text:
Can a being be reborn into more that one body in Tibetan Buddhism?
I was reading that both the Dalai Lama and Karmapa are both rebirths (emanations) of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara. Also there are other lamas who are also emanations of Avalokiteśvara.
So is Avalokiteśvara reborn into more than one body and if so is every being that is Avalokiteśvara the same in some way? Or is that just different Tibetan traditions? Generally is rebirth restricted to one body or can it be split across more than one? I appreciate that this will be different across branches of Buddhism so can I restrict my question to Tibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism is invoking the trikaya. These special rebirths are nirmanakayas willed into being by enlightened beings or they are the chosen rebirth of an accomplished yogi.
It's closer to the Hindu idea of an avatar. For the majority of people, not particularly accomplished, rebirth functions as normal. Those others aren't being "reborn" because the source of their form-body hasn't died.

Because Buddhism denies independent existence of substantial "self", it does not posit literal reincarnation, as in someone literally being a come back of e.g. Ananda (Buddha's favorite student).
Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and responsibilities of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.
Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.
In this sense, multiple people could embody the same predecessor. In fact, it is more often  than not a case with Great teachers, that they have multiple "emanations" (usually, of mind, of speech, and of enlightened activity) -- because a regular limited person can't give justice to all of that greatness, so declaring one Tulku would not be appropriate.

As Andrei has said the Tulku system can give rise to multiple rebirths. The maximum number of rebirths is five which correspond to the following manifestations

body
speech
mind
karma
guna (quality)

However even in the event of a multiple rebirth, one of the manifestations will be seen as the primary one. In  Bernardo Bertolucci film the Little Buddha a Tibetan lama is reborn into 3 Western children. The rebirths are separate manifestations of his body, speech and mind.
In the interest of correct referencing, this information comes from the book Exploring Karma and Rebirth by Nagapriya.

There most definitely are reincarnations of specific beings in Buddhism.  HH the Dalai Lama may have the emanation qualities of the Buddhist Avaloketeshvara, who was one of the disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha, but he is a direct reincarnation of all the prior Dalai Lamas.  So are the Karmapa Rinpoche's, the Tai Situ Rinpoches, and Namkhai Nyingpo Rinpoche's.  Most of what are identified as Tulkus in Tibetan Buddhism are emanations of a human being that attained enlightenment, and then emanated specific Buddha Family Qualities (body, speech, mind, activity, qualities) into an accomplished disciple, or other being very accomplished yet not enlightened, that the Enlightened Khandro or Lama believed could carry out the Buddha Activities of the particular emanation of the Enlightened Mind bestowed upon them (the emanation) by the gone beyond Enlightened Being/Lama/Khandro.

The five qualities are not rebirth or reincarnation qualities; they are qualities of the emanation rebirth.  It is not a reincarnation rebirth.
There are five Khyentse emanations of Jamyang Kyentse Wangp.  There are five emanation rebirths of Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro (Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche is only one emanation of Jyamgyan Khyentse Chokye Lodro, He is Not, I repeat, Not, the reincarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Chokyo Lodro, but is the reincarnation of some other (to me) unidentified person who was blessed with one of the 5 emanation qualities of Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro.  There is no "maximum number of rebirths", nor is there a maximum number of emanations, although the five qualities listed previously by me are a more typical type of emanation activity by an Enlightened Being.  However, the latter can emanate endlessly, as they are truly enlightened.  Is there a Buddhist Studies Program at a college near where you are living?   Or can the participants of this blog obtain access to the library of such a program, or visit one?  Seems there is a lot of confusion out there, and spreading via the internet is not such a good idea.  There is a wonderful resource online:    treasuryoflives.org.  Also, it is necessary to study with a living Buddhist Master, to clarify questions such as the ones raised by this blog.  I challenge you all to question my response by responsibly engaging in intelligent productive research, via legitimate libraries of Buddhist Studies Programs at the graduate university level, and via qualified Tibetan Buddhist Teachers.  Good luck!


text:
How much does the Bodhisattva way influence Theravadan practices?
I've read Walpola Rahula on this, and so I think I already understand that the frequently held view that the Bodhisattva concept is far less a part of Theravada than Mahayana, etc. is at best an over-simplification and at worst simply wrong. But I'd really like to hear it from the horse's mouth -- i.e. a knowledgeable, practicing Theravadin (hint hint, calling Canada, calling Canada).
The simple fact is, even a slightly more than superficial reading of Tibetan practices (for example) places the Bodhisattva way front and center of all practice. Developing compassion for all beings isn't just a practice off to the side; it seems to permeate everything they do. With Theravada, OTOH, it really does seem to have a different (i.e. lower) emphasis. It's not unimportant, it just seems to be something that tags along, alongside the core meditation practice.
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, but how? How exactly, if at all, is the daily life of a Theravada practitioner influenced by compassion for others and, again if at all, by the Bodhisattva way as exemplified by, for example, Shantideva in the Bodhicaryavatara.

Hey, I'm in Canada... I'll see if I can find you a... oh, wait.

