text:
Why can't I appreciate my own life?
I am young, today I turn 23, and my life is fast. I am a research student where my work is enjoyable, changing constantly and so invoking that I lose myself in it. My friends are family are fairly supportive, money is not a huge issue and I am in good health.
Even though things appear good, a life-situation that I would think is ideal, does not feel ideal, in fact it feels as empty and unforgiving as a bad life-situation.
Commonly I feel as though I am not living. When I am consumed by my research projects I am defiantly not self aware. When I am not doing research, I feel a dread that I am currently not awake, and that I am almost never awake. The only times I feel truly awake is in deep sadness; sometimes the sadness has no cause it is just weltschmerz.
Do other people feel this? Is this what being young feels like; if so, does it go away?
Would Buddhism or meditation make me feel wholesome rather than empty in moments of reflection?
Is this okay to feel?

Feeling weltschmerz, which I guess is feeling that the world and its material pleasures are ultimately not going to satisfy you, is a good thing. It hints towards the first noble truth that there is suffering.
However, focusing too much on it will make you sad and depressed, which is a negative emotion and not wholesome.
In Buddhism, there are various techniques to counter different types of unwholesome states of mind. When a car veers too much to the left, you nudge the steering wheel to the right. When a car is moving too slowly, you step on the accelerator pedal. But also the reverse is true with turning left or stepping on the brakes. Similarly, there are techniques in Buddhism to ensure that the mind stays wholesome and does not go into unwholesome states of mind.
Dhammadhatu's anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing) is one method.
However, being a young person, who should appreciate that both young and old people would not ultimately become and remain satisfied forever, from what the physical and material world offers, I suggest you to practise the Brahmavihara of metta, the meditation on loving kindness, whenever you feel the sadness of weltschmerz. It has many benefits.
Why do I suggest this? You should wish that all beings in this world, including yourself, should be happy at heart and and at ease. Yes, they may not be ultimately satisfied with what the world has to offer, but let them all be happy for this very moment and for as long as they can be. And this applies to you too.
From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

Think: Happy, at rest,
  may all beings be happy at heart.
  Whatever beings there may be,
  weak or strong, without exception,
  long, large, middling, short,
  subtle, blatant, seen & unseen,
  near & far, born & seeking birth:
  May all beings be happy at heart.
Let no one deceive another
  or despise anyone anywhere,
  or through anger or irritation
  wish for another to suffer.
As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart:
  Above, below, & all around, unobstructed,
  without enmity or hate.
  Whether standing, walking,
  sitting, or lying down,
  as long as one is alert,
  one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
  This is called a sublime abiding
  here & now.

Buddhist meditation (Anapanasati) can make the mind feel peaceful & calm and overcome weltschmerz.
Some (but not most) people feel weltschmerz but far less of these few people choose Buddhism (rather than drugs or alcohol) as a solution.
When I was 23 years old, I knew nothing about Buddhism but left my society in search of something. A few months later, in my travels, I walked into a Buddhist monastery , found mediation and started meditation.
After 3 months of full-time practise, any or all doubts (vicikicchā) about the Buddhist Path as a way of life ended.

Such overt and mad pursuit borne out of ambition is always like this. It causes common symptoms of this busy generation; you are lost in the process, you are unconscious in the process, you don't live at all - you sleepwalk. You are not aware of your life this way. Like a plant, being devoid of the chance of salvation.
Please don't believe the bandwagon of people that say that life is not about happiness or any end-goal but about the process itself - this is truly a lost generation of career people whose lives slip through their fingers. They wake up anxious in sweat once they realise they haven't lived at all. They never stop and look around when there's still time. I know as I was one of these people, craving for wealth and success; I had two business, slept 4-5 hours a day and in the end experienced a total burnout, followed anxiety and severe depression.
Being mindful of the process is a better first step of being more awake. Then letting go of some of it, especially unrealistic ambitious and goals, is the second step towards good direction. You need to realise which of these are harmful to you and have potential to destroy you - and believe me, they most definitely will, because Self is never satisfied.
That isn't even the case for meditation, but a healthy self reflection and a simpler practise. Yes, of course, meditation helps, but not in the short term. I am going to keep posting this video of Ajahn Sumedho every time the person has the very same problem. It is a great immediate practise with instant results.

Yes, this a known condition in the live/practical Buddhism.
This happens when your intellectual side suppresses your emotional side. As a result you feel your life to be empty, as if you were not living at all.
The path to recovery is complex and involves a number of changes to how you relate to your life and the world.
I can't go in too many details here, but basically,

psychosomatic exercises to recover rapport with your other side.
behavioral changes to learn to hear and trust your intuition.
spending more time in the nature.
engaging in all types of activities that involve spontaneous improvisation.
soft physical exercises like Qigong and dancing.
zen-style meditation (NOT Theravada-style for this condition).

Hope this helps.


text:
How does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion?
I am looking for connection between lust, hatred, and delusion, and craving.
Craving is more fundamental than lust, hatred and delusion: it is the craving which leads to lust, hatred and delusion.
But how ?
My question is -- how does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion?

"craving" -- taṇhā
"lust, hatred and delusion" -- lobha, dosa, moha

think if you're beloved(by mean it is craving) something which you can not live without it, stole by someone, now what you feel kind for that thief or hatred ?

I added (to the question) taṇhā for "craving", and the three poisons for "lust, hatred, and delusion" ... I think these are the words you're asking about.

Lust is craving to get something or pull something in.
Hatred is craving to push something away or destroy something.
Delusion is craving that circles around an object; hoping/wanting to understand it.
Lust is craving for sensual pleasures.
Delusion is craving for becoming something (egoistically).
Hatred is craving to not be or experience something.
Lust, hatred & delusion are forms of craving. They are the same thing.
For example, while most teachings on dependent origination only refer to craving arising after feelings; other teachings such as MN 148 refer to lust, hatred & delusion arising after feelings.

Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to
  it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is
  touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments,
  weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying
  tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it
  actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the
  danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying
  tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here
  and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying
  tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the
  underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without
  extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and
  arousing true knowledge—this is impossible.
MN 148

There are three types of craving: craving for sensual pleasures, craving to become something (that makes someone have ambition) and the craving to not become something (that makes one suicidal or withdrawn). From Itivuttaka 58:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for
  sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are
  the three cravings."

