text:
Did Huineng claim he didn't know Buddhism? If yes, what does it mean?
In a Facebook post on Huineng (6th Patriarch), I found the below conversation -

A monk asked Huineng, "Who is able to attain the essential teaching of Huangmei [the Fifth Patriarch]?"
  Huineng replied, "Those who understand Buddhism."
  The monk then asked, "Have you attained it?"
  Huineng's answered, "I don't understand Buddhism."

Where do I find a reference to this and what does it mean to not understand Buddhism?

Sounds like you're trying to understand Buddhism ;)

@AndreiVolkov Yeah, Zen/Mahayana. But neither sure about yours nor of Huineng's connotation with the word 'understanding'. :)

Zen masters often said that they didn't know anything of Buddhism. For example, in Suzuki's essay, "The Doctrine of Enlightenment," the Fifth Patriarch is quoted as saying: "Four hundred ninety-nine of my disciples understand well what Buddhism is, except one Huineng. He is not a man to be measured by an ordinary standard. Hence the robe of the faith was handed down to him." (Essays in Zen Buddhism, First Series) What this means is simply that Hui-neng's wisdom didn't come from studying the sutras but from within himself. On the other hand, he well understood all of the sutras intuitively because of his wisdom. This is not to say one shouldn't study the sutras, but that understanding comes from within, and one shouldn't rely on anything without.
If the particular quote is accurate, Hui-neng was engaging in a particularly Zen method of teaching, and his answer shouldn't be taken literally. He may have meant that if you really understand Buddhism, if you have attained the state in which there are no things such as a self, enlightenment or Buddhism, then you don't understand Buddhism.

But neither sure about yours nor of Huineng's connotation with the word 'understanding'. :)
To try to get (the) meaning, I don't look at the last phrase in isolation (i.e. "understanding"). The quote is a dialog, perhaps the answers make sense in context, as answers to what's being asked.
So what's the answer to "Have you attained it?"
And is it "the essential teaching of Huangmei?"


text:
A question regarding Buddhist world view and sense organs and their objects
I have recently started reading about Buddhism and I wonder what the world view of Buddhism is -- is it the world view that there is not one world as we think, and instead we each have our own world? When it is said in Buddhism, let's say the sense organ of the eye and its sense object: does the "sense object" here refer to the object seen (for instance a chair that is seen), or is what is meant with "sense object" the picture that I see? Same with tactile objects: is it for instance the bed I am laying on, or is it the sensation of touching the bed?
Also one question that I have regarding the sense organ of mind. It is said that the "external" sense object of mind is thoughts -- how can they be external if thoughts is happening inside the mind, or am I missing something? The view of 6 sense organs and 6 sense objects: is it meaning that there is nothing outside them, in other words there is only our experience not a world outside?

Good to look for oneself, out of remorse, having faultless virtue, required concentration will arise: Okkanta-samyutta — Entering. Philosophy only causes suffering.

In different Buddhist traditions, this may be interpreted differently. My answer here is mainly from the perspective of the Theravada tradition.
In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the inherent essence or meaning given to it by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca in Theravada, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
What about the Mahayana tradition?
Nagarjuna taught that all things are empty of inherent essence or "own being" (svabhava) including emptiness itself. Somebody tried to say that just like people are empty of a self of people, the chair is empty of a self of chairs. In my opinion, this is equivalent to papanca of Theravada.

This question is bordering on one of the fourteen unanswered questions in buddhism (avyākata), meaning that, pondering to much about the world put us at risk to dwell on things that leads us away from liberation.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'...
[...]
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html
Buddhism briefly touches on the nature of things describing it as "the all" (sabba). However, the characteristics of "the all" is not dealt with in very much detail, and is (arguably) described as inseparable with our perceptions/phenomena.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
Further, our perceptions can be classified as ayatanas or dhatus:
When it comes to the first five triads of sense bases (dhatus) they can be understood as a chain of phenomena like this:
External sense bases:
Our intitial perception of the object, perceived by:
Internal sense bases: The sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue and body), represented by:
Mind objects: Mental representations of the above.
The sixth sense, describing mind and mental objects is a bit of a different story. See:
How can the sixth channel of dhatus be understood?

I put some effort into presenting the gist of the suttas here. If i'm mistaken, i'd be happy if someone could briefly mention why, so that everyone has a chance to learn. Also, not sure if it's kosher to link to a different SE topic, but it seemed relevant here...

Also, not sure if it's kosher to link to a different SE topic, but it seemed relevant here Yes it's kosher, and especially with a question like this one (which has two parts to it).

Yes. The “world” refers to our own world but these worlds are not created by sense objects but created by our cravings and personal views about the sense objects.
In Pali Buddhism, “the world” does not mean sense objects. The term “the world” refers to “becomings”, “identities” and the various creating of concepts of “beings”, “groups of beings”, “societies”, etc, which are born from craving & attachment.
In SN 12.44, you can read how “the world” is defined in Buddhism as arising from craving the objects of the senses and how the world ceases, not when sense objects cease, but when craving for sense objects cease.
There are many scriptures that discuss the meaning of “the world” in Buddhism. As stated in the Pali sutta AN 4.45, the term “the world” is used synonymously with the word “suffering”.
Other relevant sutta are SN 35.82 and AN 8.6.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Sloth and the Hindrances
In ven. Nyanaponika Thera's compilation, The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest, some aspects seem to recur:

One should attend to hindrances -- sloth included -- with wise attention and not unwise attention. What is meant by this?
For sloth, one should contemplate the drawbacks of sloth (e.g. meditate on death, on suffering) and on inspiring topics (e.g. sympathetic joy, spiritual journey, master's greatness). Are inspiring topics of contemplation natural remedies against sloth? If so, would being moved and experiencing awe counter sloth as well?

Such states as awe or being moved have been studied and valued in psychology, but I have never seen them opposed to laziness or lack of motivation. It just seems to me that the topics of contemplation mentioned in the Five Hindrances text most likely elicit elevation and a sense of meaning in their practitioner.

Yoniso manasikāra as such means “directing the attention to the roots of things,” that is, observing
  phenomena as they truly are, as being characterized by impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta
You should know the experience of the hindrances are also impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self.

If so, would being moved and experiencing awe counter sloth as well?

Stimulating the mind may result in sloth on the downturn when stimulation is ending.

Great question! There are multiple approaches to counter sloth, as indicated in the article. Sloth and torpor are essentially an imbalance of energy, being on the lower end of the energy spectrum. The ideas for counters are naturally those things that arose energy of the sort that will refresh and buoy the mind. The goal isn't to swing as a pendulum from one extreme to the other, but to slowly bring it to the center - perfectly balanced between relaxation and excitement.
Wise attention is keeping something's origin in mind, seeing to know the causal relationships, and to pay attention to arising phenomena in such a way as to understand clearly their true nature - impermanent, unsatisfying, and Not-Self. Wise attention is the dawn, the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path. So, watch the hindrances thusly - observe so as to know their conditioned origin, know how they arise and fall, know that they are impermanent, not you, and are indeed unsatisfying.
Inspiring topics can counter sloth, but the topic should be one that directs you toward balance, toward the Dhamma, toward peace and relinquishment. Battle speeches may be inspiring, but may also over agitate the mind and inspire wandering thoughts. I find good Dhamma talks or books can be very inspiring in the right doses, and invigorate a slothful mind. On long retreats, one may get quite exhausted at times - but a good Dhamma talk can be like the strong arm of a good friend pulling you back up to your feet.
Experiences of awe, being moved, wonder, etc. also can work, if treated with wise attention and bring one to balance. They can be over-stimulating and lead to restlessness as well. For example, if you have an amazing meditative experience, have some nimitta or bright lights of joy or Piti, one may feel awe, moved to tears, and then firmly attach, cling, and identify with these experiences. But with wise attention, we are not trapped by such, and let those go too. They can be motivating - if it gets us on the cushion for the right reason, great. It shouldn't be to replicate those feelings or recreate experience or attain something specific though.

Ajahn Brahm wrote the following in his essay entitled "Five Hindrances".
Wise attention here refers to: "A skillful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the first signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach and take evasive action before it's too late".
The method to overcome sloth and torpor is written in the quote below i.e. by rousing energy through developing interest.

Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!
Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
  one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
  ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
  that is sloth and torpor.
The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.
Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skillful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the first
  signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach and
  take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in a
  road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

The advice from SN 9.2 (below) would also be helpful:

Now at that time that mendicant fell asleep during the day’s
  meditation. The deity haunting that forest had compassion for that
  mendicant, and wanted what’s best for them. So they approached that
  mendicant wanting to stir them up, and addressed them in verse:

“Get up, mendicant! Why lie down?
    What’s the point in your sleeping?
    What slumber can there be for those afflicted,
    injured, pierced by an arrow?
You should amplify the faith
    that led you to go forth
    from the home life to homelessness.
    Don’t fall under the sway of slumber.”

