that in general (i.e. including but not limited to "eating") attachment arises as a result of e.g. delighting in something, for example:

You eat -- that's "sensory contact" with food
You "perceive" the sensory contact
You have feelings associated with the perception

If you "delight in" those feelings (e.g. "Oh yeah I love this, I love eating!") then that's a condition for the arising of "attachment", and I think you're meant to be "mindful" not to do that, which is one of the Buddhist practices and called "guarding the senses".
As for food in particular, here's a quote from a description of how a monk might use The Four Requisites:

Properly considering almsfood, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort.

Attachment is only one of a list of things that cause affliction. It could be any of the 3 root poisons: attachment, aversion, or delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons
Attachment is only one of the root poisons.
There are many systems in Buddhist teaching that can more narrowly define what aspect of a root poison could be causing dukkha (suffering)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism)
Unwholesome activities will cause suffering, wholesome ones lead to freedom. If you have a normally functioning conscience it should be possible to discern the difference.

Clearly, your physical body needs food, and water, and you must sustain your physical body if you are to continue fulfilling your mundane responsibilities in the six directions.
But... do you enjoy food and water?
My understanding of Buddhism is that, to be fully pursuing the dharma (at least as a non-householder, a monk, an arhat), you must attempt to give up enjoying all sensual pleasures, even those as benign and morally blameless as food and water.  (You also must give up disliking anything at all pertaining to your bodily existence: hunger, thirst, sickness, etc.  Giving up all likes and dislikes is called equanimity.)  Only then do you open up the possibility of being reborn in a higher state of existence, without base bodily needs.
The Buddha taught about the dangers of all sensual pleasures to his more enlightened disciples.  Aside from the three marks, suffering, impermanence, non-self, there is also the fact that bodily pleasures, and even bodily needs, are the sole cause of strife and conflicts.  Your innocent need for food and water could potentially put you in violent conflict with another person if food and water become scarce.
For that reason alone, one should not like food and water.  One should desire to eventually give up the need for food and water, which is possible only through rebirth in a immaterial realm, or total nibanna.

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


text:
Ignoring Someone as Wrongful Speech
I am in an odd situation. Someone I know, who was my friend, now seems to have developped feelings towards me. I wish to give her space, but we are in contact electronically and text. She is extremely distraught by this situation. I cannot help but feel angry when she messages me, for various reasons. I feel that sometimes, the best answer for me is to remain silent. But in doing so, she feels ignored, and suffers.
What is the best course of action in a situation like this? Is ignoring someone wrong speech in this case?

As a Buddhist, your boundaries & conduct in relationship should be clearly communicated. Just be honest with her.

There;s a sutta called "Insult" or "Abuse" i.e. SN 7.2.
I read that as the Buddha not being involved and not becoming involved in wrong speech. In the sutta the "wrong speech" was abuse (hostility) -- but I suppose that might be true of desire (attachment) or something too.
I note though that the Buddha was willing to talk to the Brahman -- and so, not exactly giving him what might be colloquially called the silent treatment. Incidentally I read a novel once with what I though was a memorable phrase -- "Silence is a text that's easy to misread" (it's not easy to understand silence and people add their own interpretations).
But not communicating when you're angry might be a good idea -- the same sutta says:

For one free of anger, tamed, living in balance,
  freed by right knowledge,
  at peace, poised:
  where would anger come from?
When you get angry at an angry person
  you just make things worse for yourself.
  When you don’t get angry at an angry person
  you win a battle hard to win.
When you know that the other is angry,
  you act for the good of both
  yourself and the other
  if you’re mindful and stay calm.
People unfamiliar with the teaching
  consider one who heals both
  oneself and the other
  to be a fool.

There's maybe a similar message in the Dhammapada:

One should give up anger, renounce pride, and overcome all fetters. Suffering never befalls him who clings not to mind and body and is detached.
He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.
Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.
Speak the truth; yield not to anger; when asked, give even if you only have a little. By these three means can one reach the presence of the gods.
Those sages who are inoffensive and ever restrained in body, go to the Deathless State, where, having gone, they grieve no more.

You say she was a friend, was there any virtue in that relationship? Might it be possible to re-establish, to agree on, a virtuous relationship?
One of the things I noted from this answer was,

Find wise people who cause no fear or worry

Maybe that's something to aspire to, with friends as well as (or instead of) with a marriage partner -- i.e. try to "cause no fear or worry" (and ask that from your friends).
I think that Buddhism has more-or-less four levels of behaviour, from worse to better:

Harming yourself and others
Benefiting others and harming yourself
Benefiting yourself and not benefiting others
Benefiting yourself and others

I'd think that typically silence isn't wrong speech -- and is, presumably, better than wrong speech would be -- I'm not sure whether it benefits "self and others" in this case.

One other thing is that you wrote, "she feels ignored". Relationship counselling is difficult for anyone (including me) especially at such a remote distance as this and with so little information (input) from both people involved. I think you might be right that "she feels ignored", or you not might be -- perhaps you're guessing (inaccurately), or even if she said that herself maybe it's not the most accurate or useful description. Perhaps instead, she feels misunderstood ... or deprived (of a virtuous relationship) ... or insulted somehow, I don't know
Anyway people do or can become entangled in personal relationships and it's probably a good idea to chose your friends wisely. Still if you are or were a friend then perhaps an ideal is to be the same in happiness and sorrow.