Compassion and the Bodhisatta path are two different things; compassion is a quality of mind, the Bodhisatta path is a determination.  The latter is based, one could say, on a high level of compassion, but it is not equivalent to compassion. It is the determination to not enter into freedom from suffering until one is able to (in Theravada Buddhism) become a fully-enlightened Buddha, one who can teach others without having been taught oneself. From the Jataka Commentary:

62.   Then loosened I my matted hair,
  And, spreading out upon the mud
  My dress of bark and cloak of skin,
  I laid me down upon my face.
63.   "Let now on me The Buddha tread,
  With the disciples of his train;
  Can I but keep him from the mire,
  To me great merit shall accrue."
64.   While thus I lay upon the ground,
  Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire,
  I my corruptions might consume.
65.   "But why thus in an unknown guise
  Should I the Doctrine's fruit secure?
  Omniscience first will I achieve,
  And be a Buddha in the world.
66.   "Or why should I, a valorous man,
  The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve,
  And men and gods convey across.
67.   "Since now I make this earnest wish,
  In presence of this Best of Men,
  Omniscience sometime I'll achieve,
  And multitudes convey across.
68.   "I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest,
  Destroy existence's three modes;
  I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship,
  And men and gods convey across.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits001.htm

Compassion, on the other hand, is just a mind state that can be cultivated by anyone; we say a Buddha has great compassion because of his sacrifice, but anyone can cultivate it as a meditation practice. See Wikipedia on Karuṇā.
The reason why karuṇā is considered a side practice is because it cannot itself lead to enlightenment, taking as it does concepts (living beings) as its object.

Now, zeal consisting in desire to act is the beginning of all these things. Suppression of the hindrances, etc., is the middle. Absorption is the end. Their object is a single living being or many living beings, as a mental object consisting in a concept.
Path of Purification, IX.102

So the best it can lead to directly is worldly absorption (lokiya samatha jhana).
Since the goal of Theravada Buddhism is enlightenment here and now, meditation based on concepts takes a back seat role to meditation on the five aggregates, four foundations of mindfulness, etc., which take ul
karuṇā can play an important role in quelling cruelty in the mind, which is a hindrance on the path, just as metta can play an important role in quelling anger. They are useful practices, just not enough to lead to understanding of reality.
As for the Bodhisatta path itself, Theravada Buddhists in general tend to favour not reinventing the wheel; the path has been opened, why not walk it and encourage others to walk it as well? The only way the path will stay open is if people continue to practice and follow it to its goal; once everyone decides its better to wait until one can become a fully enlightened Buddha, the path will be effectively closed; the question then arises, what was the point of becoming a fully enlightened Buddha in the first place?
The Mahayana, if I'm not mistaken, gets around this quandary of everyone wanting to lead and no one to follow by suggesting that the arahant is not actually enlightened and still has further to go. Or something like that.
So, while there are many notable examples of Bodhisattas in Theravada Buddhism (the king of Thailand, I think, may have hinted at it), for the most part the idea is to keep the path that is already open open long enough to get as many people across to safety as possible. This seems preferable to waiting countless more eons and letting those people undergo untold suffering before the path can be opened again (assuming one is successful in attaining Buddhahood at all).

Bhante Yuttadhamma,   Thanks for sharing your time explaining the Theravadan approach to concept of Bodhisattvas.  In your answer, you seem to imply compassion and determinate action are mutually exclusive.  Did I understand that correctly?  I've always understood compassion to be a determinate action not a static state.  If you have time, I would be happy to understand your point more throughly.  All the best, Bhante...

@NeilD - they are not mutually exclusive, they are just two different things. Compassion is just a mind-state; you need not be determined to be compassionate or vice versa. I may be filled with compassion and not do anything as a result; or I may be determined to hurt others, showing no compassion. One can be determinedly compassionate, of course.

Bhante,  Thanks for the explanation.  I've always understood compassion to be a dynamic active state, even if it is just an interior mind-state.  Which requires determinate action to cultivate and maintain.  So compassion explained as a quality of the mind like a flavor was interesting to me. I appreciate your time and help.  Thank you..

This is a really important issue today and confusion surrounding it has caused an unnecessary antagonism between Theravadin and Mahayana practitioners. The central question is really this? Is it ever the case when a genuine practitioner of Buddhism chooses to assist others or improve the conditions of the world INSTEAD OF putting forth right effort towards his/her own liberation? The answer within both the Buddha's original teachings and the Mahayana sutras is NO. The true and original understanding of the Boddhicitta vow is that one will achieve liberation quickly for the benefit of all beings everywhere. The bodhisattva vow does not involve delaying one's enlightenment or liberation in order to help others or improve the world right now. One can and does, in fact, help others and improve the world by putting forth right effort to achieve liberation as quickly as possible. If one chooses to help others or improve the world INSTEAD of practicing the dharma (putting forth effort in mindfulness, self-restraint, sitting meditation, etc.), one is universally going against the Buddha's teachings within both the Theravadin and Mahayana vehicle paths. Any Buddhist teachers that do not exhort their students to strive for liberation no matter what worldly actions they are involved in are doing a disservice to their students and to Buddhism.
Wikipedia correctly states "In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva refers to anyone who has generated bodhicitta, a spontaneous wish and compassionate mind to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings."
"Because he has bodhi as his aim, a bodhisattva-mahāsattva is so called." from the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra.
So the boddhisattva is vowing to achieve liberation knowing that this is the best way to benefit others and improve the world. Thus right intention, right striving and 3 of the unlimiteds of maitri, karuna, mudita are developed. The goal of the Boddhisattva vow is to be liberated both ways: mind by wisdom and heart. The bohhisattva path is essentially the liberation of mind by lovingkindness mentioned by the Buddha (among other places) at SN 20.3:

"Bhikkhus, just as it is easy for burglars to assail those families
  that have many women and few men, so too it is easy for nonhuman
  beings to assail a bhikkhu who has not developed and cultivated the
  liberation of mind by lovingkindness. . . Therefore, bhikkhus, you
  should train yourselves thus: 'We will develop and cultivate the
  liberation of mind by lovingkindness, make it our vehicle, make it our
  basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and fully perfect it.'"