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


text:
Attending Mindfully Versus Without Mindfulness
In this answer by ven. Yuttadhammo, it is said that depending on the level of concentration and mindfulness of a person, attending to certain states can result in either wakefulness or tiredness. Hence, I wonder:
Is it the case that strong mindfulness tends to counter unwholesome states merely by observation, and that without mindfulness these states persevere and may worsen? E.g. a person meditating on a bus mindfully will decrease hindrances, whereas a person mindwandering might increase them?
If so, then I ask:
Does this entail that strong meditative states 'burn' unwholesome states because of a mindfulness absent from daily life?

Ayoniso manasikāra, as such, means “not directing the attention to the roots of things” or “directing
the attention away from the roots of things,” that is, not observing phenomena as they truly are, not noticing that they are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

Yoniso manasikāra as such means “directing the attention to the roots of things,” that is, observing
phenomena as they truly are, as being characterized by impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

OP: without mindfulness these states persevere and may worsen?
... As a result, wrong view arises, and when this
become a habit, wrong view is reinforced so that it remains as a latent tendency (anusaya)

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

OP: a person meditating on a bus mindfully will decrease hindrances, whereas a person mindwandering might increase them?

If you have initial and sustained application this will reduce hindrances. Mindfulness accompanies by initial and sustained application will decrease it.

With mindfulness there is acknowledgment of the thoughts and hindrances so they don't get energy.And when there is application of mindfulness on all thoughts and hindrances ,even with the feeling of a self that has to do something .When you uproot that from your consciousness you are truly free,for you there is just phenomenon ,life is luminous beautiful play ,and you simply let it happen including yourself.You let the hindrance come and go you let sadness and happiness come and go ,everything.


text:
What are the six in SN 1.70?
The sutta quoted below has a riddle about the six.
What are the six? And why?
What is the message of the sutta?
SN 1.70 translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

“In what has the world arisen?
  In what does it form intimacy?
  By clinging to what is the world
  Harassed in regard to what?”
“In six has the world arisen;
  In six it forms intimacy;
  By clinging to six the world
  Is harassed in regard to six.”

Cha Chakka Sutta is another Sutta which has a play of the number 6. Here more elaboration is given on what each set of 6 is.

Source: Cha Chakka Sutta
The Singhala translation is less of a riddle than the English. English retranslation is mine:

(අධ්‍යාත්මික ආයතන) සය උපන් කල්හි ලොව උපන්නේ නම් වේ.

When the 6 sense bases arises the world arises

(රූපාදී බාහිර ආයතන) සයෙහි සඞගමය කෙරෙයි.

By non-reaction to the external sense objects, the world is stilled

(අධ්‍යාත්මික ආයතන) සයම ප්‍රත්‍යය කොට ගෙන

By means of the 6 sense bases

(බාහිර ආයතන) සයෙහි ලෝ වැසි තෙම පෙළෙයි (වෙහෙසෙයි)

The 6 external sense objects trouble the worldlings
ලොක ( හෙවත් ජස්සුලොක ) සූත්‍රය
අධ්‍යාත්මික ආයතන - world - internal senses - eye, ear, ....
බාහිර ආයතන - external sense objects
So what is covered here is the 1st 2 items in the list of items in Cha Chakka Sutta:

the 6 internal senses
the 6 external senses

In what has the world arisen? Kismiṃ loko samuppanno?

And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world (lokassa samudayo)?

In dependence on the
  eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is
  contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling
  as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with
  clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth;
  with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of
  the world.
In dependence on the ear and sounds …
In dependence on the nose and
  odours …
In dependence on the tongue and tastes …
In dependence on the
  body and tactile objects …
In dependence on the mind and mental
  phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is
  contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling
  as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging … existence
  … birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This,
  bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
SN 12.44


text:
Categories of Dhammanupassana (Satipatthana)
What are the components, the categories (the dhammas)that have to be observed in dhammanupassana (the 4th field of satipatthana)?

The categories are:

5 hindrances
5 aggregates of clinging
6 internal and 6 external sense-bases
7 awakening-factors
4 noble truths

Sourced from: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta


text:
Anapanasati - are the 16 considered progressive sequence of steps?
Answers to this question suggest that the 16 are steps or stages of anapanasati, which implies that they are a progressive sequence of steps or stages. They are also related to the four foundations of mindfulness or the satipatthana.
On the other hand, the booklet "How To Meditate" (quoted below) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, seems to suggest that one should not use it as progressive steps. Instead, it recommends that if feelings arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. Or if thoughts arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that.
That does not sound like a progressive sequence of steps. That seems to be more "go with the flow" or feel free to move from any of the 16 to any other, depending on what arises.
So, which is right approach to anapanasati? Are the 16 progressive sequence of steps approach right? Or is the approach of the "How To Meditate" booklet right?
Or are they two different techniques?
From "Chapter Two: Sitting Meditation" of the booklet "How To Meditate":

Regarding the body, watching the rising and the falling is sufficient
  for a beginner meditator. At times, one might wish to also acknowledge
  the position of the body as “sitting, sitting”, or “lying, lying” if
  it is more found to be more conducive for clear observation.
In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the body, one
  should fix one’s attention on it, discarding the abdomen and focusing
  on the sensation. If a feeling of pain should arise, for example, one
  should take the pain itself as a meditation object.
Any one of the four foundations may serve as a meditation object, as
  all four are aspects of reality. It isn’t necessary to stay with the
  rising and falling of the abdomen at all times. Instead, when pain
  arises, one should observe the new object, the pain, in order to
  clearly understand it for what it is, rather than judging or
  identifying with it. As explained earlier, the meditator should simply
  focus on the pain and create the clear thought, “pain, pain, pain,
  pain…” until it goes away. Instead of getting upset about the pain,
  one will see it for what it is and let it go.
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. Here, the object
  is to avoid clinging to the feeling, which would create a dependency
  on it. When one clings to positive feelings, one will be inevitably
  dissatisfied when they are gone.
Once the sensation disappears, one should return to the rising and
  falling of the abdomen and continue observing it as “rising” and
  “falling”.
In regards to the mind, if thoughts arise during meditation, one
  should acknowledge them as “thinking”. It doesn’t matter whether one
  is thinking about the past or future or whether one’s thoughts are
  good or bad; instead of letting the mind wander and lose track of
  reality, bring the mind back to the reality of the thought with,
  “thinking”. Then return to the rising and falling and continue
  practice as normal.
In regards to dhammas, when the mind gives rise to liking, pleased by
  a certain experience, create the clear thought, “liking, liking”. When
  disliking arises – anger, boredom, frustration, etc. – create the
  clear thought, “disliking, disliking”, “angry, angry”, “bored, bored”,
  or “frustrated, frustrated”. When laziness or drowsiness comes up,
  create the clear thought, “lazy, lazy”, or “drowsy, drowsy”. When
  distraction or worry arise, “distracted, distracted” or “worried,
  worried”. When doubt or confusion arise, “doubting, doubting” or
  “confused, confused” and so on.
Once the above hindrances subside, bring the mind back again to a
  clear awareness of the present moment by focusing on the rise and fall
  of the abdomen.

The 16 steps or stages of anapanasati:

There is no such thing called 16 steps/stages of anapansmrti (Pali: anapanasati). In the Agamas and other sutras teaching meditation, it is called 16 特勝, which has nothing to do with stage or step. The Theravadin meditation teachers are simply fantasizing up their own versions by reading the Pali text, which was modified no earlier than 600CE by the Vibhajyavāda sect. To the real Elders the Sarvāstivāda School the Vibhajyavādins were heretics who couldn't realize the Buddha's prescribed attainments therefore they modified the Buddha's text to justify their lower realizations

Try not to overthink it. There is a clear path of progressive steps or progress, yes, but for each meditator it varies somewhat as they each have varied conditions. We don't control what arises, so we can't expect to watch it unfold like a textbook.
The stages or steps occur naturally, without us having to force or think about it, as long as you are doing the one basic thing correctly: observe with wise attention whatever arises, without judgement.
You'll notice each grouping of steps follows a pattern of prescriptive action - this pattern of treatment is the important thing. Apply this pattern to whatever arises, and the Path will unfold before you, eventually without "effort". At first we start with the coarse, and naturally go sublter and subtler as our minds get more still and concentrated. The next thing to contemplate will be waiting for you, and arise on its own. Don't try to seek out an expected experience. Just observe whatever it is as it arises, watch it as it disappears, relaxed, without clinging. Its shockingly simple when it finally clicks. No need to wonder if you're at stage 13 or should I now contemplate the next thing on the to-do list or anything like that, that will just stir your mind up.
The breath is simply our home base, something we can always return to if we wander. Sticking with the breath trains our focus, trains our concentration, trains our resistance, trains us to not cling or push away. It is important to remember that the training of these skills are the key, not what object you use.
Master the method, and the Royal Road to Nibbana will appear. Good luck. May we all become truly free.