If you crave for food, and eat some tasty food, you may cling to it or become attached to it. You think and fantasize about it even when it's not there. That's clinging or attachment. Craving gives rise to clinging and clinging gives rise to greed or lust to acquire it.
If someone prevents you from getting the tasty food that you cling to, then you feel angry. That hatred or aversion arises because you were denied what you cling to.
If this anger makes you enraged that you go and harm this person who prevents you from getting what you want, this is delusion. Delusion clouds your better judgment.
The craving to become something is similar. Examples are like wanting to get a gold medal or to get a promotion or to become doctor or professor or get recognition etc.
If you crave to get recognition and get it once, you may cling to it and want it even when it's not present. This leads you to do things to get recognition as you have greed (or lust) for it.
If you don't get recognition, but someone else does, you become envious. That's aversion.
If continuously not getting recognition leads you to become depressed, which clouds your normal healthy state of mind, then that's delusion.
According to AN 3.68:

The Blessed One said, "Monks, if you are asked by wanderers of other
  sects, 'Friends, there are these three qualities. Which three?
  Passion, aversion, & delusion. These are the three qualities. Now what
  is the difference, what the distinction, what the distinguishing
  factor among these three qualities?' — when thus asked, you should
  answer those wanderers of other sects in this way, 'Friends, passion
  carries little blame and is slow to fade. Aversion carries great blame
  and is quick to fade. Delusion carries great blame and is slow to
  fade.
"[Then if they ask,] 'But what, friends, is the reason, what the
  cause, why unarisen passion arises, or arisen passion tends to growth
  & abundance?' 'The theme of the attractive,' it should be said. 'For
  one who attends inappropriately to the theme of the attractive,
  unarisen passion arises and arisen passion tends to growth &
  abundance...'
"[Then if they ask,] 'But what, friends, is the reason, what the
  cause, why unarisen aversion arises, or arisen aversion tends to
  growth & abundance?' 'The theme of irritation,' it should be said.
  'For one who attends inappropriately to the theme of irritation,
  unarisen aversion arises and arisen aversion tends to growth &
  abundance...'
"[Then if they ask,] 'But what, friends, is the reason, what the
  cause, why unarisen delusion arises, or arisen delusion tends to
  growth & abundance?' 'Inappropriate attention,' it should be said.
  'For one who attends inappropriately, unarisen delusion arises and
  arisen delusion tends to growth & abundance...'

So, basically, you have cravings due to sensual pleasures and cravings to become something. When you give into the attraction towards it, greed or lust arises. When you give into irritation, typically because you are denied it, aversion arises.
When you pay too much attention to something that you shouldn't, like becoming depressed due to lack of recognition or distraught due to loss of a family member, or anxiety due to being worried about what other people think (which started from an aversion), or becoming enraged with others who criticized you, or having vengence due to thinking about what someone did to you a long time ago - these are all examples of delusion.
Firstly, you lust after something, due to craving and clinging. Secondly, being denied something you lust after, or losing it prematurely, would cause aversion. Thirdly, when you pay too much attention to your aversions (and also greed), it causes delusion.

Whatever experience we get used to and grow comfortable in -- with that we identify, to that we attach. Then anything that looks like it could help us get that experience again -- seems good to us, and anything that goes contrary to that -- seems bad to us.
Next time we see a sign, we recognize the form, we associate the name with that past experience. Based on that, we like or dislike the object. Whenever an object reminds of a good past experience, we crave that object because we crave that experience and we assume it will help us get there.
If you look at your mind very carefully, you'll see that it's not the object that you crave, it's a vague promise to get an experience. Lust/hatred/delusion is about confusing (conflating) experience with objects. You project your own memories onto objects, and based on that you form attitudes to objects.
For example, imagine you sit and suddenly want those sunglasses you've seen in the store yesterday. You liked how they looked on you, or, rather, you liked how you looked in the mirror. You liked how you looked, because your reflection looked cool. It looked cool, because it resembled the images of men you've seen in the advertisement. You liked those men because they were surrounded by the smiling women. Smiling women are happy women. You too want to be surrounded by the happy women.  You want to be near women that laugh and have fun, because you want to be part of that experience. You crave the positive emotions of being in a company of happy women.  You crave positive emotions and that's why you now sit and want those sunglasses!
This is how craving (for positive emotions) leads to lust (for an object).
All of this comes from naive generalization of objects and naive generalization of experiences. Naive generalization comes from ignorance. Like a magic trick, it only works if you don't look carefully. When you look carefully, it disbands:
Upon careful examination, these sunglasses don't really make you look like an actor in that ad. You do look somewhat similar but only under a certain lighting conditions when seen at a certain angle. The women in the ad do smile but are not actually happy, their smiles are smiles of professional models. You don't actually crave to be among the happy women, instead you are craving one experience when you were a little boy visiting your grandma in the summer, and your older cousin-sister and her friends used to play with you. You miss that experience of careless summer days and being playfully cared for by the older girls. More precisely, you miss the experience of being completely at ease, in a safe environment, someone more powerful taking care of you -- and buying those $150 sunglasses won't get you an inch closer to that. Worse than that, the "perfect" childhood experience of being safe and cared for was a 100% illusion because the six-years-old girls could not possibly take care of the four-years-old boy should any real situation arise; he only felt safe and at ease because of his ignorance!
Just like that, you sit on your cushion meditating, and you suddenly realize that you're feeling (subtle) suffering because you don't have $150 to buy those sunglasses. And then you realize that the entire situation, from sunglasses to the childhood memory of feeling at ease, is an illusory bubble due to a chain of naive generalizations! Once you see it completely and thoroughly, the illusion disbands like a dream and with it disappears all craving and all suffering associated with that.
So ignorance leads to naive generalization (formations), which leads to craving for experience (feeling), which leads to pursuit of objects (clinging), which leads to suffering.
Cessation of ignorance (seeing through the illusory bubble to its individual components) leads to cessation of naive generalizations (formations), which leads to cessation of craving for experience (feeling), which leads to cessation of the pursuit of objects (clinging), which leads to cessation of suffering.