By combining compassion for others into one's intention to achieve Nirvana, two things are accomplished. First, a compassion for others that helps one to navigate worldly interactions is developed and second, one gets support in one's striving after one's faith in the Buddha falters because of difficulties or discomforts encountered. In other words, a selfish, egotistical person may falter in his/her striving once a certain threshold of sacrifice/renunciation has been reached, thinking 'I am not willing to give up more than this.' But a Boddhisattva vow helps such a practitioner continue on, using the power of compassion developed by it, in the heart.
The distinction between different types of nirvana's, the arahant vs. the  apratiṣṭhita (non-abiding) nirvana (or other similar divisions), is besides the point and unnecessary. One who reaches enlightenment can remain in body to benefit others. One who vows to be reborn within ignorance again and again in order to benefit others is not a disciple of the Buddha. How could one with right view intend on anything but liberation for the future? One cannot because it would involve a doctrine of a self and one with right view knows the danger in such a thicket of views.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What is Generation Stage Meditation also known as Utpattikrama?
There are many forms of meditation found in Buddhism.  Zazen is possibly the most well know form of meditation in the West.  However, in there are many different types of mediation.   In Vajrayana there appears to be many different types and stages of mediation as well.  One form is called "generation stage meditation" or also known as utpattikrama.  What exactly is "generation stage meditation" and how is it practiced?

Generation stage meditation is meditation targeted at transmuting ones neurotic traits into aspects of enlightened mind. It is done through visualizing (and on more advanced stages through identifying oneself with) a specifically selected yidam deity.
Generation stage meditation is similar to the first jhana, in the sense that it involves deliberate generation of certain mindset.

The Generation stage (Utpatti Krama in Sanskrit, Kye Rim in Tibetan) is the first stage in the practice of Anuttara Yoga Tantra, or Highest Yoga Tantra in Vajrayana Buddhism. In this stage one engages in the practice of deity yoga. The meditator, after receiving the empowerment into the practice of that particular deity, practices a set meditation ritual called a Sadhana which involves various visualizations such as various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas appearing, sending out rays of light, receiving rays of light, different things appearing on multicolored lotuses with sun and moon discs, etc... while preforming various prayers and ritual offerings of things like water, cakes called tormas, and prostrating.
This visualization culminates with visualizing oneself in the form of the figure of that practice (for example, if someone was practicing the Sadhana of Yamantaka they would visualize themselves as Yamantaka) possibly surrounded by an entourage or with a consort and they would recite the mantra of that deity, often while visualizing the words of the mantra revolving on the circle of a moon disk in one's heart or something like that.
After one has gained mastery over the generation stage, the meditator moves on to a practice called the Completion stage (Sampanna Krama in Sanskrit, Dzog Rim in Tibetan) in which one engages in vizualization practice inside the subtle channels in the body called Nadir in Sanskrit (Tsa in Tibetan) The point of this practice is to manipulate the winds (Sanskrit: Prana, Tibetan: Lung) and drops (Sanskrit: Bindu, Tibetan: Tikle) to move around the body. The goal of this is to bring the winds of the body into the central channel, which is believed in Tantra to cause the arising of the mind of clear light, a state which is direct and pure, and most importantly, is a state of mind beyond concepts, and the purpose of attaining it is to use it to contemplate emptiness using this non-conceptual clear-light mind. Doing so is supposed to be much faster in bringing one to enlightenment than the conceptual realization of emptiness attained using non-Tantric methods.
The different aspects of Completion Stage practice usually include Tummo practice (Also called the Yoga of inner heat) in which one visualizes various drops to bring down the white Bodhicitta from the chakra in the head all the way down to the root chakra by visualizations of flame, and Gyulü (called illusory body) in which one creates a Buddha body out of one's subtle winds.
These practices of Generation Stage and Completion Stage are the two main stages of Tantric practice of Anuttara Yoga Tantra in the New Translation schools of Tibetan Buddhism (that is, the Kagyu, Sakya, Gelugpa, and Jonang schools. The Old translation school (Called Nyingma uses a slightly different categorization scheme.)
I'm going to try to put together a list of reference books and edit them back in here for further reading of anyone interested because I can't remember them right now.

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


text:
What is Completion Stage Meditation also known as Nispannakrama?
In Vajrayana there appears to be many different types and stages of mediation. One form is called "completion stage meditation" also known as nispannakrama.  It appears to be associated with something called Anuttarayoga Tantra. What exactly is "completion stage meditation" and how is it practiced?

According to what I understood from explanations given to me in one of the temples in New Kadampa Tradition, completion meditation is an antidote to potential sideeffects of generation meditation. If practitioner gets too attached to (image of oneself as) one's yidam, they are prescribed certain exercises designed to help them let go.