The 16 dhammas are obviously progressive (sequential) steps -- since the Buddha said Dhamma is taught in a proper sequence (AN 5.159):

Calming breathing (kaya-sankhara) leads to rapture (vedana).
Calming rapture (vedana) leads to mental (citta) purity.
Mental purity (citta) leads to vipassana & nirodha (Dhamma).

How can the 16 dhammas not be progressive?
Also, steps 7 & 8 are experiencing mind conditioner (citta sankhara) and calming mind conditioner (citta sankhara). Feeling (rapture & happiness) is the citta sankhara, per MN 44. Steps 7 & 8 are not "mental activities". Ajahn Buddhadasa expertly explained Anapanasati in his book called 'Unveiling the Secrets of Life:
a Manual for Serious Beginners'.
Similar to Ajahn Brahm's book about jhana, Ajahn Buddhadasa's book is the sole only authoritative book on Anapanasati.
In conclusion, Anapanasati is 16 progressive steps, which mirror (but are not exactly the same as) the jhana sequence of steps. Anapanasati is fruition of upacāra-samādhi. Jhana is fruition of appana-samadhi. Yuttadhammo monk teaches  Satipatthana Sutta parikamma-samadhi.

Ajahn Buddhadasa's book is the sole only authoritative book on Anapanasati For the sake of understanding, i’d like to ask what you base this conclusion on.

For the sake of helping handful sincere seekers, instead of oiling the tongue for personal favor I would rather speak the fact. Dhammadhatu has plenty errors in his "teachings". E.g., his repeated "teaching" on mindfulness with breathing against mindfulness of breathing is an enormous error. In anapansmrti, the meditation object is breath, not mindfulness. Mindfulness cannot be for mindfulness. A candy tasted sweet, but taste cannot taste itself. Candy is the object for taste. Given the errors mentioned and unmentioned, you should give his claim a big pinch of salt @Erik

Obviously questioning my answer is beyond help; just clinging to the most superficial yogic manipulations and creating "spiritual self" from this clinging. The Dhamma of the Buddha is deep. Anapanasati is deep.

OP: Or are they two different techniques?

These are two techniques.
The technique taught by Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu is the technique taught by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw. This is contemplating on the air element, though some also call it Anapana as it also deals with the breath. Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw also positioned it as contemplating the air element:

Thus we can feel the inward and outward movement of the abdomen. This specific characteristic of vayo dhatu must be thoroughly realized by meditators so that they can destroy the false view of a person, a being or a soul.

Mindfulness Of The Four Elements, Vipassana Meditation Lectures on Insight Meditation by Chanmyay Sayadaw

Actually it was the Buddha who did it, because he taught to observe vayo-dhatu, the air-element included in the 5 aggregates. The rising and falling is constituted of the air-element.

Questions and Answers with Mahasi Sayadaw
Anapana meditation is found in Anapanasati Sutta. This has 16 stages.
Each tetrad relates to particular Sathipattana:

With regard to the Satipattana aspect, the sutta also mentions:

(II) When the mindfulness of the in-and-out-breathing is cultivated and often developed, it brings the 4
  focuses of mindfulness to perfection.

Anapanasati Sutta

the first 3 tetrads are about samadhi, ie  with the calming of the kāyasankhāra and Cittasaṅkhāra, by relaxing the body and getting piti the usual way the buddha talks about samadhi.
The last tetrad is to reach nibanna, when the person seeks a way to reach the usual letting go, viraga and nirodha while in samadhi, which is exactly this
From AN 9.36 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’

You cannot kill the saṅkhāras and then calming them, that's complete nonsense.

Anapanasati is not jhana because the breath is known in each step. Nibbana is not mentioned in Anapanasati. Only 'nirodha', which may not be complete Nibbana. There are two levels of genuine concentration: neighbourhood & jhana.

While AN 9.36 is irrelevant, it does describe what occurs in step 7, namely, "experiencing citta sankhara". The citta sankhara (pleasant feelings) are experienced as as impermanent, as unsatisfactory, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self, as gross compared to the peace of letting go (the deathless). Apart from this, it is your last sentence that sounds like non-sense because AN 9.36 does not refer to killing the sankharas. It refers to not attaching to or delighting in feelings.


text:
Question about Vijnana and the correct view of Nama and Rupa
So I understood Vinana to be activated only when there is an object present to be aware of, and I think that is why in dependent origination it is said Vijnana conditions nama rupa and nama rupa conditions vijnana.
In other words without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be consciousness.
Based on this, it is clear that consciousness is an activity (of cognizing an object), not an entity that can "cognize" itself. Therefore I am confused in the Jhana about infinite consciousness, because it says consciousness is conscious of consciousness.
How is that possible when consciousness only can be aware of an object, and not itself (because it is an activity, and not an entity as Vedanta says)?
Also, please correct me if the meaning of nama rupa that I gave (name and form) is not correct in Buddhism. This is the Vedanta view that I have read about. Can someone describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa?

Your question is interesting. However, to say consciousness is conscious of consciousness is against the Buddha's simile of "a knife cannot cut itself" (刀不能自割)

The mind can only become aware of the mind in a subsequent moment. We get angry, and then know so. In moment 1, vinyana arises along with anger and delusion, aware only of the story. In moment 2, for a mindfulness practitioner, the vinyana arises with mindfulness and samadhi, abandoning the anger, unbonded to thought.
In the infinite consciousness jhana there is only vinyana in its  unbonded state (bare and separate awareness). In the next moment, it is aware of itself from the previous moment. In the next moment it is aware if itself again. It is infinite it the moment to moment unended reflection, not the sense of its size.  Hope that helps!  Oh and yes there are tiny spaces of nothing between angry and mindful of it, but those are very hard to see. Once you can, you are well into vipassana, seeing there is no continuity or prevailing consciouness (anatta).

So I understood Vinjana to be activated only when there is an object present to be aware of

Correct. That is why there is no such thing as the 'rebirth consciousness' taught by later Buddhist commentators.

I think that Is why in dependent origination it is said Vinjana
  conditions nama rupa and nama rupa conditions vinjana

Correct.

in other words without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be conciousness.

Correct.

Therefore it is clear that conciousness is an activity (of cognizing an object) not an entity so it cannot "cognize" itself.

Incorrect. As consciousness arises with sense objects, it also cognizes itself. For example, when the eye sees a sight, the mind knows it is conscious of that seeing.
Simply open your eyes, close your eyes, open your eyes, close your eyes. Continue this opening & closing of your eyes until you (the mind) understand the mind is conscious of the eye consciousness operating via the eye. It is not rocket science.

Therefore I am confused in the Jhana about infinite consciousness it
  says consciousness is conscious of consciousness how is that possible
  when consciousness only can be aware of an object not itself because
  it is an activity not an entity as Vedanta says.

There are other mental factors operating in the jhana about infinite consciousness, which is why consciousness can cognize consciousness. It is these other mental factors, particularly perception, that allow consciousness to exist. The infinite consciousness jhana is described as follows:

Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, zeal, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after another.
Anupada Sutta

Also please correct me if the meaning of nama rupa that I gave (name and form) is not correct in Buddhism this is the Vedanta view that I have read about , can someone describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa.