How about rephrasing to: Ignorance leads to acts of lust, hatred, and delusion.
Craving is caused by attachment. If there is no attachment, there will be no more craving.

Craving causes attachment; per the teachings.

@Dhammadhatu Tanha causes Upadana. Translating Tanha as Craving is okay, but translating Upadana as attachment is very misleading. Therefore, saying that "Craving causes attachment" can be false. For example, if I'm a child attached to my mother, I will crave her whenever she goes away. If you translate Upadana as pursuing or obsessing, things get a little more clear. Craving to engage with that girl I like => leads to obsessing over those thoughts and fantasies => and to pursuing after the girl => leads to objectification/subjectification. Don't assume words have fixed meanings for everyone!

I think that "lust, hatred and delusion" are used as a very general (non-specific, imprecise) summary. In some suttas it's just two, i.e. "lust and delusion".
And "craving" is more specific or precise term, used for example in the description of the four noble truths, and descriptions of the twelve nidanas.
The (precise) term "craving" is related to, but distinguished from, "attachment" -- see for example Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

In English-language, I think that "lust" sometimes means specifically sexual desire or lechery (reference).
But it can also mean desire more generally (reference):

Lust is a psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion. Lust can take any form such as the lust for sexuality, money or power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food as distinct from the need for food.

Wikipedia also describes it as a synonym for (a translation of) taṇhā (reference) -- which contradicts what you wrote in the question:

Lust holds a critical position in the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhist reality. It is named in the second of the Four Noble Truths, which are that

Suffering (dukkha) is inherent in all life.
Suffering is caused by lust.
There is a natural way to eliminate all suffering from one's life.
The Noble Eightfold Path is that way.

Pali words (like dukkha and taṇhā) are translated into English. The problem with that is:

There may be no single exact word, maybe a good translation is a range of several words, but translators have to pick just one word (and different translators choose different words) -- so the translation is only approximate
The English are used in other contexts, e.g. in (translations of) Christian doctrine, and therefore have acquired some meaning[s] that aren't present/inherent in the Buddhist/Pali words -- so the translatin is coloured or tainted with overloaded meaning

For these reasons if you want to discuss orthodox meanings (e.g. the ways in which words are used in the suttas) you may find it helpful or necessary to identify and discuss the Pali words.
If I tried to answer using only English then my answer would be based on something like "what does the work 'lust' mean to me, how do I interpret it, what do I associate it with", which may be too subjective or personal-opinion-based (and imprecise).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Question about Vipassana
After focusing on my breath during my meditationsessions a couple of years I desided to start practisiing Vipassana. I will like to add that I have never been on a Vipassana-retreat (yet). Im still very interested of practising it, but after some months of doing it I have some questions about my practise:
I tend to struggle to be aware of my tougths as they ocour and when I become aware of that Im following a train of thougths later I "Choke" them or supress them(?). They will stop instantly. This will go on and on during my sessions and it leaves me confused if I am practising this in a productive way.
I guess I still have alot to learn about this way of meditation, but Im still interested to see what you think about this and if you got some advise.
Thanks!

Here's a good booklet on how to do Vipassana: https://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/

Thank you :) Well.. When I read this looks very similar with the guidelines i followed when I was aproaching Vipassana at first.

Its still confusing when you take a look at my problem at the first post. Let me explain it like this with a comparison:  When Im doing Anapana (observing breath) I feel like im able to find a "flow" with just focusing on the rise and fall of my breath. When im practising vipassana the flow is more like "stop...stop....stop" when I become aware of my train of thougths as Im following sensations in my body. My question is still: How do i aproach this?

If you have a disliking towards switching, meditate  on that. Disliking... disliking... disliking ..

@Loppilopp If you want, the author of the booklet Sankha gave you the link for teaches online basic courses in vipassana. On this site you can sign up for the course and ask him or the community questions: http://meditation.sirimangalo.org/

Take a look at Mindfulness Meditation (MN10). This is one of the key meditation suttas. MN10 breaks down meditation as a progression of 16 steps, grouped in four tetrads. The first tetrad is the body tetrad. Your current practice is breath awareness, so you are already doing part of the body tetrad. The following should be familiar to you:

Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out

Notice that you're not forcing anything. You are simply being aware. This is very important. Just be aware without grasping or rejecting. In particular, do not "choke your thoughts". Instead, invite the mind towards an awareness of and engagement with the steps of the sutta. Following the steps, we eventually see:

They practice breathing in experiencing the whole body. They practice breathing out experiencing the whole body

And so the sutta proceeds through feeling and thence to mind, etc.
Don't skip ahead, especially if your concern is agitation of mind. Although awareness of mind is a tetrad, it's later, after awareness of feeling. First take care of the stuff that makes sense and is doable. For example, you could spend years doing just the first tetrad. I did. Eventually, your own insight will prompt you to the next step when you are ready. It's not a race to be won. It's more like tending a garden--you can't rush this.
If your current awareness of body stops and skips, be aware of the body in the context of your breath. The breath is already smooth from the prior step, so a gentle consideration of the body while breathing will naturally become smooth. In other words, maintain the breath connection (aware of in/out/heavy/light) as your awareness touches the body.
When agitated, we breathe quickly, sometimes 6 or more times a minute. As meditation deepens, you will find that breathing slows on its own and everything settles. Perhaps you may find yourself breathing 3 times a minute. Or even 2. Effortlessly. As the breath calms, so does everything.

This was very helpfull. Thank you alot =)

I forgot to add in a note about how the breath slows on its own. Don't force long/short--they just happen. Overall, your breath will slow on its own. It will still be sometimes long, sometimes short. As soon as you sit, it gradually slows overall. Effortlessly.