I found a copy of "The Life of Milarepa" by Tsangnyon Heruka published by Penguin Classics.  In the introduction it discusses generation and completion stage mediations.  Are you familiar with the text's perspective on these types of meditations?  The story sounds very interesting as well.

I have read The Life of Milarepa almost 10 years ago, but I still remember it pretty clearly. I don't think I saw Generation/Completion meditation discussed anywhere in the text itself. Maybe in a (modern) introduction? But I may be wrong, it was a while ago and I don't have the text handy these days.


text:
Is there any such thing as a bad meditation?
I've always been told that there is no such thing as a bad meditation. No matter what happens it is OK. In fact the meditator is a bad judge of the effectiveness and efficacy of any sit even if those concepts did have meaning. However I was reading Everyday Zen by Charlotte Joko Beck and she said that she encounters people who have been meditating who are frankly wasting their time. She says they may as well have been practicing their golf swing for 20 years. Ooohhhh harsh.
So what's going on here? Is there really no such thing as a bad meditation and every sit is just grist for the mill. Or is it possible to waste your time and potentially waste years. Is 'there is no such thing as a bad meditation' just something you tell beginners to motivate them - a kind of expedient means?

In going to get right in here and defend of this question if I may. I'm aware that this question does seem opinion based and may lead to opinion based answers. However I do think that meditation, while it is an art, is also a very systematic process. If I'm right in that then i think it should be possible to give good, precise and even referenced answers to this. Let's see how it goes

The secular mindfulness crowd are using the same techniques that, say pharmacy companies use, to demonstrate efficacy. I suppose if we assume there something about the results of meditation are measurable, that there might be forms of meditation with no effect. So it might be answerable

In the Gopaka-Moggallana Sutta (MN 108), Ananda points out that the Buddha didn't speak in praise of all types of meditation:

“The Blessed One, brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation, nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind [14] of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust, a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. He abides with his mind obsessed by ill will, a prey to ill will … with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor … with his mind obsessed by restlessness and remorse, a prey to restlessness and remorse … with his mind obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation."
(Bodhi, Trans.)

This seems like an obvious answer; just because something is called meditation doesn't make it wholesome. A hunter may spend his time meditating on how to catch a deer (pre-meditated murder), or one may spend an entire sitting meditation fantasizing about sensual pleasure.
A common example of this is the case where a meditator gets stuck on the ten vipassanupakilesa (imperfections of insight), like visions, rapture, quietude, etc., and mistakes them for the path. As a result, as you have read, a meditator can spend years basically going nowhere, just using meditation as an escape into these pleasant but meaningless experiences.
What isn't so clear cut, perhaps what you are really asking, is whether there is any condition that arises in meditation that one should avoid when cultivating wholesome meditation (proper samatha or vipassana). In this case, the answer is generally "yes" for samatha and generally "no" for vipassana.
In samatha meditation, where the object is absorption, one should avoid a great number of things; anything that is an obstruction to calm. Noises, pain, sickness, even indigestion, can all get in the way of your attainment of calm. Sitting in the wrong position can be an impediment, so the Buddha recommended the full-lotus with one's back perfectly straight. When one's mind enters into unwholesome thoughts or emotions, one should avoid such mental activity, replacing it with its opposite or coaxing the mind back towards wholesomeness.
As catpnosis points out, one should also not practice samatha against one's character type; a person of angry character should avoid asubha (loathsomeness) meditation, for example.
In vipassana, where the object is insight into reality, almost every experience is a valid meditation object; almost, because there may be cases where an experience may be physically harmful to the meditator (e.g. dangerous situations or physical injury) or a cause for cultivating unwholesomeness (e.g. getting caught up in obsessive thoughts or emotions). In some cases it is necessary to change one's posture from sitting to walking or vice versa to deal with these situations.

In my experience, yes, there is such thing as wrong/harmful meditation.
Specifically, meditation performed with objective of stopping one's thoughts, is wrong and harmful, in my opinion. It is wrong because it does not lead to jhanas and liberation, and it is harmful because it generates frustration that gets one even deeper into samsara. I have heard of (OCD-type?) people wasting years in this kind of meditation, until finally breaking through, out of sheer desperation.

In the context of Buddhist teaching answer is no, but in general answer is yes.
Usually, only good thing is called 'meditation'. But if we look at concepts of 'concentration' or 'development' there is posible to have 'wrong concentration' (miccha-samadhi) and to develop wrong qualities.
Wrong concentration could be any concentration which is not in the context of Noble Path. For example, as I see it, concentration on wrong object, based on wrong attention (ayoniso-manasikara), or on something that contradicts Noble Truths, Right View. Wrong development (as in bhavana) seems possible too; isn't it's possible to send hate to all beings instead of love as in a Metta? If meditation increases unwholesome qualities (defilements) it's probably done wrong. Even reflection on impermanence is possible to be done in a wrong way. Also it's possible that you meditate on an authentic subject but one which is not suitable for your personality (carita).