The correct Buddhist meaning of 'nama-rupa' is 'mind-body' or 'mentality-materially', as defined in the suttas as "feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, the form comprised of earth, wind, fire & water", as follows:

Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality.
Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View

When samadhi is developed and when the mind is free from thoughts & naming activity; the mind can cognise how subtle underlying defilement tendencies & urges affect the mind-body and will know nama-rupa is not the name-form of Brahmanism, Hinduism & Vedanta; which is:

Nāmarūpa-vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: नामरुपव्याकरण ), in Hindu philosophy, refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and forms i.e. to the unfolding of the primal state into the manifest world prior to which unfolding there was nothing that existed; it refers to the conditioned reality. In the Upanishads this term is used to indicate the self-willed manifestation of Brahman under visible and nameable aspects, to the said manifestation into the fictitious plurality of the phenomenal world owing to maya, the unreal adjunct. According to Hindu scriptures the world in each age emanates from Brahman mirrored upon maya.
The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of the differentiation of the undifferentiated.
Namarupa-vyakarana From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Pali suttas, there are suttas (such as SN 7.6, DN 11 & MN 49) spoken to Brahmins in the language of Brahmanism, which include the term 'nama-rupa' as meaning 'name-form' or 'naming-form'. The puthujjana scholars and their puthujjana followers rely on these suttas to promote their alien ideas about 'name-form'. These puthujjana write post after post on Buddhist forums about a zombie state called 'consciousness without feature' (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) mistakenly believed to be Nibbana.
While the work-in-progress-diverse-ideas monk named Thanissaro Bhikkhu uses the translation 'name-form', his explanation below shows he is really referring to 'mind-body':

A. As you walk to the door of your parents’ house, thinking about the
  situation (2b—verbal fabrication), you pull up memories of things your uncle
  has done in the past (2c—mental fabrication). This provokes anger, causing
  your breathing to become labored and tight (2a—bodily fabrication). This
  makes you uncomfortable (2c—mental fabrication), and you are aware of
  how uncomfortable you feel (3—consciousness). Hormones are released
  into your bloodstream (4 f through 4i—Form). Without being fully aware that
  you are making a choice, you choose (4c—intention) to focus (4e—
  attention) on the perception (4b) of how trapped you feel in this situation.
  Your consciousness of this idea (5 and 6—mental contact) feels oppressive
  (7—feeling). You want to find a way out (8—craving). At this point, you can
  think of a number of roles you could play in the upcoming dinner (9d and
  10—clinging and becoming): You might refuse to speak with your uncle,
  you might try to be as unobtrusive as possible to get through the dinner
  without incident, or you might be more aggressive and confront your uncle
  about his behavior. You mentally take on one of these roles (11—birth), but
  unless you keep your imaginary role actively in mind, it falls away as soon as
  you think of it (12—aging-&-death). So you keep thinking about it, evaluating
  how your parents will react to it, how you will feel about it, and so on (2b—
  verbal fabrication). Although the stress of step (12) in this case is not great,
  the fact that your role has to be kept in mind and repeatedly evaluated...
Shape of Suffering

Below, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa provides an example of 'mind-body':

Again, several hours or days later, this young lady may simply begin to doubt the sincerity of
  her boyfriend. No one has said anything to her, and she hasn't seen anything, but in her own
  mind she begins to doubt [ignorance] whether or not her boyfriend has been going with another woman. She begins to make assumptions [sankhara] and so Dependent Origination begins to operate by way of
  the mind door: a mental object comes into contact with the mind and mind consciousness
  arises. This mind consciousness conditions a new mentality/materiality to arise: what was an
  inert body/mind, not conditioned to experience suffering, is now the mentality/materiality that
  conditions sense bases capable of experiencing suffering to arise. The sense bases condition
  suffering prone contact to arise. Contact conditions feeling conducive to the arising of
  suffering. Then follows restless craving and clinging attachment and the same kind of suffering
  arises again. This is a case of Dependent Origination becoming active in that young lady by
  way of mind consciousness.

Similar to the two examples above, I offer the following example.
Imagine you have an addiction to smoking cigarettes you wish to end however the urge to smoke cigarettes still arises.

The urge that arises is ignorance.
The internal thoughts & images that arise with that urge are sankhara.
The knowing of the urge, thoughts & images is consciousness.
The mind-body that then becomes impacted & agitated by that urge and fights & wrestles to stop that urge is nama-rupa.
But when the mind-body cannot stop the urge, the sense organs then look for cigarettes to smoke.
Finding cigarettes causes contact to arise.
Contact causes excitement about cigarettes to arise.
Contact and excitement causes more craving for cigarettes to arise.
Choosing to smoke the cigarettes is attachment.
Smoking the cigarettes and increasing the addiction is becoming.
Being an addict is birth; that is, birth as an addict.
The suffering that arises when you cannot smoke is aging-death-sorrow-grief-despair-suffering.

Therefore, try to comprehend when the mind-body are made restless & agitated by internal urges, this is the meaning of nama-rupa in Dependent Origination; which is a mind-body affected & poisoned by ignorance (rather than a mind-body free from ignorance).
Obviously, nama-rupa is not 'naming-form' because the naming of forms (such as cigarettes) is already occurring at the 2nd link called 'sankhara', when the mind thinks about & has images of smoking cigarettes.
'Naming-form' is unrelated to suffering. If I name a round object a 'wheel', this does not cause suffering. Therefore, it is unrelated to Buddhism and unrelated to Dependent Origination. 'Naming-form' is Creationism and not Buddhism.

OP: dependent origination it is said Vinjana conditions nama rupa

Nama Rupa is like the canvas and Vinnana is like the pain in a painting. As one cannot draw a painting in thin air there cannot be Vinnana without Nama Rupa to abide in. Nama Rupa has to arise for Vinnana to exist.

OP: without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be conciousness

Consciousness arises due to contact of the organ with an external object. Since Nama Rupa arised there are the respective organs which can make contact for consciousness to arise.

OP: ... conciousness is concious of conciousness ...

I believe there you are conscious that you are conscious as opposed to not aware that you are conscious.

OP: describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa

In Vedanta it is considered name and form is a manifestation or creation of Brahma. In Buddhism, this is created through dependent arising or cause and effect.


text:
Right time, Right time! But what is the right time to speak?
Failue, disappeared, they say: "Right time, right time. It wasn't the proper time!", but:
What's the right time to ask?
What's the right time to advise?
What's the right time to speak?
What's the right time to stay silent?
What's the right time for delay?
May one answer when ever thought being the right time.
[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or whatever binds to this wheel but for gaining release from it.]

For context this question might be asking about the phrase, "the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech", in MN28 (quoted in this answer in reply to the question, Don't teach Dhamma to those who can't appreciate it or aren't interested).

The question is tagged abhidhamma -- are you only looking for answers which are based on the Abhidhamma (and not e.g. the Suttas or the Vinaya)?

There is no real Sila without Abhidhamma, Nyom Chris.

In the sutta (MN 28), the phrase "right time" is in the translation of kālaññū which is defined in dictionaries here ("one who knows the proper time"), and here.

Kālaññū knowing the proper time for ... (c. Dat. or Loc.) Sn. 325; described at A. IV, 113 sq.; as one of the five qualities of a rājā cakkavattī (viz. atthaññū, dhamma°, matta°, k°, parisa°) A. III, 148; one of the seven qual. of a sappurisa, a good man (=prec. +atta°, puggala°) D. III, 252, 283; as quality of the Tathāgata D. III, 134=Nd2 276; Pug. 50.

The most complete explanation of kālaññū that I found in the suttas is in Dhammaññūsutta (AN 7.68).
The definition in that context is:

And how are they one who knows the right time? It’s when a mendicant knows the right time: ‘This is the time for recitation; this is the time for questioning; this is the time for meditation; this is the time for retreat.’

In that sutta it's one of seven qualities:

A mendicant with seven qualities is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of veneration with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world. What seven? It’s when a mendicant knows the teachings, knows the meaning, has self-knowledge, knows moderation, knows the right time, knows assemblies, and knows people high and low.

Of these seven, the quality with the longest description is the last (I abbreviate slightly in the quote below):

And how are they one who knows people high and low? It’s when a mendicant understands people in terms of pairs. Two people:

one likes to see the noble ones, one does not.
one likes to hear the true teaching, one does not
one lends an ear to the teaching, one does not
one remembers the teaching they’ve heard, one does not
one reflects on the meaning of the teachings they have remembered, one does not
one understands the meaning and the teaching and practices accordingly, one understands the meaning and the teaching but does not practice accordingly
one practices to benefit themselves but not others, and one practices to benefit both themselves and others

That’s how a mendicant understands people in terms of pairs.

The definition of "one who knows assemblies" might be relevant too:

And how are they one who knows assemblies? It’s when a mendicant knows assemblies: ‘This is an assembly of aristocrats, of brahmins, of householders, or of ascetics. This one should be approached in this way. This is how to stand, to act, to sit, to speak, or to stay silent when there.’ If a mendicant did not know assemblies, they would not be called ‘one who knows assemblies’. But because they do know assemblies, they are called ‘one who knows assemblies’. Such is the one who knows the teachings, the one who knows the meaning, the one who has self-knowledge, the one who knows moderation, the one who knows the right time, and the one who knows assemblies.

There's a discussion on SuttaCentral at the moment, ‘Qualifications’ neccesary to teach Dhamma? There someone said that the situation e.g. relationship with a teacher is different within the Sangha: I recommend this answer (which I won't quote here) and the answer immediately following that.

There is no real explaining on what is the right time, Nyom. There are of course indications that right time may be different in dependency of outward condition.

It seems to me that the sutta mentions mostly "inward" conditions (e.g. several types of knowledge), as well as "outward" conditions (e.g. the time and the people in the audience). From other suttas a "proper time" also seems to depend on inter-personal relationships, for example "after being asked".