Finally I once heard that a relationship counsellor (not Buddhist, and I'm not sure he was even effective either) said, "You're not responsible for the feelings of others". I guess a Buddhist view might be that a person's feelings are their inheriting a fruit of their own karma, which is related to a doctrine of "equanimity" in a social relationship (where "equanimity" is one of the four brahmaviharas which I think are meant to guide or motivate social relationships).
I interpret that i.e, "you're not responsible", as meaning, "don't let anyone guilt-trip you into doing things" (e.g. "if you don't give me everything I ask for then you're hurting me").
There's Buddhist doctrine about "shame" -- i.e. that the ability to feel shame is beneficial, because people avoid doing shameful things (things which they should and ought to feel ashamed of) in order to avoid the feeling of shame.
I'm not sure that's the same as "guilt" though, which I think of as "I accuse you". I don't think that "I accuse you" is a skilful part of a relationship, whether she's doing that to you or whether you're doing that to her.
It reminds me, my mum and my wife were both preschool teachers, in preschools, classes for young children. Anyway I think that they tended to "guide" children's behaviour by telling them what behaviours the teachers expected, reminding them, maybe pointing out children who were behaving well (e.g. if Jane or Michael is being helpful then, "Jane, thank you for doing X" instead of "Henry you shouldn't be doing Y" or "Henry why aren't you doing X"). Apparently children are a bit, I don't know, I'd call it "random" in their  behaviour -- they try different things, don't know what's what, don't even understand themselves very well, but maybe it's inconvenient to have a relationship that's based n "negative" feedback.

I think this may not related to unwholesome speech. Just be careful and be mindful in dealing with things that trigger your anger. In few cases silent is best option. Most cases it's better to tell openly with minimum effect to the other side. But if this is not done wisely, not in proper time and place it might create mental or physical harm. Raga, Lobha, Māna, Dosa and Moha are main root cause of all being suffering. So it's hard to deal these things without Pañña. You don't like her so you clearly don't want her . From her side it's the opposite. She'll try her best to have you because she like you so much. Who knows how many times this had happened to both of you in Samara cycle. Clearly know/understand LIKE and DISLIKE. See the drawbacks and danger in them. You will slowly losing interest in them. After that you go beyond. Then you can break the cycle.

One might ignore this answers message, so be careful here!
Another try in Alice in wonderland, feeling disturbed by Alice, to excuse by asking others to confirm the votes of defilements?
Even your question here might be wrong speech, Humpty Dumpty. A good name by the way. Caught by the tricks of defilements.
If someone sends you advertising, saying "come, make a trade for it", and one knows that it would no trade for long term happiness, would he take the offer?
It's of course wrong speech (giving signs) to simply keep "others warm" thinking: " I might lose an opportunity to gain", fearing "If I show signs not going into this certain deal, he/she might stop offer at all and he/she could posssible offer this or that later on if thinking I am interested in trade."
That is why honesty comes before keeping up relations, Silas are not lower as pleasant dwelling like sheep .
On the other hand, one needs to be careful that defilement do not misuse this understanding as well. Thought of the Uposatha of the wolf. Difficult. And easy if honest to oneself first, but that is the difficult part.
See him falling from his wall?
How may good did you already tried to "kill" by ignoring it (them)? Many "Buddhists" are using abstain from giving signs as signs and as one is able to "kill trolls" one might "kill sages" by same means. Now this is not really breaking the silas (as outwardly rules) but much heavier, kamma by mind and even very deceitful.
Best wishes by an karuna, defilement's Jabberwocky
{Note: not given for trade, exchange, stackes... but only for liberation and bounds toward only this}


text:
is cessation of perception and felling the Nibbana?
Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato

See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?

tl;dr no. maybe unconsciously.

What Buddha's saying is that, through not taking base in any concept, abandoning all generalizations, letting go of all reference points, ceasing all reification -- all associative perception comes to a halt and with it all emotional reactions come to a stop, too.
Indeed, as perception is semiosis, it requires grasping at signs. When grasping at signs is abandoned, semiosis cannot continue. Since semiosis cannot continue, emotional reactions have no basis to arise on.
This sterile state is characterized by the complete absence of dukkha, the only (serious!) problem with it is that it's conditioned, impermanent, and limited.
However, attaining this state allows meditator to get the first-hand insight into the fact that our dukkha is mind-made and comes from comparison. Having seen that directly, one is emancipated from it, the illusion loses its power. This emancipation is the true Liberation by Wisdom, the non-abiding Nirvana.
The same state can be attained in Zen and Vajrayana artificially, for example by startling the student in the middle of a meditation session. When you are in this state, you are lucid and yet your mind is blank. When a normal mind begins to function again, as your first impression you can't help but notice the silliness (emptiness) of it all.

Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.

I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya

absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that

So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:

This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
   maññatī”ti.

This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
 ...

to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...

... instead of atammayatā.

I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.