Technically, the answer is No, all practice is positive. Even if you experience disturbing images or strong emotions. Just pay attention to whatever happens. Also pay attention to the flat periods where boredom seems to take hold. Just note the characteristics of whatever happens. This is what boredom feels like. This is what a strong emotion feels like. This is what fear feels like. And so on.
In other words, Mindfulness practice, which is basic to Buddhist practice. Can't get enough of it. The more one practises the deeper and more steady in the practice one becomes. The potential negatives the question implies are both remote and rare. The negatives I've encountered have all arisen from panic, taking the emptiness of phenomena as substantial and thus falling into delusional thinking.
If you don't have an experienced meditator to act as a mentor, someone to talk to about what happens in your meditation sessions, finding one would be a good idea, for orientation and reassurance if nothing else.

what about wrong concentration (miccha samadhi)?

I look on the "miccha samadhi" as a red herring. All of meditation is about awareness, mindfulness practice, in its many forms. All of the negatives, including miccha samadhi, arise out of misidentifying phenomena as having substance, thus triggering wrong view. Protecting against negative experiences, unfortunately, is a fool's errand. There is only one reality and that definitely includes anicca, impermanence.


text:
When and how should someone practice Patikulamanasikara meditation (reflections of replusiveness)
The practice of Patikulamanasikara, or loathsomeness of the body has intrigued me for quite a while but I was always uncertain of how to do it right. So, here goes: How do I know if it would be a right meditation for me and how does one start?
Yes, I can find the sequence of words: Hairs of the head, hairs of the body..etc. But does one first memorize the whole section or is possible to meditate while using notes?

Ven. Bhikku Bodhi writes about this type of meditation in his book "The Noble Eightfold Path", p. 77-78:

The next two sections on mindfulness of the body present analytical contemplations intended to expose the body’s real nature. One of these is the meditation on the body’s unattrac- tiveness, already touched on in connection with right effort; the other, the analysis of the body into the four primary elements.
The first, the meditation on unattractiveness, is designed to counter infatuation with the body, especially in its form of sex- ual desire. The Buddha teaches that the sexual drive is a mani- festation of craving, thus a cause of dukkha that has to be reduced and extricated as a precondition for bringing dukkha to an end. The meditation aims at weakening sexual desire by depriving the sexual urge of its cognitive underpinning, the perception of the body as sensually alluring. Sensual desire rises and falls together with this perception. It springs up because we view the body as attractive; it declines when this perception of beauty is removed.
The perception of bodily attractiveness in turn lasts only so long as the body is looked at superficially, grasped in terms of selected impressions. To counter that perception we have to refuse to stop with these impressions but proceed to inspect the body at a deeper level, with a probing scrutiny grounded in dispassion. Precisely this is what is undertaken in the meditation on unattractiveness, which turns back the tide of sensuality by pull- ing away its perceptual prop.
The meditation takes one’s own body as object, since for a neophyte to start off with the body of another, especially a member of the opposite sex, might fail to accomplish the desired result. Using visualization as an aid, one mentally dissects the body into its components and investi- gates them one by one, bringing their repulsive nature to light. The texts mention thirty-two parts: head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, stomach contents, excrement, brain, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, snot, spittle, sinovial fluid, and urine.
The repulsiveness of the parts implies the same for the whole: the body seen closeup is truly unattractive, its beautiful appear- ance a mirage. But the aim of this meditation must not be mis- apprehended. The aim is not to produce aversion and disgust but detachment, to extinguish the fire of lust by removing its fuel.

There is also a reference to The Visuddhimagga, chapter 8: "Mindfulness occupied with body", verses 42-144, p. 236-258. Here it gives in-depth instructions on how to perform the technique and it takes all body parts and describes each in detail.
Lastly, Pa Auk Sayadaw gives a description of this type of meditation in his book "Knowing and Seeing", p. 44-46:

The Thirty-Two Parts of the Body
If you want to develop meditation on the thirty-two parts of the body, you should first re-establish the fourth ànàpàna-jhàna. When the light of concentration is bright, brilliant, and radiant, you should use it to try to discern the thirty-two parts of the body, one at a time.
The thirty-two parts of the body are twenty parts with predominantly the earth-element, and twelve parts with predominantly the water-element. The twenty earth-element parts should be discerned in four sets of five:
1-5. Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin. 6-10. Flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys.
11-15. Heart, liver, membrane, spleen, lungs.
16-20. Intestines, mesentery, undigested food, faeces, brain.
The twelve water-element parts should be discerned in two sets of six:
1-6. Bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat.
7-12. Tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.
Discern the parts in the given order, but one at a time. Try to see each of the parts, as distinctly as you would
  see your face in a clean mirror.
If, while doing this, the light of concentration
  should fade, and the part of the body being discerned become unclear, you should re-establish the fourth ànàpàna-jhàna. When the light is again bright and strong, you should return to discerning the parts of the body. Do this whenever the light of concentration fades.
  Practise so that you are, from head hairs down to urine, or from urine back to head hairs, able to see each one clearly and with penetrating knowledge; keep practising until you become skilful.
Then, again using the light of concentration and with your eyes still closed, you should try to discern another being close by. It is especially good to discern someone in front of you. Discern the thirty-two parts of the body in that person, or being, from head hairs down to urine, and from urine back to head hairs. Discern the thirty-two parts forwards and backwards many times.
When you have succeeded, discern the thirty-two parts once internally, that is in your own body, and once ex- ternally, that is in the other person’s body; do this many times, again and again.
When you are able to discern internally and externally like this, the power of meditation will in- crease. You should thus gradually extend your field of discernment bit by bit, from near to far. Do not worry that you cannot discern beings far away. Using the brilliant light of the fourth jhàna, you can easily see beings far away; not with the naked eye, but with the eye of wisdom (¤àõacakkhu). You should be able to extend your field of discernment in all ten directions: above, below, east, west, north, south, north east, south east, north west, south west. Take whomever you dis- cern, be they human, animal or other beings, in those ten directions, and discern the thirty-two parts, once internally and once externally, one person or other being at a time.
When you no longer see men, women, or buf- faloes, cows, and other animals, as such, but see only groups of thirty-two parts, whenever and wherever you look, internally or externally, then can you be said to be successful, skilful, and expert in discerning the thirty-two parts of the body.