You're right this answer isn't very specific; but the question is very broad. I made the question narrower by relating it to this comment, where the topic seems to be asking what the suttas say about the "right time" for a monk (and/or the Tathagata) to teach dhamma.

"In and of itself", Nyom Chris. 1 Topic/question. And in the right time.

What's the right time to ask?

When one feels the person is willing to give.

What's the right time to advise?

When one feels the person is willing to take the advice.

What's the right time to speak?

When one feels the person is willing to listen and what one says will have the best impact.

What's the right time to stay silent?

When one feels the person is not willing to listen or will take it the wrong way or what one says will not have and impact.

What's the right time for delay?

When one feels the person is not willing to listen or take advice but this may change for the better. E.g. There are times when the Buddha has delays teaching the Dhamma when one is hungry as one will not be attentive.

Suttas apart, sometimes it's about knowing/understanding the other person.

Mind readers? Or ego-manics? Is there any case that one whould not ask, speak... if he would "feel" it's not of benefit? So what, so how, should feel here be understood, if useful. (don't forget the other 37 who just read and wait on householders answer.

@ Samana Johann feel is only a real time reference of information based on it the action is taken.Its combination of real-time information and memory ,there is no other reference for information on the basis of which to act.


text:
Is it a sin to vacuum cobwebs & ants while cleaning?
I vacuum away cobwebs, ants & any other small insects I find while cleaning the house. My intention is to clean the house but I still feel bad about those insects.  And most of the time I don't clean the vacuum cleaner bag on the same day & even if I do so some insects are already dead. I'm unable to use brooms or anything to clean the cobwebs due to medical conditions. Is it a sin to do so?

Maybe try those soft-feather dusters and wearing a mask if you have allergy? They don't kick up as much dirt as the electric vacuum, save you some electric bills, and they also save the lives of those tiny poor beings. Give it a try. Less effort and more benefits!

Thanks a lot for the idea. :)

The fact that you feel uneasy and ask this question indicates that you know the answer. Which method of cleaning would a spider prefer you to use? Perhaps you could compromise by gently sweeping the cobwebs away from the spider's hiding place and then vacuuming the brush. The trouble with vacuums is they suck the insects out of their nooks and crannies in a way a brush does not, .

Buddhism doesn’t deal with sins, it deals with consequences of our actions (karma).
Your example seems like a trade off between feeling bad for the insects on one hand, and having a dirty home on the other. The former, being merciful towards other living beings (karuna) is considered a virtue in Buddhism as it can save us from feeling bad.
Sometimes life is about choosing the option giving us the least bad consequences for everyone involved, out of all the options. The effort to balance our actions (upekkha) is considered yet another virtue in Buddhism as it unifies others wellbeing with our own, saving us from destructive self-sacrifice on one hand and selfishness on the other.


text:
Explanation of the six temperaments
Greedy, hating, deluded, faithful, intelligent, speculative
I know they may seem self exploratory on the surface, but I'm looking for an understanding to more properly determine how one is to know which one he/she is someone else is.

on the six Carita (Nature, CharacterOr Habitual Conduct)

"A moha dominant person is generally idle, confused and deluded. He cannot differentiate vice from virtue and right from wrong. He lacks of power of judgment and is void of sati and paññā. As for vitakka person he is incapable of doing moral deeds being very lazy. He talks away his precious times and does nothing substantial."...

One of the most important topics in Buddhism is the lack of basis for "identity view". This comes out, for example, in MN62:

“Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

Having faith that identity view is baseless, one is led to conclude that those who cling to identity view are often:

Greedy, which can be recognized in the unfairness and suffering of those excluded from shared resources such as drinking water during a drought.
Hating, which can be recognized in a lack of compassion for others such as saying "steerage passengers will have no lifeboats."
Deluded, which can be recognized in a never-ending grasping at the vanities of health, youth, and life.

Yet those who have identity view can also be:

Faithful, which can be recognized in a willingness to experience the fruit of teachings of the Buddha personally
Intelligent, which can be recognized in a discernment between skillful qualities and unskillful qualities
Speculative, which can be recognized in a struggle to understand the meaning and worth of the teachings of the Buddha such as "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self,’"

Is this householders opinion, view?


text:
Nature of Direct Experience
I have observed that during contemplation, there are periods where attention is on the object, a kind of basic awareness. Then, there are periods where thoughts emerge, based on the object, a kind of cognition of the object.
Then, there seems to be periods where cognitions unrelated to an object within experience occur; these would be be as mind-wandering or speculation.
My question is: Are those cognitions and fabrications unrelated to direct experience precisely what one tries to counter in Buddhism?
I have the impression that if I cognized only direct experience through awareness, and produced only object-related cognitions, that I would diminish wrongness and inefficiency in the mind greatly.
Thank you

Samsara is mind body industrial music

You might want to study the Structural Defferential. It is a map of the process of abstraction of our nervous system. It was created by Alfred Korzybski, a pioneer in the field of General Semantics.

The basic awareness you're mentioned in your question refers to the silent levels of awareness. This experience of direct awareness of the whole is also called Gestalt.
In Buddha's spiritual path one tries to see and stop the process of "I" making and "mine" making in his mind. That's what I know theoretically.

The work of Korzybski is extremely useful imo as well.

I have a feeling that one can never possibly become a real thinker without understanding the works of Korzybski. And that is only what comes before real monkhood. In other words, one must be an accomplished, expert thinker, before one can become sadhu.

J. Krishnamurti defined the highest level of intelligence as: "The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence." That sound similar to silent levels or direct experience that Korzybski is talking about. Direct experience or just seeing - when you finally see things.

On the impression; looks close to me. Whether one thinks or not is far less important than the content of thought. That to which one gives frequent attention becomes the inclination, therefore to establish a perception of impermanence ie one has to reflect on impermanence, this is in the Grimananda Sutta; 'how does one develop perception of impermanence? One reflects thus; ..' . Perceptions have to be established by reasoning. Reasoning is like talking to oneself, reasoning one performs actions; be it inference, translation or multiplication; by means of this or that system of expression one communicates internally. Purpose of reasoning is probably the mapping out of what can be thought about as it actually is so that there is no delusion about the cause and effect which results in unforseen consequences and disappontment.

cleaning the mind is not done by focusing on objects of perceptions. This is wrong territory according to the budhha https://suttacentral.net/sn47.7/en/sujato
The right things to watch are whatever is left after the ''five kinds of sensual stimulation'', ie ''cattāro satipaṭṭhānā.''


text:
Nibbana and correct view of Vijnana and Jhana
My Vijnana view from advaita Vedanta is deep and ingrained, it is false I know it but I need help to improve it because I read long time about conciousness the self I read much like these things like this : what about Consciousness. Have you ever experienced Consciousness without Being? For Consciousness to be known, it must be present. The reason we can say ‘I am,’ is because we know that ‘I am.’ And that which knows ‘I am’ is by definition, present, that is, being.
I ceary now undertand that all these views are wrong. Honestly I knew it then to!. But had no other option. To my questions ...
1 ) When one experiences Nibbana is Nibbana experienced as in subject object relationship from the perspective of a subject or maybe there is no subject nor object during Nibbana like a state that transends that duality, In short what is happening in Nibbana what is the correct undertanding of what is happening.
2) Also more clarification needed regarding vinjana from my last question. Conciousness can be aware of itself you said, When I see something I (the mind) know what I am seeing. Isnt the knowing of what I am seeing " the knowing of what is seen and not conciousness conciousness of itself. Is conciousness conciousness of conciousness just the fact that there is the knowledge of what is happening, and is this not a thought and not conciousness conciousness of conciousness. Maybe I do not know because of my advaita even what conciousness conciousness of conciousness is so what is it. Isnt conciousness only an activity of cognizing with no cognizer. What am I missing. In which way would the conciousness of seeing imply conciousness conciousness of conciousness.
3) Also the experience of conciousness being concious of conciousness in advaita they say to experience this the same way you cannot take a step towards yourself beacuse you are already standning where you are the same way your attention cannot find conciousness as an object "relax your attention from all objects and that nothingness is conciousness awareness of itself" or ask yourself am I aware.  (Do you agree that this relaxing your attention from all objects into a objectless-nothingness state is conciousness awareness of itself?),  they say it seems like nothing from the point of view of the mind which knows only objects in subject object relationship while conciousness knowledge of itself is without subject or object.
4) They describe the state of relaxing our attention from all objects to come to the nothingness state as aware-being or the presence of that which is aware so they say awareness is knowing but it also IS it exists the knowledge of our own existence the knowledge I AM is conciousnessnes knowledge of itself "I know that I am" I know this is wrong view but please clarify why this nothingness state has nothing to do with how it is described.
5) When you said infinite conciousness in your last answer I suppose that doesnt include something metaphysical like infinite in space ?.
6) Also what struck me from your answer and is different from what I read and  you said in the Jhana of infinite conciousness there are mental factors participating or enabling the infinite conciousness Jhana which shows this is not a blank state of nothingness , but a state you "built" up with intention,attention,perception etc am I right about this. This means if I or the mind is percieving this state I think that means that  while I am percieving this state of infinitude of conciousness I am aware percieving the state of infintude of conciousnes (it is tricky because ifinitude to me indicates a infinite state where there is no mind or subject to know it) (I may be wrong) but as you described it (if I understood it) percieving this Jhana is something while we do it we know that we do it. Not like in advaita where when we relax attention from all objects and come to a nothingness we dont know anything about that state of nothingness in Buddhism this state seems to be something that during that state we are in it and percieve that state as an object to us as opposed to advaita which says there is no subject nor object when we relaxed attention from all objects and come to that state of nothingness. Huh this was not easy to understand for you if you have any questions about what I said please I understand it is complicated I am more than willing to clarify.
please do not refer to me to other similar questions I saw other people having the similar question as I have but I couldnt find the satisfying answer. Once again thank you.