Nibbana is a state that can not be described properly with the words, concepts. That's why Buddhism uses this indirect methodology to describe Nibbana or how to enter Nibbana etc. There is no perception or feeling in Nibbana in the terms of humanly, physical, mental perceptions or feelings. But ultimately Nibbana is beyond physical and mental. It is beyond form. It is the formless, unconditioned, unmanifested, timeless, deathless state. That's why ultimately it is not true to say that there is no perception or feeling in Nibbana. But because it is beyond the form, the perception and feeling in Nibbana can't be described correctly.That's why it is called neither being nor non-being. Also cessation of "perception" and "feeling" (humanly, physical and mental perceptions and feelings) is the way to enter to Nibbana. Nibbana is the birthless, deathless, timeless state. There is no beggining or end for Nibbana.
And when someone's defilements comes to an end, it is impossible to identify with anything again.
Monk Radio: What Happens at Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ntwkSWws8

Existence is momentary. One moment is one existence and it arises and it ceases. That doesn't happen in nibbana (that's really the easiest way to understand it). And since life itself is composed totally of those momentary experiences then there really is no such thing as a life that could end: there's only experiences which end every moment. And that doesn't occur, there's no more arising of those momentary experiences: of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking.

What is Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo

Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?

I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"

@ChrisW Sir, with dhamma nature Nibbana is one dhamma. But with the presence of five aggregates it's separated in to two as, Sopadisesha Nibbana and Anupadisesha Nibbana. Not-clinging aggregates are ceased in the Anupadisesha Nibbana. I suppose Ven. Yuttadhammo meant momentary existence of name and form (nama-rupa) by the word "existence", which subjected to arise (with the arisen of causes) and cease (with the cessation of causes).

It's a lot of work to show the line of inference and how each word is used but the commentary to this Sutta excerpt;

When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

Thanissaro explains in the footnotes;

According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

The support for this is based these excerpts;
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_7.html

Once, friend Ānanda, when I was staying right here near Sāvatthī in the Grove of the Blind, I reached concentration in such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire… wind… the dimension of the infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception… this world… nor of the next world, and yet I was still percipient.”
“But what, friend Sāriputta, were you percipient of at that time?”
“‘The cessation of becoming—unbinding—the cessation of becoming—unbinding’: One perception arose in me, friend Ānanda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, ‘The cessation of becoming—unbinding—the cessation of becoming—unbinding’: One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of ‘The cessation of becoming—unbinding.’”

https://suttacentral.net/mn64/

"He turns the mind to the deathless element : This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction".
  so tehi dhammehi citta.m pa.tivaapetvaa amataaya dhaatuyaa
  citta.m upsanharati:
  eta.m santan eta.m paniita.m
  yadhida.m sabba sankhaarasamatho,
  sabbupaddhi pa.tnissaggo,
  ta.nhakkhayo, viraago, nirodho nibbaana.n ti'-

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html

"This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant."
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.
  [...]
  there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html

Blessed One was instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.010.than.html

"There is the case, Sandha, where for an excellent thoroughbred of a man the perception[2] of earth with regard to earth has ceased to exist; the perception of liquid with regard to liquid... the perception of fire with regard to fire... the perception of wind with regard to wind... the perception of the sphere of the infinitude of space with regard to the sphere of the infinitude of space... the perception of the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness with regard to the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness... the perception of the sphere of nothingness with regard to the sphere of nothingness... the perception of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception with regard to the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception... the perception of this world with regard to this world... the next world with regard to the next world... and whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect: the perception of that has ceased to exist.
"Absorbed in this way, the excellent thoroughbred of a man is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
  Homage to you, O superlative man —
  you of whom we don't know even what it is
      dependent on which
      you're absorbed.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.nypo.html

..of the infinity of consciousness... of no-thingness... of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
  "If someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure? Here, by completely surmounting the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, a monk enters upon and abides in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime.
"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"

https://suttacentral.net/mn31/en/bodhi

Here, venerable sir, whenever we want, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, we enter upon and abide in the cessation of perception and feeling. And our taints are destroyed by our seeing with wisdom. Venerable sir, this is another superhuman state, a distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a comfortable abiding, which we have attained by surmounting the preceding abiding, by making that abiding subside. And, venerable sir, we do not see any other comfortable abiding higher or more sublime than this one.”
“Good, good Anuruddha. There is no other comfortable abiding higher or more sublime than that one.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn45.7/en/bodhi

Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.”
When this was said, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the Deathless, the Deathless.’ What now, venerable sir, is the Deathless? What is the path leading to the Deathless?”
  “The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Deathless. This Noble Eightfold Path is the path leading to the Deathless; that is, right view […].
  The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is the final goal of the holy life.”

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.080.wlsh.html

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html

'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.
(Similarly with the second, third, and fourth jhana.)
"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of the infinitude of space.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'
"Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'
"Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then — through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters — he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world.
"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of the infinitude of space.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.
(Similarly with the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness and the dimension of nothingness.)
"Thus, as far as the perception-attainments go, that is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two dimensions — the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception — I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them."

Ptsm, Nibbana-dhatu:

"There are two kinds of relinquishment through cessation:
  relinquishment as giving up, and relinquishment as entering into.
  It gives up defilements and aggregates, thus it is relinquishment as giving up;
  cognizance enters cessation which is the nibbana principle
  thus it is relinquishment as entering into.
  These are the two kinds of relinquishment through cessation."
Nirodhavasena dve vossaggaa:
  pariccaagavossaggo ca, pakkhandanavossaggo ca.
  Kilesa ca khandhe ca pariccajatiiti, pariccaagavossaggo;
  nirodhanibbaanadhaatuyaa cittam pakkhandatiiti.
  Pakkhandanavossaggo nirodhavasena ime dve vossaggaa.