To be aware of thoughts as they arise is an extremely subtle practise and only something that can be done by highly advanced minds and is generally only a practise of "clear-comprehension" (3rd development in AN 4.41) although it also forms a small part of very advanced "vipassana" (4th development in AN 4.41).
That when you become aware of a train of thoughts and then later "choke" them, suppress them and stop them instantly is perfectly naturally and normal because the nature of the conscious (aware) mind is like this.
(i) Consciousness (clear awareness) and (ii) thinking are naturally two antagonistic (opposing) things. Generally, when the mind is conscious, aware & alert; it does not think very much. To the contrary, generally when the mind thinks alot; it is not awake & alert.
Naturally, the (false) ideas you have learned from so-called "teachers" of "vipassana" about "watching thoughts" will leave you confused because these ideas are non-sense because these ideas cannot be practised.
Buddhist meditation watches breathing (MN 118). Buddhist meditation gives up thinking (MN 19). The Buddha said Anapanasati (mindfulness when breathing) was his "dwelling" (SN 54.11) and the method he practised and developed for awakening (SN 54.8).

Thanks for answering =) How do you (or other in here) think that I should aproach Vipassana in a more productive way? My aproach to "focus on my breath" or "watching my breath" is to be aware of the sensations of my breath in my body as it come in an goes out and watch this during my sessions. Any input on this? Honestly, Im a little confused if I have missunderstood the practise I have done untill now. Just want to clearify it once and for all.

Thanks. "Vipassana" means "seeing clearly" the interrelatedness (cause & effect), impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self of conditioned phenomena. Therefore, when you see clearly the sensations of breathing; and how different types of breathing (long, short) sensations (smooth, agitated) make the body and mind feel (calm or disturbed); and when you see each in breath & each out breath is impermanent; and when you see the physical body rather than "the self" breathes; this is the starting point of "vipassana". Kind regards

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


text:
Buddha's night before enlightenment
According to the historical story before the day of enlightenment, Mara apparently lured the Buddha with various worldy pleasures. Now, I am not arguing whether Mara really existed or is just Buddha's mind (which would be rather my interpretation). But The Buddha should at that time be a non-returner and he must have abandoned the fetter of sensuous desires. He should've chilled in the 4th Jhana not giving a damn!
So my question is: Why was it a struggle for the Buddha if the conditioned fetter of sensuous desire was already uprooted as an anagami?

See also Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree?

"historical story"? It's a legend, but it doesn't fit the definition of "historical".

This question wouldn't arise if you acknowledge that there is an actual god called Mara. Did you read about what happened on the 5th week after the enlightenment?  The daughters of Mara: Tanha, Rathi, Raga came and tried to lure the Buddha. If they were metaphorical, how can an enlightened being be troubled by them? :)

It is suspicious how there is no definitve answer. They are all diverging quite strongly. Isn't there a consensus?

The Buddha taught different things to different people according to their skill and predilection. The lack of consensus is likely because this is a point of dispute between Theravada and Mahayana.

The Mahayana view from subtler teachings of emptiness is that the various points on the path (stream enterer, once returner, no returner, etc.,) are very useful and skillful means of understanding the path to take. However, they are not inherently existing and thus not definitive accounts of enlightenment as no definitive conceptual account exists. To experience a definitive answer is to achieve the complete enlightenment yourself. What's more, Lotus Sutra answer from Mahayana gives different account of what the Buddha achieved in his 40 years vs what he achieved long ago.

In my understanding, Buddha did not progress through the four stages of enlightenment he later prescribed for his students.
This is because, for Buddha students - you start with theoretical understanding (stream entry), and then you practice according to instructions until you achieve it (arahant-hood).
In Buddha's case, because he is Self-Awakened, he starts with intuitive practice and then achieves understanding (Bodhi).
So in Buddha's case he does not proceed gradually, phase by phase, like assembling the puzzle by looking at the complete picture. Instead, it's like solving a puzzle randomly - by the time he sat under the Bodhi Tree, he had assembled most of the pieces but still did not know what was shown on the picture.
This is why in Buddha's case he left all interpretative possibilities open until the last moment, which means he still had doubts until the very last moment. Those doubts are represented in the anthropomorphic personification known as "the Mara".
In case of Buddha's students, the interpretative framework is locked in place from the time of stream-entry, so doubts are eliminated at that phase.

For reference, according to this account1, it was Mara's choice to assail the Buddha -- Mara is presented as another/separate being, an agent, a divinity (and not as a metaphor for unenlightened aspects of the future Buddha's mind)2:

At this point the god Mâra, exclaiming, "Prince Siddhattha is desirous of passing beyond my control, but I will never allow it!" went and announced the news to his army, and sounding the Mâra war-cry, drew out for battle.

And in that "struggle" the Buddha used (not the 4th Jhana but) his recollection of (or his accomplishment of, his perfection of) the Ten Perfections, five great donations, struggle for the welfare of the world, for example:

My mother and father are not here, nor my brother, nor any other relative. But I have these Ten Perfections, like old retainers long cherished at my board. It therefore behooves me to make the Ten Perfections my shield and my sword ...

If you want to interpret it metaphorically, perhaps see it as his "Am I worthy?" struggle with "conceit" (which is one of the last fetters) -- e.g. because "conceit" includes "comparison", and this passage includes explicit comparison between the Buddha and Mara.
Or see as an affirmation or explanation for us, to help explain how we should view him as worthy.

I think the recollection of perfections may also echo some of the knowledge associated with final enlightenment:

The Arahant SN 22.110
And when, monks, a monk, having seen as they really are the arising and the passing away, the attractiveness and the danger, and the deliverance from the five groups of clinging, is released without clinging, he, monks, is called a monk in whom the cankers are destroyed, who has lived the life to perfection, done what had to be done, put down the burden, gained the highest goal, worn through the fetters of rebirth, and is liberated by perfect insight.
(The whole phrase is a standard description of the Arahant found at many places in the Canon)

Speaking of "perfections" in general, IMO the English word "perfect" has at least three related meanings, i.e., 1) very good (high quality); 2) complete (finished, past tense); 3) whole.

1The Attainment of Buddhaship -- Translated from the Introduction to the Jâtaka -- referenced from this answer
2There are other records of discourse between the Buddha and Mara, which happen after the Buddha's awakening -- for example even in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

And when the Venerable Ananda had gone away, Mara, the Evil One, approached the Blessed One. And standing at one side he spoke to the Blessed One, saying: "Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away; let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

If I understand correctly, the Theravada answer is that Mara was a real separate being that tried to tempt Buddha Shakyamuni but utterly failed as Gautama had already abandoned sensuous desires and thus no contradiction exists with OP's question?