I feel you are asking questions whose answers will not be much use to you. There are too many inbuilt assumptions. For instance, you say 'when one experiences Nibbana...'. But experience is a dualistic phenomenon (experienced/experiencer) overcome in Nibbana. Both Advaita and Mahayana take us beyond experience. I find the questions raise to many such issues to be directly answerable. .

Have you ever experienced Consciousness without Being? For Consciousness to be known, it must be present. The reason we can say ‘I am,’ is because we know that ‘I am.’ And that which knows ‘I am’ is by definition, present, that is, being.

The Buddha taught there are five aggregates. Consciousness is consciousness aggregate. 'Being' is 'sankhara aggregate', i.e., craving & clinging. In Buddhism, the word 'a being' is the word 'satta', which also means 'to cling'; as explained in SN 23.2; as follows:

viññāṇe yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
SN 23.2

Therefore, consciousness & being are two distinctly different & separate things. The idea or thought of 'a being' cannot arise without consciousness. However, consciousness can arise without the idea of 'a being'. The only way to truly know this is to stop thinking and allow consciousness to clarify and expand until even the most subtle thoughts dissolve into the clear light of consciousness.

1 ) When one experiences Nibbana is Nibbana experienced as in subject object relationship from the perspective of a subject or maybe there is no subject nor object during Nibbana like a state that transcends that duality, In short what is happening in Nibbana what is the correct understanding of what is happening.

The Buddha did not teach about 'subject-object'. However, in Nibbana, there is 'subject-object'. However, the 'subject' is not a 'self' or 'a being'. The subject is 'the mind'. In Nibbana, 'the mind' ('citta') knows it (the mind) is liberated/free from greed, hatred & delusion and has been filled with peace. It (the mind) knows it (the mind) did nothing to create or reach Nibbana, apart from let go or surrender. Therefore, the mind knows Nibbana is an 'object', i.e., something that is not the mind but something that 'fills' the mind with peace; similar to how cool fresh rain water may fill an empty creek bed.
In Buddhism, the mind is a nama-dhamma or nama-dhatu (mental element), which is, ultimately, conditioned & impermanent. Nibbana is the unsankhata dhatu (unconditioned element), which is unconditioned & eternally existing. Given these two types of elements (dhatu) are of two different natures, there must be 'subject-object' in their relationship; even though 'the subject' ('the mind') is completely impersonal.
Nibbana is without self-views. Being so, in Nibbana, all things are empty of self as 'their inherent nature' ('sabhava'). The 'sabhava' ('inherent nature') of all things is 'emptiness of self' ('sunnata'). Therefore, subjects (such as internal sense organs) and objects (such as external sense objects) can exist in Nibbana. Nibbana itself is an 'external sense object' ('ayatana') as defined in Udana 8.1.

2) Isnt conciousness only an activity of cognizing with no cognizer. What am I missing. In which way would the conciousness of seeing imply conciousness conciousness of conciousness.

It seems you continue to assume the "cognizer" is a "self", "a being", "a person" or "a (personal) subject". In Buddhism, consciousness itself is the "cognizer". This "cognizer" is strictly impersonal, including for the puthujjana (the unenlightened).
For example, imagine you have never tasted or eaten a durian fruit. However, you go on a holiday to Thailand and meet all the rich Thai people who love durian fruit and they give you prime grade durian to show off how rich they are. What happens is:

The taste of the durian registers on the tongue and is known by tongue consciousness.
A few seconds later, your mind thinks: "I like it" or "I dislike it".

Therefore, the consciousness (knowing of the taste) occurred before the idea "I like it" or "I dislike it". The thought of "I" arises after the tasting. Also, thought of "I" is a brand new "I" because never before did an "I" exist that was a "liker" or "disliker of durian fruit". The consciousness of the taste is impersonal because it occurred before the thought of "I like it" arose.

3) Also the experience of conciousness being concious of conciousness in advaita they say to experience this the same way you cannot take a step towards yourself beacuse you are already standning where you are the same way your attention cannot find conciousness as an object "relax your attention from all objects and that nothingness is conciousness awareness of itself" or ask yourself am I aware. (Do you agree that this relaxing your attention from all objects into a objectless-nothingness state is conciousness awareness of itself?), they say it seems like nothing from the point of view of the mind which knows only objects in subject object relationship while conciousness knowledge of itself is without subject or object.

In Buddhism, "nothingness" is a perception rather than the inherent nature of consciousness. For example, the 7th jhana is the perception: "There is nothing".
In Buddhism, there is no such thing as "consciousness without an object". This being so, there cannot be conciousness without subject or object. The suttas say:

It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.' MN 38
Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible. SN 22.53

4) They describe the state of relaxing our attention from all objects to come to the nothingness state as aware-being or the presence of that which is aware so they say awareness is knowing but it also IS it exists the knowledge of our own existence the knowledge I AM is conciousnessnes knowledge of itself "I know that I am" I know this is wrong view but please clarify why this nothingness state has nothing to do with how it is described.

Yes. The Buddha taught Anapanasati or 'Mindfulness With Breathing'. This means the state of relaxing our (deliberate/intentional) attention from all objects (including the breathing) so to come to an unintentional awareness of breathing and later other profound objects.
It must be logically understood via experience the mind can relax deliberate attention towards objects however the mind cannot stop consciousness of objects. For example, if I decide to make a very loud noise, you will be unable to stop consciousness of that loud noise, even though you can relax attention from that loud noise.
Therefore, in Buddhism, when the state of relaxing our (deliberate/intentional) attention from all objects is practised, the result will be consciousness of and tranquillising of breathing (1st satipatthana), then consciousness of pleasant feelings (2nd satipatthana), then profound consciousness of the subtleties of the mind (3rd satipatthana), then enlightening insight into the impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self nature of all conditioned things, which results in dispassion towards those conditioned things and nibbana.
More profound experiences that arise from the state of relaxing our (deliberate/intentional) attention from all objects include the jhanas, which can include the 7th jhana of the perception of nothingness.
However, throughout this process, there is no aware "being". The sense there is "a being" or "person" watching is "attachment" and clinging". In other words, incomplete relaxation.
In the mind that can truly relax (deliberate/intentional) attention from all objects, the sense of "self" or "being" will dissolve during the 3rd satipatthana.

5) When you said infinite conciousness in your last answer I suppose that doesnt include something metaphysical like infinite in space ?.

The spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness are the 5th and 6th 'jhanas' in Buddhism. They are merely perceptions of experience when feelings dissolve. To reach the 3rd jhana, the feeling of rapture dissolves. The reach the 4th jhana, the more refined feeling of happiness dissolves. To reach the 5th jhana, the more refined feeling of equanimity dissolves. When the feeling of equanimity dissolves, then, based on the theory, the next natural meditation object becomes the experience of infinite space or pure spaciousness [of mind]. When the sense of spaciousness collapses, what is left is pure knowing or infinite consciousness. Then when pure consciousness collapses, perception (sensing something 'distinct') starts to collapse. Thus the last solid perception or experience is that of 'nothingness', before perception starts to fade in the 8th jhana then ceases in the "9th jhana" called Nirodha-Samapatti (which is unconsciousness).
So the spheres of infinite space and infinite consciousness are mental phenomena rather than meta-physical phenomena. They are called "arupa" or "immaterial" because they have no relationship to or awareness of the physical body or any phenomena (such as feelings) that originate from the physical body's nervous system.