I can summarize in short as i see it;

Nibbana refers to the element of the removal of taints in general. When people talk about the destruction of taints aka Deathless, they speak of Nibbana as in removal of taints.
Nibbana (destruction of taints) is pleasure where nothing is felt. Cessation of perception & feeling is pleasure where nothing is felt.
Seeing with intellect the cessation of perception & feeling destroys the taints. Signless concentration destroys the taints.
It is natural that one who attains cessation of perception & feeling would perceive it's cessation / extinguishment.
There are these context circumstances;
A) destruction by removal or removal by destruction
B) entering into & emerging from the knowledge & vision of destruction.

In these four particular contexts that i see for Nibbana;
1. of emergence from the destruction with some delusion removed
2. of emergence from the destruction with delusion fully removed
3. of the breakup of the body post emergence from destruction with delusion fully removed, final removal[extinguishment] of residual perception-formations that come into play due to causes prior to the removal/destruction of delusion.
4. of the element in dependence on which the destruction commences, the element of destruction which is without delusion.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

This contexts is imo a kind endgame of sutta method of expression;

Sariputta: "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification.[1] The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.

When perception ceases the element which is unconditioned is still a true element isn't included in what ceased and can't be described in terms of what ceases.
The element which is neither born of delusion nor is associated with delusion, isn't included in suffering;

There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”

It's a dhamma that is anatta not oneself nor is it a sankhara formation, it is not of this world; is neither a before nor an after, is not associated with time, does not parttake on a timeline.
It is not spoken of as one would speak about objects of senses, the physics of the world or what is otherwise conceived & perceived based on intellect in the world, does not parttake in the world, not included in nature, nor in the allness of the All, not part of everything;

'Having directly known liquid as liquid ... fire as fire ... wind as wind ... beings as beings ...  ...
"'Having directly known the all as the all,[8] and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.'
"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'

So there are many ways to speak about these and other circumstances and the words would be intricately connected in meaning and sometimes expression is interchangeable.
This is agreeable to me and i see no other openings.
Afaik this should be the standard analysis of the controversy.

Nibbana is an Unconditioned State of Mind (Asankhata). Conditioning is caused by Feelings, Perceptions and Mental Formations. In the absence of Feelings and Perceptions there are no Mental Formations. Thus No Conditioning i.e. Asankhata. Yes, this is the State of Nibbana.


text:
Choosing Between Mindfulness and Compassion Meditation
Basically, I have tried for some time mindfulness meditation. I have also tried compassion meditation.
In mindfulness meditation, my mind becomes very still, with few thoughts, but outside of meditation the mind remains so. My thoughts outside of meditation are quite abstract, but I am perhaps stunted emotionally and in terms of visual images. I don't feel my mind wanders too much though.
In compassion meditation, I visualize loving-kindness and compassionate images, and I usually end up crying or feeling positive affect in my body. It is nevertheless quite difficult for me to visualize vividly.
How does one decide which type of meditation to engage in? Would both mindfulness (focused attention) and compassion generate some type of meditative concentration?

Since choice of meditation is individual, this is really a question you should ask of yourself in terms of how it helps you proceed on the N8FP. I.e., which meditation allows you to relinquish attachments and cravings? Often that meditation won't be the easiest!

In so far as your quesstion is about Meditation, I cannot say anything.
But if you were to mean Buddhist meditation, then I can say the following-
The meditation technique which Buddha taught, which is the teaching of the Buddha and the basis for all philosophical schools, is Vipassana. Other techniques serve as efficient and helpful techniques, depending on the individual. So for example, if someone is unable to meditate because they cannot concentrate their mind, they would be suggested some technique (like anapana or samatha {which in fact is considered as a pre-requisite for Vipassana by many schools}) or a skill in daily life (such as reciting a particular mantra or counting the number of beads in a mala) that would develop some concetration, which will allow them to practice vipassana. Or if a person were too obsessed with physical beauty, with lust- so much so that they cannot practice vipassana, they would be advised to meditate near the dead bodies.
Vipassana involves not only the establishing of the four-fold awareness and the insight gained from it, but also leads to one becoming more compassionate and more aware (mind-fullness). What I mean to say is that, the two aspects you have asked about, comapssion and mind-fullness are not seperate- they go hand in hand- one helps in developing the other which helps in developing the first. But it is possible that one may have some problem in developing mind-fullness or practicing compasssion. Therefore, in such cases, as per the understanding of the teacher (spiritual guide, elder monk) certain technique of meditation (like verbalization or visualization) which is not Vipassana, would be suggested in that particular case, so that the meditator can continue making progress.
Only you would know where you are in your progress and only you would know what problem you have with regards to you meditative practice. I suggest you read further literature so that you can understand in your own way of thinking and continue practicing. Do not get involved with questions to the extent that you stop meditating at all. Neither ignore the questions that have occurred to you- and if you cannot answer them, then consult a senior monk, or your guide.

My limited knowledge about compassion meditation is that it does/can generate some type of meditative concentration. Here is a little explanation of compassion meditation: http://www.oprah.com/spirit/compassion-meditation
Mindfulness gradually grows awareness(which leads to more tranquilty in a person but only after attaining high enlightenment stages it becomes permanent) and during the path it temporarily generates mind states with high awareness too.
For the first question, I think this part of the video(6:40-7:38) can be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA&feature=youtu.be&t=400
Mindfulness is the only way to gain insight, purify the mind and achieve enlightenment. If you wish you can mix your mindfulness practise with Samatha, compassion meditation or other types of meditation, but at the end only mindfulness leads a person to complete and permanent freedom from suffering.
But ofcourse it is up to the person to decide which path is more suitable for him/her.