That sounds like a plausible answer to me (and "free from sensual desire" is characteristic of a "non-returner").

From what I was thought path to samma sambuddha is not in stages like that of an aharath. He reach buddhahood within a single moment. Until that moment he would be vulnerable.
But on the other hand you could argue that he was never vulnerable, as from the point another Buddha declared that he will become a Buddha, he is destined to get there.
Also about mara, mara has multiple meanings. One is your own inmer devils, other is there exist a being/a role played by a being. So that being would not know if he was vulnarable or not.

According to MN 36, the Buddha was not released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming and the fermentation of ignorance, until the very last moment of enlightenment, when he attained the third knowledge. Mara could be a personification of these three types of fermentations.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the
  mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, that
  'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the
  cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of
  stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of
  fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the
  way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus
  knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of
  sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from
  the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge,
  'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
  the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the
  night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was
  destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, &
  resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not
  invade my mind or remain.

The Buddha achieved enlightenment many, many, many lifetimes before he was ever born as Siddhartha Gautama. The story of his enlightenment was a useful and skillful retelling of how he became enlightened long, long, long before. Why did the Buddha manifest as an unenlightened young Bodhisattva named Gautama who completed the path in this very life? He did it out of compassion for all sentient beings to teach them the steps to liberation.
This is a point of contention between the Theravada and Mahayana view of the Buddha. According to the latter he was already enlightened aeons before he ever manifested as Shakyamuni. See here for contemporary account  from the Mahayana viewpoint.
For a Mahayana sutra reference have a look at the Lotus Sutra.
This is from a recent english translation of the Lotus Sutra. Listen to how Bodhisattva Maitreya implores Shakyamuni to explain how Shakyamuni describes enlightened deeds committed aeons ago juxtaposed with his recent enlightenment 40 years ago:

Then Bodhisattva Mahāsattva Maitreya and the innumerable other
  bodhisattvas became doubtful and confused concerning this
  unprecedented experience. They thought this:
How is it possible in such a short time for the Bhagavat to have
  inspired such an immeasurable, limitless, incalculable number of great
  bodhisattvas, enabling them to abide in highest, complete
  enlightenment? Immediately they addressed the Buddha, saying: “O
  Bhagavat! When the Tathāgata was a prince he left the palace of the
  Śākyas, sat on the terrace of enlightenment which is not far from the
  city of Gayā, and attained highest, complete enlightenment. Since then
  more than forty years have passed. How is it possible, O Bhagavat, for
  you to have done such great buddha acts in such a short period of
  time? Is it through the might of the Buddha and through the Buddha’s
  qualities that you have inspired such an assembly of incalculable
  great bodhisattvas to achieve highest, complete enlightenment?
...
  This would be difficult to believe; and what the Buddha has now taught
  is exactly like this. It has not, in fact, been so long since the
  Buddha attained the path. Yet for the sake of the buddha path this
  great assembly of bodhisattvas has been diligently striving for
  innumerable thousands of myriads of koṭis of kalpas.
...
  However, if the bodhisattvas in whom the thought of enlightenment has
  recently awakened hear this after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, they will
  not accept it; and this will bring about conditions for erring deeds
  that destroy the Dharma. That is why, O Bhagavat, we entreat you to
  explain it to us and remove our doubts.

And this is how Buddha Shakyamuni answered:

Thereupon the Buddha addressed the bodhisattvas and the entire great
  assembly, saying: “O sons of a virtuous family! You should believe the
  true words of the Tathāgata.” He addressed the great assembly again,
  saying: “You should believe the Tathāgata’s true words.” He repeated
  this to them, saying: “You should believe the Tathāgata’s true words.”
Then the great assembly of bodhisattvas, headed by Maitreya, addressed
  the Buddha with their palms pressed together, saying: “O Bhagavat! We
  entreat you to explain it. We will accept the Buddha’s words.” After
  they had spoken in this way three times, they again said: “We entreat
  you to explain it. We will accept the Buddha’s words.”
After they had spoken in this way three times, they again said: “We
  entreat you to explain it. We will accept the Buddha’s words.” Then
  the Bhagavat, realizing that the bodhisattvas continued to entreat him
  after those three times, addressed them, saying: “Listen carefully to
  the Tathāgata’s secret and transcendent powers. The devas, humans, and
  asuras in all the worlds all think that the present Buddha, Śākyamuni,
  left the palace of the Śākyas, sat on the terrace of enlightenment not
  far from the city of Gayā, and attained highest, complete
  enlightenment. However, O sons of a virtuous family, immeasurable,
  limitless, hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of
  kalpas have passed since I actually attained buddhahood.

Why did Buddha Shakyamuni manifest himself as attaining enlightenment in 40 years in his own lifetime? Why does he tell some sentient beings that he will pass into paranirvana and be utterly extinguished when in fact he will not? ... skillful means:

“O sons of a virtuous family! If any sentient being comes to me, I
  perceive the dullness or sharpness of his faith and other faculties
  with my buddhaeye. According to the way I should bring them to the
  path, I, myself, proclaim different names and lifespans in various
  places. In each case I have also clearly stated that I would enter
  parinirvāṇa. Through various skillful means I have explained
  subtle teachings and have made the sentient beings rejoice.
“O sons of a virtuous family! To those beings whom the Tathāgata
  perceives as taking pleasure in the inferior teachings, who have few
  qualities and grave defilements, he teaches that the Buddha attained
  highest, complete enlightenment after he renounced household life in
  his young age. However, it has been a very long time indeed since I
  attained buddhahood. I give such an explanation only to lead and
  inspire the sentient beings to enter the buddha path through skillful
  means.