6) Also what struck me from your answer and is different from what I read and you said in the Jhana of infinite conciousness there are mental factors participating or enabling the infinite conciousness Jhana which shows this is not a blank state of nothingness , but a state you "built" up with intention,attention,perception etc am I right about this.

I would not say infinite consciousness Jhana is "built up". It is the opposite. As previously posted, infinite consciousness Jhana comes from the dissolving of former grosser mental states, such as jhanas with feelings. However, when infinite consciousness Jhana occurs, it feels a certain way, it is perceived or distinguished (i.e., very subtly labelled), the mind maintains an interest in it rather than rejects it (which demonstrates the operation of compliant intention); thus the mind pays attention to it. These subtle mental co-factors of feeling, perception, intention, attention, zest for the experience, etc, allow consciousness to 'stand-up' or operate. If these other mental factors do not support consciousness, it cannot operate (per suttas SN 22.53 & MN 38 already posted).

This means if I or the mind is percieving this state

As posted, the mind perceives this state; not "I". If an "I" believes it is perceiving this state, that "I" is attachment or thinking.

infinitude to me indicates a infinite state where there is no mind or subject to know it)

I imagine the word "infinite" means "vast" or "expanded", such as when you look at the ocean to the horizon or look at the stars at night.

advaita where when we relax attention from all objects and come to a nothingness*

The above sounds like theory rather than reality. I doubt it is easy to come to an immediate "nothingness". When we relax attention from all objects, the mind automatically must first start to feel the breathing because the breathing is the grossest or most impacting sense object when we relax attention from all objects.

we dont know anything about that state of nothingness in Buddhism this state seems to be something that during that state we are in it and percieve that state as an object to us as opposed to advaita which says there is no subject nor object

Advaita is "oneness". It is the experience that consciousness and sense objects are not separate. Here, the mind is like a mirror that silently is the image of sense objects reflected in it.
However, this experience of "oneness" is not really real because obviously sense objects (such as a computer) will depart from consciousness when consciousness cognises another object (such as food).

when we relaxed attention from all objects and come to that state of nothingness. Huh this was not easy to understand for you if you have any questions about what I said please I understand it is complicated I am more than willing to clarify.

Thank you. As I already posted, I do not believe it is possible to relax attention from all objects and come to an immediate state of nothingness. The mind & body are not like this. The Buddha taught when we "let go" or "relax attention from all objects" (called "vossagga"), the mind will automatically be conscious of the breathing; then pleasant feelings, then purity of mind; then impermanence of phenomena; or more subtly be consciousness of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, etc. There are different teachings about this gradual calming, dissolving and purification, such as 16 stages of Anapanasati or the 4 jhanas or the 8 jhanas.
It is said to be like peeling an onion. The outer skins of the onion must be peeled off or gradually dissolved until nothingness comes to be. It is not possible to immediately go to 'nothingness' (unless you try to will it with willfulness).

As always amazing answers!

Thank you friend. I will answer the other questions some time. Thank you for the excellent questions.

How do you relax attention from objects? Isn't the mind constantly having one mind object? So how'd you explain a newbie what to do in meditation, because everyone says focus on the breath, which is apparently wrong? If I sit for meditation where should the mind be?

Really wonderful answer.

A quote from the book "Vedanta Treatise -The Eternities" by A.Parathasarathy, may be helpful. In the chapter on "The Theory of Perception" p.340, the author says "Before launching into the study of the theory of perception the two terms commonly used, subject and object, need to be defined. In the context, the word subject means the perceiver, knower, experiencer. While object means that which is perceived, known, experienced. Take the example of perceiving a landscape. You are the perceiver and the landscape, the perceived. You are the knower, experiencer and the landscape the known, experienced. You are the subject and the landscape, the object.
Here again the concept of the subject varies. Western philosophers take the mind as the subject. Consider the mind to be the perceiver, knower, experiencer. Whereas, Vedanta states the mind itself to be an object, known, experienced. You can conceive your mind. Know it. Experience it. It fits into the definition of an object, not subject. Anything perceived or conceived, known or experienced ceases to be the subject in the true sense.  Vedanta declares the inner Self, Atman to be the subject. To be the real perceiver, knower, experiencer. Hence, from the absolute point of view the Atman is the subject and the mind, the object. While in the relative sense, from a practical angle the mind becomes the subject and the rest of the world, the object".
My understanding of the above, from a buddhist point of view is that the Atman referred to is the Life Continuum (bhavanga citta) while the mind referred to is mundane consciousness. Hope this helps.

Thanks for your answer.

Excellent observation and it seems to answer various questions in the OP.

@PeterJ Does it answer anything (about Buddhism)? It seems to me that almost the whole answer is a quote of Vedanta doctrine -- except one last sentence which says that, according to Buddhism, Atman is Bhavanga Citta.

@ChrisW - I felt the point about Mind being the object dealt with some important issues in the the OP,. For instance the idea that Nirvana is a subjective experience. But on reflection I'd say your comment is mostly correct, My first comment above was better.

When one experiences Nibbana is Nibbana experienced as in subject object relationship from the perspective of a subject or maybe there is no subject nor object during Nibbana like a state that transends that duality, In short what is happening in Nibbana what is the correct undertanding of what is happening
Very briefly, I think that being conscious of something is like seeing it through glass.
If the glass is cloudy (i.e. visible) then you don't see through it very well.
It's possible to be conscious that the glass is clear, i.e. invisible, i.e. that the seeing is clear or unimpeded.
But I think that imagining there's self in any of this ("I see therefore I am") is just a distraction from the seeing.
And that trying to put your attention on consciousness ("I am the consciousness that is conscious of consciousness") is like putting focus on an imperfection in the glass.

Se also Huineng's poem, contrasting "keep the glass clean" with "there is no glass".

There are other noteworthy doctrines about nibbana -- i.e. self-view isn't the only "fetter".
Given that there is a doctrine about fetters, and about unwholesome tendencies, some schools teach that consciousness is primordially clear. These same schools emphasise that the things we're conscious of are empty and mind-made.
Another thing you didn't mention but which maybe shouldn't go without saying is that Buddhism begins with ethics. Or if ethics isn't the very beginning -- e.g. if liberation from personal suffering is the beginning -- then ethics is at least pretty early -- early in the doctrine and early in the practice.
Ethics might be one of the last stages of the practice too, e.g. the Buddha's compassion.
When you said infinite conciousness in your last answer I suppose that doesnt include something metaphysical like infinite in space?
I don't know what "infinite" means in Pali.
In Mathematics, "infinite" is a synonym for "unlimited" or "unbounded", perhaps "without a barrier".
I'm not sure, there might be something a bit like that in SN 12.64, which ends with talk of consciousness "not landing" somewhere:

In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase.

I don't think that means that the arhat is unconscious, nor is it talking about a jhana state -- I think it's talking about not "attaching" and therefore avoiding the "becoming"  (i.e. bhava), also the ending of kamma.


text:
What is the method for "Coupling of the Serenity and Insight Powers" referred to in the Path of Discrimination?
Visuddhimagga (English translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli) XXII.46 quotes from the Path of Discrimination (Patisambidhamagga) as follows:-

"Coupling of the Powers'. At the time of developing the eight mundane attainments the serenity power is in excess, while at the time of developing the contemplation of impermanence, etc., the insight power is in excess. But at the Noble Path moment they occur coupled together in the sense that neither one exceeds the other"

The quote concludes by stating

"He develops serenity and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence (Patisambidhamagga ii,98)".

My understanding of the above is that the yogi needs to develop the method to ensure that coupling occurs at the Noble Path Moment.
My question is anyone able to throw some light on this coupling from the scriptures or from some other source or from personal experience?
Discovered later that a possible answer to this question may be found in "Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism" pdf by Lama Govinda' p. 175. where reference is made to three zones viz. Earth (materiality), Universe and Human. The Human Zone is the plane of ''individual realization in which the forces of the earth and the universe become conscious in the human soul as an ever present and deeply felt reality'. If Earth and Universe could be related to Samatha and Vipassana we may be homing in on a solution to a problem that has bedeviled many a good yogi-that of coupling (yuganaddha) both these entities to realize Nibbana. Would appreciate a feedback, especially from those who are familiar with Vajrayana and ''Buddhist Kundalini'' energies.

From a sutta viewpoint the Yuganaddha Sutta AN 4.170 seems to come closest. But even this sutta does not address the primary issue of Coupling the Two Powers in such a manner that 'Neither Exceeds the Other'. Many suttas refer to the need for the yogi to 'Balance the Five Faculties' but I believe, it is only in the Path of Discrimination that this particular challenge is posed to the yogi. It seems to be a precision operation occuring at the Noble Path Moment, leaning towards the balancing of energies (powers) generated by  advanced yogis as they approach subliminal levels. This is my doubt?