To keep it short and simple (This is worth elaborating on):
Metta bhavana is meant for ameliorating dvesha (avsersion towards different people, or yourself).
Vipassana has multiple purposes, one of them you've already mentioned: to develop concentration. There are other purposes as well.
Not sure if it helps, but a different approach is to find a clear understanding of the problem. What type of dukkha/tanha/upadana are you looking to manage? Are you suffering from moha/raga/dvesha? Et c. Exploring these things might guide you in how to practice your meditation.

Ideally one would contemplate to rouse motivation, make effort in developing good qualities and become glad on that account.
Metta and Compassion just as Appreciation and Rejoycing can be used to rouse gladness and to establish these perspectives due to frequent giving of attention.
Therefore any amount of time dedicated to development of perceptions is great.
If one is dilligent in giving attention to these themes which are fit for reflection, one can be expected to develop good behavior and see lights & visions.
Also pondering the themes reveals the elements as one eventually 'sees the point' that is the element, as a referable factor coming into play that can be shown to be a truth of the world.
However developing concentration that leads to mindfulness & alertness is necessary to be able to maintain skillful perceptions.
So is development of pleasant abidings necessary for contentment.
Ideally one would contemplate to keep focused on developing mindfulness and the pleasant abidings.
Failing to do so one dwells in pain and is one with a painful practice; without a pleasant abiding.
If you want to develop mindfulness more that is ok if you aren't particularly cruel to yourself and others, it's impossible to tell just how cruel one is until it's (compassion) development culminates.


text:
Emotion in Compassion Meditation
I have a very simple question. Sometimes, I visualize in compassion meditation without feeling anything for the whole session. Sometimes, I feel a lot of affect and start even crying.
Should one focus on/have the emotional sensations in compassion meditation for it to be efficient, or is visualizing -- even without emotion -- enough?

In "Awareness Itself", we read the advice given by Ajaan Fuang, as recorded by his student Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

§ A young nurse practiced meditation with Ajaan Fuang several days
  running, and finally asked him one day, "Why wasn't today's session as
  good as yesterday's?"
He answered: "Meditating is like wearing clothes. Today you wear
  white, tomorrow red, yellow, blue, whatever. You have to keep
  changing. You can't wear the same set of clothes all the time. So
  whatever color you're wearing, just be aware of it. Don't get
  depressed or excited about it."
§ A few months later the same nurse was sitting in meditation when a
  sense of peace and clarity in her mind became so intense that she felt
  she would never have a bad mood infiltrate her mind again. But sure
  enough, bad moods eventually came back as before. When she mentioned
  this to Ajaan Fuang, he said, "Looking after the mind is like raising
  a child. There will have to be bad days along with the good. If you
  want only the good, you're in for trouble. So you have to play
  neutral: Don't fall in with the good or the bad."
§ "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."
§ A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."
§ "You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."


text:
What are great forty?
What are great forty?
What are the great forty according to following Sutta.
I can identify 30.
Noble tenfold path with mundane and supermundane account for 20
Wrong tenfold path account for another 10.
What is the remaining 10?
=============
“Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? In one of right view, right intention comes into being; in one of right intention, right speech comes into being; in one of right speech, right action comes into being; in one of right action, right livelihood comes into being; in one of right livelihood, right effort comes into being; in one of right effort, right mindfulness comes into being; in one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being; in one of right concentration, right knowledge comes into being; in one of right knowledge, right deliverance comes into being. Thus, bhikkhus, the path of the disciple in higher training possesses eight factors, the arahant possesses ten factors.
https://suttacentral.net/mn117/en/bodhi

In one of (R.1.1) right view, wrong view (W.1.1) is abolished and the many evil unwholesome states (W.1.2) that originate with wrong view as condition are also abolished, and the (R.1.2) many wholesome states that originate with right view as condition come to fulfilment by development .... In one of (R.10.1) right deliverance, wrong deliverance (W.10.1) is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states (W.10.2) that originate with wrong deliverance as condition are also abolished, and the (R.10.2) many wholesome states that originate with right deliverance as condition come to fulfilment by development.

Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the
  wholesome and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome.

10 right factors + 10 wholesome states originating from 10 right factors + 10 wrong factors + 10 unwholesome states originating from 10 wrong factors = 40

What are these R.1.1 and W.1.1 etc.?

@SarathW Right and Wrong

Following 10 factors

view
intention
speech
action
livelihood
effort
mindfulness
concentration
knowledge
liberation

are expanded 4 ways as:

right [view, intention, ..., liberation]
wrong [view, intention, ..., liberation]
wholesome state from the right [view, intention, ..., liberation]
unwholesome state from the wrong [view, intention, ..., liberation]

The 20 factors on the unwholesome side are the 10 wrong factors and the
  unwholesome states that originate from each. The 20 factors on the wholesome side are the 10 right factors and the wholesome states that originate from each

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta

I read MN 117 as follows:

10 wholesome factors by developing (good) and abandoning (bad) = 20 wholesome
10 unwholesome factors by developing (bad) and abandoning (good) = 20 unwholesome

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=22062&p=485161&hilit=forty#p485161

Hi Chris. Is my analysis different to Suminda and DD?

I found DD's difficult to read/understand -- it took me a while to understand his numbering scheme (e.g. "R.1.1" etc.). Suminda's is clearer, easier to read. I think yours is the same but is the easiest to read and understand, isn't that so, or do you think yours is different?