Don't think for even a moment that the Buddha has spoken falsely. Everything he does is out of compassion for sentient beings. If your house was on fire and your kids refusing to budge you would use skillful means to lure them out of compassion. This would be a skillful and completely virtuous act without even an ounce of negativity. Listen to Shakyamuni:

“O sons of a virtuous family! The sutras that the Tathāgata has
  expounded are all to save the sentient beings. Whether the Tathāgata
  teaches about himself or others, whether he reveals his form or that
  of others, whether he shows his acts or those of others, everything he
  says is true, never false. “Why is this? Because the Tathāgata
  perceives all the marks of the triple world as they really are: that
  there is no birth and death, coming or going; that there is also no
  existence or extinction in the world, truth or falsehood, sameness or
  difference. The Tathāgata does not view the triple world as sentient
  beings in the triple world see it. The Tathāgata perceives such things
  clearly and without mistakes.
“Since sentient beings have various natures, desires, behaviors,
  thoughts, and distinctions, the Tathāgata, wanting to cause them to
  plant roots of good merit, has explained various teachings through a
  variety of examples, explanations, and illustrations. He has not
  desisted from doing buddha acts even for a single moment and in this
  way it has been an extremely long time since I attained buddhahood. My
  lifespan is immeasurable and incalculable. I abide forever without
  entering parinirvāṇa.

All emphasis is my own. Please read the Lotus Sutra and understand.
Hope this helps!

Do you have sources for this?

Yeshe, this is probably a mahayanan source you're referring to, isn't it?

@Val I think the story you referenced is found in (or from) the (introduction to the) Jataka Tales, which, tell of the previous lives of the Buddha (or Bodhisattva)

@ruben2020 are you looking for original sutra/tantra sources? Or is the new link above adequate?

@Val yes, I am giving the answer from the Mahayana viewpoint which differs from Theravada on this question


text:
Question about metta

Does metta mean that we should not ignore people?
Is it possible to forcefully and assertively tell people their wrong doings? What about scolding?
My reservation: If one always remains kind it's likely that people will do whatever they want with you which will result in more problems or not stating one's concerns sufficiently

Why (in what situations) would you want to tell people "forcefully" (and is "forceful" really a good description for speech, what does it mean, or do you mean something related but slightly different like angry, intimidating, persuasive, loud)? And why would "stating one's concerns sufficiently" be difficult without "remaining kind"? This question might be clearer if it were more specific and personal (i.e. why are you asking, what problem[s] are you facing), otherwise answers might be general but irrelevant to your concern..

My question can be generalized since metta in Buddhism is also generalized and should applied in any situation. If for example somone treats us (repeatedly) wrongly and does not want to stop. Wouldn't assertive speaking to him be more effective? Human are emotional beings and they usually change if you forcefully and again repeatedly tell them a new way of behaving. Or let us take life threatening situations  or child abuse.. How is kindness helpful in these instances?

Human are emotional beings and they usually change if you forcefully and again repeatedly tell them a new way of behaving.
People can also be (or learn to be) bullies -- and unless you are able and willing to be the biggest bully on the block, I suggest that trying to persuade people using "force" is the wrong way to go about it.
To be honest, i.e. to avoid concealing a fact that appears to contradict my thesis, the suttas describe the Buddha has having a "lion's roar" ... and being like a bull among men ...  but,

Perhaps (I'm not sure) that's not relevant to use of force -- for example:

The Pali Commentaries explain that there are two kinds of lion's roar: that of the Buddha himself and that of his disciples. The former is sounded when the Buddha extols his own attainments or proclaims the potency of the doctrine he has realized; the latter, when accomplished disciples testify to their own achievement of the final goal, the fruit of arahantship.

See also Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?
The Buddha can be trusted to know when what and how is appropriate -- for example:

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

What about scolding?
I don't know (exactly what "scolding" is), according to the dictionary it's "an angry rebuke or reprimand".
So that seems to get into the question of whether and when anger is appropriate.
There was a topic What is a wrathful Buddha? from Vajrayana where an answer describes that as being like a parent pretending to be angry with their children in order to protect them -- and/or transmuting the energy of anger in a skillful way.
I'm not convinced that everyone is able to be so skillful, though; I think of anger as associated with a loss of skill (like a regression to one's infancy), and generally something to steer clear of. The Dhammapada:

Na hi verena verani
  sammantidha kudacanam
  averena ca sammanti
  esa dhammo sanantano.

Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

Another possibility might be that "scolding" implies telling someone something repeatedly or endlessly. I'm not sure that's effective though -- if it were effective, ought you need to repeat it?
Or let us take life threatening situations
I think you might go to the police, or the courts, or use physical force yourself (though this may not have been true everywhere, my personal experience of police leaves me admiring their ability to arrest a person "with overwhelming force" and yet still "without violence" -- like you might restrain a young child near something dangerous).
Or consider a drug addict, for example, asking you to help them to continue their habit.
I think you'd be within your rights to reply, "No, I won't. It's not good for you." (though I'm sympathetic to the fact that people do help addicts).
And I think that when you say "No" like that it doesn't have to be forceful (though it may need to be repeated), nor unkind -- the kinder the better, in my opinion. The kindness may be an even more important part of the message than the "no" (the "no" closing a door but the kindness opening one).

There's also an expression that I thought might be relevant -- i.e., "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog" -- that might help to explain how larger people can be bullied by smaller.
My experience of dogs tells me that's superficially true, e.g. that to deter a cowardly dog attacking a smaller dog, I may to need to be loud and explosive i.e. bark and not remain silent myself: to show it that I have a bigger bark than it does -- that there is (contrary to first appearances) a 'big dog' in me (or "in the fight"), i.e. that I'm the bigger dog.
Among humans, though, it may be more a matter of perseverance than intensity -- unless you can (and are willing to) sustain anger for hours, days, years, you may lose an anger-based competition -- anger is unreliable as a motive (but may fuel your opponent's opposition).
And so, I don't recommend it, I think it's the wrong avenue to pursue or to set off on.