I have to attain the fourth janna first?!

If your vehicle is Samatha meditation then yes. If not then no. You can do them as regular visualization meditation. In the samatha path one develops insight knowledge by using the jhanas to discern the mentality-materiality-complex. See Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer here for further info.

today i learned :)

Practise these contemplations when advised by an experienced meditator, a mentor. (Do you have one?) Otherwise proceed with caution. The point of these meditations is not to develop self-loathing, rather the opposite, to reduce possible fascination with the body and self-identication with the body. To help you see the body as a process, which it is.
However these meditations are also a good ground for building concentration and mindfulness.


text:
What explains the membership of Shingon's 13 Buddhas list?
The list of 13 Buddhas (which is actually Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Wisdom Kings) plays a role in Shingon gongyo and funerary rites.  What accounts for why these particular 13 are set aside for special attention?

Fudo (Acala)
Shaka (Sakyamuni)
Monju (Manjushri)
Fugen (Samantabhadra)
Jizo (Ksitigarbha)
Miroku (Maitreya)
Yakushi (Bhaisajyaguru)
Kannon (Avalokitesvara)
Seishi (Mahasthamaprapta)
Amida (Amitabha)
Ashuku (Akshobhya)
Dainichi (Vairocana)
Kokuzo (Akasagarbha)

Minor update: I did some googling on this, it appears that lists of Buddhas, sometimes very long lists of Buddhas, occur throughout the Mahayana cannon.

Courtesy of Brian Gentz
The list of 13 Buddhas used in Shingon funeral rites is based on the chief Buddhist deities found on two important mandalas used by Shingon practitioners in ritual practices: the Taizokai (Womb World) mandala and the KongoKai (Diamond World) mandala.  It is understood the deities assist the living and the deceased by guiding them into the realm of enlightenment.  Depending on the anniversary date of the deceased, a memorial service associated with the deity is held for the deceased.
Each deity on the list plays an important part at different levels of the two mandalas in assisting the initiate reach enlightenment.   These mandalas are aggregates of additional mandalas from the early Vajrayana tradition.  The mandala principals for the illustrations and placement of the deities roles are found in early Vajrayana texts: the Womb World Mandala is found in the Mahavairocana Tantra, and the Diamond World Mandala is found in the Vajrasekhara Tantra.
List of 13 Buddhas and the dates for the corresponding memorial services:

Fudo (Acala) - The Immovable Radiant King, 7th day
Shaka (Sakyamuni) - Sage of the Shakya Tribe, 14th day
Monju (Manjushri) - Bodhisattva of Beautiful Splendor, 21st day
Fugen (Samantabhadra) - Bodhisattva of Universal Beauty, 28th day
Jizo (Ksitigarbha), - Bodhisattva Storehouse of the Earth 35th day
Miroku (Maitreya), - The Benevolent Bodhisattva 42nd day
Yakushi (Bhaisajyaguru), - Buddha of the Master of Medicine 49th day
Kannon (Avalokitesvara), - Bodhisattva of Compassion 100th day
Seishi (Mahasthamaprapta), - Bodhisattva Who Proceeds With Vigor 1st anniversary
Amida (Amitabha), - Buddha of Infinite Life and Life 2nd anniversary
Ashuku (Akshobhya), - The Immovable Buddha 6th anniversary
Dainichi (Vairocana), - The Great Buddha of Universal Illumination 12th anniversary
Kokuzo (Akasagarbha), The Storehouse of Space Bodhisattva 32nd anniversary
Garbhadhatu Mandala (Womb World Mandala)

Courtesy of Peehyoro Acala
Vajradhātu Mandala (Diamond World Mandala)

Courtesy of Peehyoro Acala


text:
What are proper expectations to have about a Sangha?
In my area, there are many Buddhists centers referring to themselves as centers, meditation centers, or monasteries.  These all seem to be various expressions of a Buddhist Sangha.  However, being in the Mid-West one tends to expect the Sangha to be modeled on or similar to a church or synagogue.   What are the proper expectations to have about being part of a Sangha?  Should Westerns expect a sangha to conform to the Western notion of religious institutions?

Not sure if you saw this post, but it's slightly related. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1267/how-can-i-assess-the-quality-of-a-local-buddhist-group

@Robin111 Thanks for the link.   I added a tag for sangha to that post, so this post and that one will show up in the same searches for sanghas.  Both posts received very interesting and heartfelt answers.