Agree. I could not understand DD so I thought he is saying something diffrent.-)


text:
Did Ledi Sayadaw teach that Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations with equanimity?
A very short summary of the Vipassanā technique taught by S.N. Goenka would be: "observe your bodily sensations with equanimity". The role of physical bodily sensations is the key aspect of the technique and other traditions do not attach such a great importance to them. It is said that Goenka's technique of scanning the body to feel increasingly subtle sensations was passed on though several lay teachers and that it goes back to the Burmese monk Ledi Sayadaw.
Ledi Sayadaw left a large quantity of writings; some of them are available here and/or here. I looked through some of them, and in no place did I see any passage that would present observing bodily sensations as the technique to be followed. If he really taught this, it is hard to imagine he would not mention that this is the key aspect of the technique. Can anyone provide a relevant quote from Ledi Sayadaw's texts?
Update: The question is whether Ledi-style Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations/body scanning. Mindfulness of the body in Ānāpāna Dīpanī is presented as something distinct from Vipassanā, so it doesn't answer my question. Moreover, it looks like Ledi Sayadaw understood "mindfulness of the body" to mean "mindfulness of the breath", not body scanning. See Ānāpāna Dīpanī, part XIV:

[...] establishing mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassana satipaṭṭhāna). The out-breath and in-breath, being part of the aggregate of materiality (rūpakkhandha) are called body (kāya).

Did Goenka teach "body sensations" are "vedana"???

"Some of my friends insisted that vedana is a part of nama and hence it has no relation to the bodily sensations. Differences of opinion may exist. But for me the entire Tipitaka bears testimony to the fact that the bodily sensations are as much a part of vedana as mental feelings; rather, bodily sensations are much more important in the Buddha's teaching. The Patthana gave an added incontrovertible proof that bodily sensations are of utmost importance on the path of liberation. I have immensely benefited from this and I continue to teach."

" Vipassana as I learnt it from my revered teacher, giving importance to bodily sensations." https://www.vridhamma.org/research/Why-Vedana-and-What-is-Vedana

@Dhammadhatu Was that a question, or are you just expressing your surprise? Anyway, the quotations are pretty clear, I guess.

In this passage Ledi Sayadaw adheres very closely to the Sutta + observes the body etc. etc. = to come to the realization of impermanence. If there is another passage Goenka is referring to, it must be in another text.
The Manual of Insight Vipassanā Dīpanī
By Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera
Translated by U Nana Mahathera:

The Practice of Insight Meditation
I will now indicate the main points necessary to those who practise the exercises of insight. Of
the three knowledges of insight, the knowledge of impermanence must first and foremost be
acquired. How? If we carefully watch the cinematograph show, we will see how quick are the
changes of the numerous series of photographs representing the wonderful scene, all in a
moment of time. We will also see that a hundred or more photographs are required to represent
the scene of a moving body. These are, in fact, the functions of viparinama and annathabhava, or
the representation of impermanence or death, or cessation of movements. If we carefully
examine the movements in a scene, such as the walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, bending,
stretching, and so forth, of the parts of the body during a moment of time, we will see that these
are full of changes, or full of impermanence. Even in a moment of walking, in a single step, there
are numerous changes of pictures which may be called impermanence or death. It is also the
same with the rest of the movements. Now, we must apply this to ourselves. The impermanence
and the death of mental and material phenomena are to be found to the full in our bodies, our
heads, and in every part of the body. If we are able to discern clearly those functions of
impermanence and death which are always operating in our bodies, we shall acquire the insight
of the destruction ( bhanga-nana ), into the breaking-up, falling-off, cessation, and changes of the
various parts of the body in each second, in each fraction of a second. That is, we shall discern
the changes of every part of the body, small and great, of head, of legs, of hands, and so forth. If
this be thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of
impermanence is well accomplished. And if the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence
is well accomplished, then that of the contemplation of non-soul is also accomplished. If this is
thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence is
well accomplished. By the word "accomplished," it is meant that the exercise has been properly
worked out so as to remain a permanent possession, during the whole term of life; but it is not
meant that the knowledge of the path and of fruition has been attained. The attainment of the
knowledge of the path and fruition, however, is quick or slow, according to opportunity or lack
of opportunity in the practice of higher virtues.