Does metta mean that we should not ignore people?
Metta is loving kindness or the wish for others to be happy. If you can ignore people while maintaining the wish for them to be happy, then there is no contradiction. Introspect and see if this is possible. To be clear, I'm not saying it is or isn't. You should investigate yourself and see.
Is it possible to forcefully and assertively tell people their wrong doings? What about scolding?
Can you be forceful with people and assertive while wishing them nothing but happiness? Again, introspect and see! If you can do this, then there is no contradiction whatsoever.
My reservation: If one always remains kind it's likely that people will do whatever they want with you which will result in more problems or not stating one's concerns sufficiently
It is not about acting kind. What matters is what is in your mind and in your heart. If you can maintain a mind of calm and a heart full of nothing but the wish for them to be happy, then whatever you do will be motivated by loving kindness. Is it possible to be forceful and assertive towards another being motivated with nothing but the wish for them to be happy? Again, introspect and find out. Is it possible right now for you? Is it possible that if you keep training your mind in metta that it could become possible for you? These are good questions to experiment with :)

+1 "Find out for yourself" usually seems to me an unsatisfactory, insufficient answer; and yet I like this answer.

When you do metta, simply concentrate on sending good wishes to people. I use mantras for this purpose. They are very effective and practical. By singing mantras of loving kidness (e.g. "May all human beings be happy!") you build up positive impressions of loving kindess in your mind and slowly transform.
You don't need to concetrate on ingoring people because this just distracts you from metta. Bad people will gradually go away. This is one of the benefits of doing metta, that fire (mening anger or angy people) will not touch you (read Mettanisamsa Sutta for the list of full benefits).

Does metta mean that we should not ignore people?

In my opinion metta and ignoring people or not are two different things altogether. They don't relate at all. You can abide in metta and still ignore people. Ignoring people doesn't mean that you no longer have a 'metta-mind'.

Is it possible to forcefully and assertively tell people their wrong doings? What about scolding?

One can be assertive. That again doesn't mean that one has no metta.

My reservation: If one always remains kind it's likely that people will do whatever they want with you which will result in more problems or not stating one's concerns sufficiently

I think that a better translation of metta is well wishing instead of loving kindness. I did a metta retreat this year with a nun and she spoke of well wishing as a better translation. To me it makes more sense indeed.
If you work with well wishing as translation for metta you'll see that it's not a problem to be assertive towards other people, that you could even scold (the Buddha did), that it doesn't mean that you let other people walk all over you. It just means that you don't wish harm for other people.
Reacting with "I wish you break your neck" if someone hurts you, is not metta for instance. Reacting with metta in this situation would be to walk away, give yourself room, distance, safety. Make a wish for yourself to not give rise to anger, fear or whatever. You can also make a wish for the other person: "May (s)he be able to let go of this/that behaviour."
As the nun told me it's important to take care of one's own safety. That's also part of metta practice. You don't have to wish another person happiness. I tried that with one person of the 'enemy category'. Guess what, it doesn't work. It felt insincere. But, as she told me, that's not necessary. I wished him: "May he be able to live his life skilfully." According to her that was metta, it was well wishing.
I'm not sure I'm making sense.
(Hope you understand what I want to convey; English is not my first language.)

Indeed, I also try not to globally judge them as being bad rotten and also try to wish them all best, since all human beings have to face vicissitudes like loss of others, sickness, aging, death, mental suffering etc.


text:
How is a mindstream associated with human forms?
I think this question is distinct from those asking what is reincarnated. I understand the distinction between the mindstream and a soul, and the simile of passing on a flame.  I also understand that an association is made between a mindstream and human form, most often in the womb.  What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime?  Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

Descartes believed it was the pineal gland that moderated the mind/body interaction. Dispensing with that, I think your question amounts to how does mere awareness become associated with a physical body if it is not an emergent feature of the physical body? Do you agree that this is what the question amounts to?

To some extent I think I'm asking about the Buddhist view of the mind-body problem.  More specifically I'm interested in understanding the continuity of these processes in relation to organic life.  I imagine this could explain a mechanism underlying memory of past lives (for example).

There is no single mindstream, the illusion of identity is a mind-made imputation.
Instead, mind can be seen as an infinitely spanning graph of interconnected concurrent processes.
Seeing a single identity in that is exactly the result of ignorant reification that Buddha and Buddhism are trying to save the "sentient beings" from.
The way a sense of single-identity develops is described in the teaching of twelve nidanas. In modern terms it's a self-perpetuating semiotic process that develops from vague to increasingly more concrete delineation of entities (objects and the subject). To boil it down to a single principle, pursuing desirable objects is the act that by implication(inference) leads to semiotic emergence of "that" (object) and "this" (subject). This self-emergent tendency is then reinforced by the culture that carries it on from generation to generation.

can you suggest a Sutra or other source that expands on the illusion of identity specifically? Are there multiple mere awareness or only one? I guess another way of asking it... are there multiple moments of distinct qualia for any given moment of time?

IMNSHO the illusion of identity is exactly what anatta, shunyata, twelve nidanas, and madhyamaka -- are all about. For a honorary Vajrayana mention, check out "Lamp of Mahamudra" by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol. Awareness is ephemeral phenomena that involves both local as well as universal constituents. So, not one, not multiple - it's not countable ("much" not "many").

How about conventionally speaking? Is it conventionally correct to say that Andrei and Yeshe are two different mindstreams? To say that we share a single mindstream? That our moments of qualia are one and the same? Different? If you stipulate that it is conventionally correct to say that we have two different mindstreams just like we have two different bodies, then what of the OP's question from a conventional standpoint? How does awareness bind to a particular body? Or is it emergent from the body?

Conventionally speaking, it's partially distinct and partially shared. It's partially shared, for example, as we are discussing this topic and responding to each other's comments. At other times, when the two of us are not interacting, our mindstreams are partially shared with other parts of the environment. Awareness is not really tied to a particular body, it's just an assumption we make, institutionalized through habit and inertia. I can totally imagine a connected society of the future evolving a different paradigm, one where the notion of inter-mind would be explicitly accepted.

What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime?

It's an ongoing conditioned process whereby a state conditions the next.
Imagine a line of domino's. You tip one over, that one tips the next over and so on. There are the domino's; and there are different (invisible) forces playing a part in how the next domino is tipped.
(It's not a great comparison though. Cause the domino's in the line are already there when in actuality that's not the case. But I haven't found a better comparison yet, the candle simile doesn't work for me.)
So, a state of matter-mind-combination ceases and makes room for the appearing of the next matter-mind-combination (at least in the sense realm).
The ceasing of the mind-matter-combination is a condition for the arising of the next. But so are different other conditioning forces.
The Patthana (last part of the Abhidhamma) explains 24 different conditioning forces that play a role in the arising of the next states and the maintaining of the process. Important is also to understand that there are always several conditioning forces active, not just one.
You might want to read this book. Or just the chapter of the Patthana in the compendium of the Abhidhamma, by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
By the way, at a certain point it's possible to see the conditioning of this ongoing arising and ceasing in meditation. It's fascinating, at least for me.

Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

That's due to conditioning. Delusion (which is there when one experiences this first-person sense of self) is basically embedded in every newly arising matter-mind-combo. It has to be broken down, replaced by new conditioning.
The practice of what's usually called vipassana meditation (or meditation based on the Satipatthana sutta) makes this possible. From own experience I can say that with vipassana the experience of first person becomes the experience of being the observer (2nd person) of the ongoing arising and ceasing of the matter-mind-combo. And later the experience shifts even further away to more and more neutral, so the feeling of being the observer also drops away. By then there is no more experience of liking, disliking; no identification with what ever khanda, no kilesa and so on. (Upekkha nana).
So, it's a matter of replacing old conditioning with new one. That can take time though. Depending, again, on the way your mind stream is conditioned and how quickly your mind can let go of old ideas and so on.
Hope this helps a bit.

This mental-physical association you speak of, is called namarupa or name-and-form in Buddhism. In SN 12.2, it is described as:

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, &
  attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form
  dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name &
  this form are called name-&-form.

In dependent origination, the requisite condition of aging and death is birth. The requisite condition of birth is becoming. The requisite condition of becoming is clinging. The requisite condition of clinging is craving. The requisite condition of craving is feeling. The requisite condition of feeling is contact. The requisite condition of contact is name-and-form. This is according to DN 15.
But what is the requisite condition of name-and-form?
According to the Maha-nidana Sutta (DN 15):

Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart,
  would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off,
  would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."
Consciousness
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If
  consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a
  coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress
  in the future be discerned?
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.
"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing
  away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of
  designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which
  the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle
  revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e.,
  name-and-form together with consciousness.

In Piya Tan's commentary on Dependent Arising:

In Diagram 5a, the viññāṇa (consciousness) of the looped version is
  actually cognitive consciousness, which comprises both
  “consciousness” — as the  6 sense-bases and the 6 consciousness;
  hence, there is no need for mention of the 6 sense-bases again.
  However, in the looped versions of Diagram 5b, the nāma-rūpa that
  feeds viññāṇa is what, in Abhidhamma, is called the bhav’aṅga, the
  “birth continuum.” At the moment of dying, this bhav’aṅga is the
  cuti,citta, “death-consciousness,” and is also the  paṭisandhi,citta,
  “rebirth-consciousness” of the next life. The modern term for this is
  the existential consciousness.

So, here, two types of consciousness are described - existential consciousness or rebirth-consciousness that is the requisite condition of name-and-form, and name-and-form is the requisite condition for cognitive consciousness (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness and mind consciousness).
The Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18) has the formula "dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises" and so on. So, that provides the connection between cognitive consciousness and the six sense-bases in different versions of the dependent origination's links.
In his commentary on Viññāṇa (Consciousness), Piya Tan wrote:

A similar description is given in the Mahā,nidāna Sutta (D 15), where
  it is said that if no consciousness were “to descend into a mother’s
  womb,” or “were to depart” after that, nāma-rūpa would not form; or,
  if consciousness “were to be cut off” in a young person, nāma-rūpa
  would not develop and mature. In simple terms, this means that our
  sensing the world or our sense experiences or sense stimuli are what
  make us, create what we are. This mutual conditioning of  Viññāṇa and
  nāma-rūpa shows that no part of an individual should be regarded as
  having independent existence or selfhood. This fact is clearly shown
  in the stock formula found in the Mahā Punnama Sutta  and elsewhere:

Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or
    present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
    far or near — one sees all consciousnesses as they really are with
    right wisdom, thus: “This is not mine; this I am not; this is not my
    self.”It is when one knows thus, when one sees thus, that in regard to
    this body with its consciousness and all external signs, there is no
    latent tendency to I-making, to mine-making and to conceit.

Further relationship between consciousness and name-and-form can be found in the Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38):

[the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what
  one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the
  stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing
  [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands
  and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
  When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there
  is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
  despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering &
  stress.
"If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses
  [about something], this is a support for the stationing of
  consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of
  consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the
  production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the
  production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth,
  aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such
  [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything],
  there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being
  no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that
  consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed
  becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed
  becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation
  of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
Notes: The seven obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the
  obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of
  uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for
  becoming, and the obsession of ignorance. See AN 7.12.

So, what one obsesses over (clinging), creates the landing of consciousness for the future rebirth. That's existential consciousness. With existential consciousness as the requisite condition, comes name-and-form. But from name-and-form as the requisite condition, comes cognitive consciousness, which is the requisite condition for contact, which is the requisite condition for feeling, which is the requisite condition for craving, which is the requisite condition for clinging, (then becoming, birth, ageing and death). Clinging here then is used to create the landing for the future existential consciousness.
So, this is how the name-and-form comes about and endures.
It is also interesting that the third noble truth says that to end this cycle, craving must be ended. That cuts the cycle.

Useful references, thanks.  How does consciousness "descend into the mother's womb"?

The Buddha did not teach about an impersonal reincarnated mind-stream. This idea comes from later people.
Any teachings taught by the Buddha that are interpreted to mean "reincarnation" are based in the view that a "self" or "person" is reincarnated.
If a "self" was not reincarnated then there would be no incentive to be moral.
The Pali suttas say teachings that side with morality also side with the view of "self" (MN 117).
The common neo-Buddhist view that impersonal reincarnation occurs negates the purpose and efficacy of both the higher & lower teachings.
Not viewing absolute impermanence negates Nibbana & liberation.
Not viewing self in reincarnation negates morality.

I agree. But it is invalid to say who takes rebirth according to Dhamma. The right question is depending upon what conditions birth comes to be ? The answer is depending upon craving the birth comes to be.