"He develops serenity and insight coupled together" is originally found in the Pali sutta MN 149, as follows:

When the noble eightfold path is developed, the following are fully
  developed: the four kinds of mindfulness meditation, the four right
  efforts, the four bases of... power, the five faculties, the five
  powers and the seven awakening factors.
Tassa evaṃ imaṃ ariyaṃ aṭṭhaṅgikaṃ maggaṃ bhāvayato cattāropi
  satipaṭṭhānā bhāvanāpāripūriṃ gacchanti, cattāropi sammappadhānā
  bhāvanāpāripūriṃ gacchanti, cattāropi iddhipādā bhāvanāpāripūriṃ
  gacchanti, pañcapi indriyāni bhāvanāpāripūriṃ gacchanti, pañcapi
  balāni bhāvanāpāripūriṃ gacchanti, sattapi bojjhaṅgā bhāvanāpāripūriṃ
  gacchanti.
And these two qualities proceed in conjunction: Tassime dve dhammā
  yuganandhā vattanti—
serenity and discernment. samatho ca vipassanā ca.
https://suttacentral.net/mn149/en/sujato

A reason why samatha can be unbalanced and not have vipassana is because the practitioner is actually not practising the Noble Path but, instead, is practising the Hindu style yogic manipulations that are actually taught in the Visuddimagga.
In the suttas (MN 118 and SN 48.10), the Buddha taught meditative factors are mature when they have the quality of "letting go" ("vossagga"). This is the practise of the Noble Path, namely, the "letting go" or "abandoning of craving".
If you try to watch the breathing, for example, or watch kasina coloured discs, and similar non-sense taught in the Visuddhimagga & Abhidhamma, this is craving; this is not practising the Path. This is why most 'Buddhists' make little progress with meditation. They try to cling to a meditation object, like a baby clings to its mother. They are too scared &/or too attached to wrong teachings to 'let go'.

As for vipassana (insight) being overbalanced, this sounds like illogical (even though there is one or two suttas that teach similar non-sense). Since the suttas (such as SN 22.59; MN 118; etc) correctly explain vipassana results in dispassion; then obviously a dispassionate mind will be calm or have samatha.

My question is anyone able to throw some light on this coupling from the scriptures or from some other source or from personal experience?

When calm or insight is imbalaced one should practice one over the other.

(1) A meditator who is able to attain only calm should consult an insight-attainer.
(2) A meditator who is able to attain only insight should consult a calm-attainer.
(3) A meditator who is unable to attain both should consult one skilled in both.
(4) A meditator who is able to attain both should work for awakening.

(Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 3

The Patisambidhamagga, vide page 26 of "An Analysis of the Pali Canon" edited by Russel Webb, provides a detailed analysis of concepts and practices already mentioned in the Vinaya Pitaka and Digha, Samyutta and Anguttara Nikayas. It is in this context that the question was posed in relation to the Coupling of Powers in such a manner that "Neither Exceeds the Other at the Noble Path Moment". The question of providing a 'detailed analysis' of coupling the powers in such a manner, where neither exceeds the other, seems to be missing in the Suttas. Many yogis today seem unable to do so.  ,


text:
Why island and not light?
There are some phrases in the suttas where it is said "be your own island".
The word for "island" is "dvipa" in Sanskrit, meanwhile "dipa" means "light" or "lamp" in Sanskrit. However, in Pali, "dipa" means both "island" and "light" / "lamp". Due to this, it is quite common for the phrase to be mistaken as "be your own light", especially among speakers of Indian languages.
Why does the sutta say "be your own island" instead of "be your own light"?
What is the significance of "be your own island"?
From SN 22.43 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

“Mendicants, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other
  refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other
  refuge.
Attadīpā, bhikkhave, viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā
  dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.

From this footnote by Maurice O'Connell Walshe:

Atta-diipaa. Diipa means both "island" (Sanskrit dviipa) and "lamp" (Sanskrit diipa), but the meaning "island" is
  well-established here. The "self" referred to is of course the
  unmetaphysical pronoun "oneself"

Worthy to note, as it gives much food for defilment: the assembly listening consisted of Noble Ones, not one not at least stream enter, homeless.

There's a footnote in What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Sri Rahula:

Dipa here does not mean lamp, but it definitely means 'island'. The Digha-nikaya
  Commentary (DA Colombo ed. p. 380), commenting on the word dipa here says:
  Mahasamuddagatam dipam viya attanam dipam patit/ham katvd viharatha. 'Dwell making
  yourselves an island, a support (resting place) even as an island in the great ocean.'
  Samsdra, the continuity of existence, is usually compared to an ocean, samsarasdgara, and what is required in the ocean for safety is an island, a solid land, and not
  a lamp.

Yes Dhammapada - 238 says same.  **Make an island unto yourself! Strive hard and become wise! Rid of impurities and cleansed of
stain, you shall not come again to birth and decay.
Dhammapad - 238**

So it is message to unskillful person to be like an island. Build your own island. Thank you so much.

Why does the sutta say "be your own island" instead of "be your own light"?
What is the significance of "be your own island"?
If you are on an island there is no other help. Likewise one or the dharma is one's own refuge.
The key here is the lack of other help.
You can have many lights illuminating, hence does not resonate that this is the only rescue.

I thought it is message for Monks that they live alone and restrain from all desires and self. But confusion is Bhikkhu Sujato speak about ordinary person which I didn't get.

"one or the dharma"... sure?

"The key here is the lack of other help." indeed visible, this "lock"

In the dark, the flame of a single candle is an island of light, a refuge for those seeking light. Therefore to "be your own island" is to become like that island of light in the dark, a refuge:

Whether now or after I have passed, any who shall live as their own island, their own refuge, with no other refuge; with the teaching as their island and their refuge, with no other refuge—those mendicants of mine who want to train shall be among the best of the best.” SN47.13

I like this way of looking at the two meanings.

The island analogy is from a dhammapada verse, wherein the island is not overcome by any flood. Sn45.171; At Savatthi.

"Monks, there are these four floods. Which four? The flood of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood of ignorance. These are the four floods.

The path is for crossing over, is also in the 45.171 if i remember correctly. As to how to cross;

Snp1.1;
  But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?”
“When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood.”

That is the imagery. The light imagery comes into play as well, also in the Dhp ie; 'surrounded by darkness; shouldn't you search for light?'
In the Darkness Sutta sn56.46;

"There is, monks, an inter-cosmic[1] void, an unrestrained darkness, a pitch-black darkness, where even the light of the sun & moon — so mighty, so powerful — doesn't reach."
When this was said, one of the monks said to the Blessed One, "Wow, what a great darkness! What a really great darkness! Is there any darkness greater & more frightening than that?"
"There is, monk, a darkness greater & more frightening than that."
"And which darkness, lord, is greater & more frightening than that?"
"Any brahmans or contemplatives who do not know, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress'; who do not know, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress'... 'This is the cessation of stress'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': They revel in (thought-) fabrications leading to birth; they revel in fabrications leading to aging; they revel in fabrications leading to death; they revel in fabrications leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Reveling in fabrications leading to birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, they fabricate fabrications leading to birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Fabricating fabrications leading to birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, they drop into the darkness of birth. They drop into the darkness of aging... the darkness of death... darkness of sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. They are not totally released from birth, aging, death, sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. They are not totally released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

So it can be seen that if ignorance is darkness then knowledge is light. This is often seen in the Sutta where people praise a good discourse for lighting a lamp for those with eyes to see.
Else such as Tamonata Sutta speaks of darkness and light as favorable and unfavorable conditions. Another example is snp2.6;

"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed. Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.

No highlights, have not figured out how to make those posting with a phone

Here is help with how to add formatting just with text. The most important is probably >  at the start of a paragraph to format a quote, and hyperlinks [like this](http://example.com) or like this.

In Northern Canon there is an Agama that talks about the lamp:

It was a dark night, raining lightly, with flashes of lightning. The Buddha said to Ananda: "You can come out with the umbrella over the lamp." Ananda listened, and walked behind the Buddha, with an umbrella over the lamp. When they reached a place, the Buddha smiled. Ananda said: "The Buddha doesn’t smile without a reason. What brings the smile today?" The Buddha said: "That’s right! That’s right! The Buddha doesn’t smile without a reason. Now you are following me with an umbrella over a lamp. I look around, and see everyone doing the same thing."

The idea is that each of us already have our own lamp, our basic sanity aka Buddha Nature. And yet, we all follow the Buddha and want him to show us the way.
Instead, the Buddha says, be your own lamp, use the light which you already have. As he says in Kalama Sutta - think, what actions bring what results. See for yourself.