I think you could find Goenka’s instruction in the Anapana Dipani from Ledi Sayadaw. The Anapana Dipani is based on the Anapana Sutta, which is divided into four tetrads. The first three deal with Anapana meditation and the development of the jhanas, and the last one with vipassana meditation. Since Goenka it is not much interested in the development of jhanas, but in we all getting the nearest possible to the final goal, he’s instruction only refer to the frist and the last tetrad. This is perfectly accepted way to practice, in Ledi Sayada’s words:
“When Can One Proceed to Vipassanā? As the Ānāpānasati Sutta and its Commentary explain the order of practice in mindfulness of breathing, one is to take up work in the fourth tetrad only after one has attained the four jhānas. If one can adhere strictly to this order of practice, that is ideal, but if one cannot follow this sequence one may proceed to vipassanā, or insight, from the third jhāna. It is also permissible to proceed to vipassanā from the second jhāna, or from the first, or from the access stage prior to full attainment of jhāna, or from the connection stage, or even from the counting stage after one has overcome the wandering tendencies of the mind.”
Now, there are two methods to practice Vipassana meditation:
“One may proceed to vipassanā while still keeping the attention on the out-breath and in-breath, or one may treat the mindfulness of breathing as preparatory work and then proceed to vipassanā by taking any portion of the five aggregates (pañcakkhandhā) one wishes as the object of attention.”
Now, why did Goenka choose corporeal phenomena? Well, I think there are a number of reasons, but an important one is because the object of attention in Vipassana meditation depends on the level of concentration one has attained. Since a teacher needs to make sure that all he’s students are getting things right, he (I think) assume that the majority of the new students achieve only the counting and connection stages of concentration through Anapana meditation. And
“In these two stages, the work consists solely of keeping the attention on the out-breaths and in-breaths and perceiving them with wisdom. Hence, if one wishes to proceed to vipassanā from these stages, the effort must be based on corporeal phenomena (rūpa-dhamma)”.
Take another look at the Anapana Dipani, and you will find the answers you are looking for. I think that the specific instructions of Goenka are presented as “a way” but not as “the way”. He structured a meditation technique following Ledi Sayadaw’s teachings, but he did it having in mind that he will be teaching lay and wisdomless people. I think he offered us a great gift, kind of a shortcut to Nibbana (nothing short about it), and I’m very grateful for that.
Hope this helps you.

Yesterday found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3FDPYQ71tE

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for.
From "A Manual of Respiration (Ānāpāna Dīpanī)" by Ven. Ledi Sayadaw, translated by U Sein Nyo Tun, part IV:

IV Mindfulness of the Body before Tranquillity and Insight
In this present life, if beings continually fail to practise
  mindfulness of the body, and thus continue to live without control
  over their minds, although they may be Buddhists, they will be
  drifting and submerged in Saṃsāra just as they have been in the past.
  Lacking control over the mind, they are certain to drift in Saṃsāra
  because without mental control, the work of tranquillity and insight
  cannot be undertaken. Gaining control of the mind is, on the other
  hand, the certain path to nibbāna, because it enables the work of
  tranquillity and insight to be undertaken. Meditation on mindfulness
  of the body is the effort to gain control of the mind.
Even though one is unable to undertake the higher work of tranquillity
  and insight, the Buddha said that if one can firmly control one’s mind
  and succeed in keeping it at will within one’s body, one enjoys the
  taste of nibbāna:

“Amataṃ tesaṃ viraddhaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati viraddhā.
    Amataṃ tesaṃ aviraddhaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati aviraddhā.
    Amataṃ tesaṃ aparibhuttaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati aparibhuttā.
    Amataṃ tesaṃ paribhuttaṃ, yesaṃ kāyagatā sati paribhuttā.”
“Those who have missed mindfulness of the body, have missed nibbāna.
    Those who have not missed mindfulness of the body, have not missed
    nibbāna. Those who have not made use of mindfulness of the body, have
    not made use of nibbāna. Those who have made use of mindfulness of the
    body, have made use of nibbāna.” (A.i.46)

The essential meaning is that if one is established in mindfulness of
  the body one can successfully undertake the work of tranquillity and
  insight because one has firm control over one’s mind, thus it is
  certain that in this very life one cannot miss nibbāna. If, however,
  like the mad man, one has no control over one’s mind because one
  continues to neglect the work of mindfulness of the body, one is
  unable to fulfil the work of tranquillity and insight, and hence will
  miss nibbāna.
There are many degrees of control over one’s mind.
In this world, ordinary persons who are not insane have sufficient
  control over their minds to perform the various tasks, both individual
  and social, that arise among humans. This is one kind of control.
Within the Buddhasāsana, the morality of controlling the senses
  (indriya saṃvara sīla) is one kind of control. However, it cannot be
  said to be dependable.
Establishing oneself in mindfulness of the body, being the proximate
  cause (padaṭṭhāna) of tranquillity and insight meditation, is firm
  control. The attainment of access concentration (upacāra samādhi) just
  before entering any of the absorptions, is firmer control. Firmer
  still is attainment concentration (appanā samādhi) reached during full
  absorption. The eight stages of attainment concentration are controls
  that become progressively firmer as each higher stage is reached. In
  the matter of tranquillity, the attainments of the higher spiritual
  powers (abhiññāṇa) represents the highest level of control.
This is the path of tranquillity called “Samatha Yānika.”
The path of insight is called “Vipassanā Yānika.”
Here ends the section showing that mindfulness of the body must
  precede the work of tranquillity and insight.

Would the downvoter mind to explain why the downvote? To me as a foreigner of the given problem, that answer seems a sensible one.

@GottfriedHelms ruben2020: Thanks for your answer, but that's not what I'm looking for. The question is whether Ledi-style Vipassanā should be practised by observing sensations. In your quote, mindfulness of the body is presented as something distinct from Vipassanā. Moreover, it looks like Ledi Sayadaw understood "mindfulness of the body" to mean "mindfulness of the breath", not body scanning. See part XIV: "[...] establishing mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassana satipaṭṭhāna). The out-breath and in-breath, being part of the aggregate of materiality (rūpakkhandha) are called body (kāya)".


text:
Is Constant Meditation Hindering my Creativity?
I recently became more consistent with focused breathing meditation. I feel that since I practice, I tend to fall into such breath-focused meditation while walking, on public transport, etc. Yet, this type of practice is both much less focused than formal sitting, and it seems to inhibit otherwise free thought which I used for creative purposes.
Is there a drawback to constant focused-meditation?
Clearly, some times are needed to contemplate situations. How does one know how to balance focused-meditation and other types of attention?