It depends on which Buddhist tradition that particular temple belongs to.
To avoid rampant anti-Japanese racism in America stemming from the 1940s, when Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps, Japanese Buddhist branches like Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu conformed themselves to a more western model of creating religious spaces when they settled in America. This is why the American branch of Jodo Shinshu is called "Buddhist Churches of America". They often have pews, a minister speaking from the pulpit, youth groups, etc.
Temples from other traditions usually don't model their space after western religious models. The sangha's "mode of operation" depends on the tradition, which school of thought that sangha follows within it's own tradition, and of course, the Buddhists themselves. So when visiting, these sanghas should be understood on their own terms as much as possible, leaving expectations at the door.

The proper expectations are to have are no expectations.
Speaking mostly from the Theravada perspective I will say there will often be a large difference between a meditation center and a Vihara(monastery). A monastery can be a meditation center, but not all meditation centers are monasteries.
Visit the website and call ahead to see if they have any events open to the public. There may not be regular public "Sunday service" type activities and showing up out of the blue might not be the best depending on the size of the place. Visit when you are able, meet people, learn about how they practice, and join along if you feel it's right for you. You may experience some culture shock, you may not, it is a learning process and the least amount of expectations you have the more you are open to the experience.


text:
Masculine and Feminine Potencies
In several places–for example, in texts around the Nine Purification Breaths–I've seen references to either masculine or feminine "obstacles linked with potencies" that are described as being "masculine" or "feminine."
What are the obscurations and "obstacles linked with potencies" that are "masculine" or "feminine" and what are their characteristics?

This article on wikipedia discusses some of the kleshas or poisons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism)#Two_obscurations
Some of them appear to be feminine (emotional) and some masculine (intellectual)
Two obscurations[edit]
Mahayana literature often features an enumeration of "two obscurations" (Wylie: sgrib gnyis), the "obscuration of conflicting emotions" (Sanskrit: kleśa-avaraṇa, Wylie: nyon-mongs-pa'i sgrib-ma) and the "obscuration concerning the knowable" (Sanskrit: jñeya-avaraṇa, Wylie: shes-bya'i sgrib-ma).[19]


text:
Is Nirvana the goal for all Buddhist?
If I understand it correctly, Nirvana is the liberation from the endless cycle of rebirth, thereby terminating all sufferings.
Is Nirvana a goal which every Buddhist must achieve?
Is there any other things more important than attaining Nirvana?

That right. It's the ultimate goal.

No, Nirvana is not the goal of all Buddhists. According to Sakya and Nyingma schools of Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhist liberation methodologies can be divided in three major classes, corresponding to sentient being's mental capacity:

students of lower capacity seek pleasant living conditions and personal happiness. For these beings the teaching focuses on fundamental principles such as karma, and posits the goal of better rebirth (and better luck in this life). When a being is born to conditions more favorable for deeper study and practice, or in the same life its interests raise beyond basic day-to-day existence, it is now considered as one of the
students of middling capacity, who seek spiritual realization. For them the teaching focuses on personal transformation through removal of mental and emotional obscurations and posits the goal of Nirvana. Once the student removed enough obscurations to have a glimpse of how things really are (tathata), he or she realizes that both Samsara as well as Nirvana are two sides of the same equation, and a projection of one's Thirst due to one's mind having been intoxicated with The Three Poisons. At this point they find themselves on the level of:
students of higher capacity, who practice Natural Great Perfection. For them the teaching focuses on manifesting unhindered compassionate action, union of wisdom and skillful means, and does not posit any goals.

The three capacities model should not be confused with the three yanas model (Hinayana/Mahayana/Vajrayana) which can be seen as three levels spanning the second and third capacities, nor with the three schools model (Theravada/Mahayana/Tibetan Buddhism) which are three alternative paths, with beings of all three capacities found in each school.
Another model defines goals according to one of the Six Worlds the being finds itself in:

For beings in Hell realm the goal is defined as Escape from Suffering
For beings in Animal realm the goal is defined as Wisdom
For beings in Preta realm the goal is defined as The Only Possession of Real Value
For beings in Human realm the goal is defined as Liberation
For beings in Asura realm the goal is defined as Perfection of Excellence
For beings in Heaven realm the goal is defined as Protection from Impermanence

There is also a nine-yanas model that provides a finer classification of enlightenment contexts, with a slightly different provisional goal utilized in each. Please note that all models exist solely for their explanatory value and are vastly simplifying reality, which is a lot less pigeonholed.
To answer your second question, is there any other thing more important than attaining Nirvana, this is like a school student asking, is there any other thing more important than finishing school. For the school student to finish the school is the most important thing. Nothing else can happen until then.

Forgive my ignorance, but what happens after having graduated from school?

In one sense life goes on as before, it is just that you become a universal adult, free to do whatever you want, but also responsible for everything. In another sense there is no longer "you", so there is nothing for you to do anymore. You are no longer subject to suffering, birth, and death. Strictly speaking, whatever happens from now on is indescribable. In yet another sense you realize that Nirvana has been a very crude approximation and that instead you are up for an eternity of learning. At the same time you see that others still struggle and that breeds very natural compassion.

In the grand scheme of things, ending suffering and with it the endless cycle of rebirth is the ultimate goal of all forms of Buddhism.
However, while Theravada Buddhism focusses on personal enlightenment, other forms like Mahayana focus on the Bodhisattva ideal: Postponing enlightenment until all other lifeforms are free from suffering. In the Theravada tradition this Bodhisattva is postponing enlightenment until one can become a Buddha.
So to answer your questions:

yes, Nirvanna is a goal which every Buddhist strives to achieve.
In certain schools, enlightening others is more important (has more priority) than attaining Nirvana yourself.