Hi Eggman! Why are you meditating? What's the purpose of meditation in Buddhism? What is the purpose of the Noble Eightfold Path? What is the purpose of meditation in the N8P? Making those questions clear to yourself can help you answer the original question. Kind regards!

Yes, the Buddhas way or creativity, of meditation, has only one aim: to stop creativity, e.g all kinds of concentrations for becomings sake. So nothing wrong for one with right view or vision toward liberation.
What ever comes into being is a matter of the act of concentration, now this can be used, by right concentration, to gain independence, as concentration depends always on food.
So the question might more a matter of fear of independence, right, i.e doubt in the Rightly-selfawakened and meditating without having gone for a refuge?
Well it's of cause that one fears if having no refuge as base.
{note: not given for concentration, burning of food and feeds for the world, but to gain liberation by observing the Dhamma with proper attention}

According to Buddhist teaching, you become more creative when your mind is concentrated.
=========
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to whatever he wishes.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.12.0.than.html
When a mendicant has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, they become capable of realizing anything that can be realized by insight to which they extend the mind, in each and every case.
https://suttacentral.net/mn119/en/sujato


text:
Dependent origination and the living arahat
In the 12 nidānas or 12 links of dependent origination, it's clear that the arahat has overcome craving, clinging and ignorance. Craving (tanha), clinging (upādāna) and ignorance (avijjā) have completely ceased for the living arahat.
Question:
However, for a living arahat, what happens to the nidānas of mental formations (saṅkhāra), consciousness (viññāṇa), name-and-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa), feeling (vedanā), becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti)?
I understand that there are different interpretations to the standard model of dependent origination, including the across-three-lives interpretation (traditional Theravada), mind-moment interpretation (Theravada Abhidhamma), birth-as-arising-of-self-view interpretation (Buddhadasa?) and the impressions (sanskaras) plus naming-and-forming interpretation (Mahayana). Answers to this question are welcomed from all the different interpretations.

three-lives interpretation (traditional Theravada)

This is not found in the suttas. In MN 38, for example, the child is born, grows, becomes attached to sensual pleasures & then experiences Dependent Origination. Then the same child, now a man, becomes a monk, attains jhanas and eradicates dependent origination (while his sense organs are consciousness of sense objects). MN 38 also says D.O. is experienced in the here-&-now, independent of the Buddha. MN 38 shows there is no such thing as three-lives.

birth-as-arising-of-self-view interpretation (Buddhadasa?)

"Jati" means "self" or "social identity" in India. It has never ever meant anything different to that. "Jati" in the suttas is literally defined as the "production of beings from the appearance of aggregates". "A being" ("satta") is literally defined in the suttas (SN 5.10 & SN 23.2) as a "view of clinging". Buddhadasa is close to literally in accordance with the suttas. "Jati" is the production of the self-view of "a being" or "beings", both internally & externally. Please abandon self-views and realise this reality. There are five aggregates, such as the five aggregates that breast fed you. From these five aggregates, the mind creates the view of two "beings" called "my mother" and "me". In reality, there is only five aggregates. Dhammapada says: "Kill mother; kill father". Buddhism 101.

and the impressions (sanskaras) plus naming-and-forming interpretation (Mahayana).

In SN 12.2, sankhara is not "impressions" and nama-rupa is not "naming-forming".

However, for a living arahat, what happens to the nidānas of mental formations (saṅkhāra), consciousness (viññāṇa), name-and-form
  (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa), feeling
  (vedanā), becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti)?

The sutta definition of Nibbana in MN 26 includes: "sabba saṅkhāra samatho", which means "calming of all sankhara". Therefore, in Nibbana, the three sankhara, namely, in & out breathing (kaya sankharo), vitakka & vicara (vaci sankharo) and perception & feeling (citta sankharo) are calmed. They are not destroyed. What is destroyed is craving & other defilements, namely, ignorance, attachment, becoming, birth & aging-&-death. Buddhism 101.
Suttas such as MN 38, Iti 44 and SN 22.53 say the arahant remains consciousness, with sense organs, sense contact & feelings. Since the arahant remains consciousness, obviously nama-rupa (mind-body) remain, per SN 12.67, SN 22.82, etc, which says consciousness is caused by nama-rupa.
As for "becoming" and "jati", these are defilements and they end per MN 38, which says "becoming" & "jati" cease when the "eye sees the form". "Becoming" is an "asava". Many suttas say the asava of becoming ends. "Jati" also ends. All arahants declare the ending of "jati". Except the Buddha. The Buddha declared: "This is my final birth" because the Buddha has the social identity of "The Buddha". Where as the arahant disciples have no special "jati" therefore they end "jati". MN 140 says because the arahant does not conceive "I am", the arahant is not "born"; does not age; does not die.
Buddhadasa taught Dependent Origination correctly, even though not completely. However, Dhammadhatu, exclusively on Buddhism Stack Exchange, explains D.O. fully and completely. Have faith & believe. When you realise Dependent Origination is not about reincarnation, you might realise Buddhism has nothing for you & decide to leave Buddhism and join Christianity or Hinduism; thus do good kamma by giving up creating obstacles for others by misrepresenting the Dhamma. In Buddhism, you are allowed to leave Buddhism. There is no crime of apostasy in Buddhism.

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