One who becomes an Arahath can also help others to attain enlightenment. A Buddha also first attains enlightenment before teaching others. It's more like getting a degree vs getting a degree with honors.

I hope that I wasn't implying that an Arahat could not, I was trying state that the order is different. First becoming enlightened and then help others vs. First help others, than become enlightened.

But a Buddha also 1st becomes enlightened before helping others to become enlightened. So the order is the same.

But a Bodhisattva in the Mahayana tradition doesn't, or at least not to the point that rebirth is ended.

A Bodhisattva cultivating Paramitha to become a Buddha is not necessarily helping others to attain enlightenment on the way. He's perfecting his mind to attain Buddhahood. As far a I know, it's the same in the Mahayana tradition. The difference is they either want to become Buddhas themselves or become enlightened under a future Buddha. They just don't want to become enlightened in this Sasana.

Then we have different sources of knowledge I'm afraid. It is mentioned in this wiki-page what I'm referring to, look at the term: "shepherd-like bodhisattva": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva

I see! But it's technically not possible to become a shepherd-like bodhisattva as the world will never be devoid of beings.

I shall take no stance on that in this format ^^

Since none of the 5 answers so far (at the moment of this writing) provide any external references that directly tackle this question, here are some from the actual suttas and Buddha's own words as preserved in the pali canon.
In MN 73, the wanderer Vacchagotta said this to the Buddha after hearing his Dhamma exposition and before going to him for refuge:

Just as the river Ganges inclines towards the sea, slopes towards the sea, flows towards te sea, and reaches the sea, so too Master Gotama's assembly with its homeless ones and its householders inclines towards Nibbana, slopes towards Nibbana, flows towards Nibbana, reaches Nibbana.
-- Mahavacchagotta Sutta (Nanamoli/Bodhi trans.)

In MN 104, the Buddha explains to the brahmin Ganaka Moggallana why not all of his disciples attain Nibbana. He finishes, thus:

So too brahmin, Nibbana exists and the path leading to Nibbana exists and I am present as the guide. Yet when my disciples have been thus advised and instructed by me, some of them attain Nibbana, the ultimate goal, and some do not attain it.
-- Ganakamoggallana Sutta (Nanamoli/Bodhi trans.)

The Maggasamyutta contains the following instruction from the Buddha himself:

Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you:
"For what purpose, friends, is the holy life lived under the ascetic Gotama?"
— being asked thus, you should answer them thus:
"It is, friends, for the abandoning of the fetters ... for the uprooting of the underlying tendencies ... for the full understanding of the course … for the destruction of the taints ... for the realization of the fruit of true knowledge and liberation ... for the sake of knowledge and vision ... for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One."
Then, bhikkhus, if the wanderers of other sects ask you:
"But, friends, is there a path, is there a way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging?"
— being asked thus, you should answer them thus:
"There is a path, friends, there is a way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging."
And what, bhikkhus, is that path, what is that way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging? It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view ... right concentration. This is the path, this is the way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging.
Being asked thus, bhikkhus, you should answer those wanderers of other sects in such a way.
-- Annatitthiyapeyyala Vagga

And finally, the famous line declared by Buddhas and Arahants when reaching Nirvana, repeated through the entire sutta pitaka:

"Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being".

Note: All emphasis in the quotes are my own doing.

I wish this answer was given earlier.

No. If your goal is to attain enlightenment you've gotten it all wrong and I would recommend Brad Warner's book, Hardcore Zen. It is much more important to act appropriately.
From the book:

I'd been doing zazen for for over a decade by then and was pretty
  miffed that I had yet to reach enlightenment...
Let me give you a little background. In a nutshell, there are two
  major schools of Zen in Japan: Soto, to which Nishijima belonged, and
  ... my teacher Tim McCarthy had studied and taught; and the Rinzai
  school... The difference between them is this: the Rinzai shcool
  believes in enlightenment and the Soto school does not.

He goes on to explain why simply having the goal of attaining enlightenment will pretty guarantee you will not reach Nirvana. Attaining enlightenment is a selfish goal. The selfish can not, by definition, attain enlightenment. It is a catch-22 type paradox.
If you don't buy that, then at least you should be aware that is a school that not only does not have a goal of attaining enlightenment, but they don't even believe in it.

Would you mind adding a little more context to this answer?

I agree, you could explain why exactly focusing on the goal can be counterproductive.

I added some more context @Hrafn.

Awesome, thanks! ^_^

I always thought Zen and Buddhism were something different (and "zen buddhism" a unity of parts of both)?

@kingkero Just like there are many different Christian sects, there are many different schools of Buddhism. Some practice zazen, some do not. Brad Warner is a priest of the Soto school.

@kingkero hm that's an interesting perspective, I wonder how many people have no idea that Zen is a school of Buddhism, and as such works inside Buddhism's frame of reference as far as what and why albeit with a slightly different how.

@AndreiVolkov it could make for a good solid fact based Q & A.

@ckuhn203 &  Andrei Volkov, thanks. I feel so dumb right now, not even having read the wikipedia page about it. It's just that I thought to remember reading in a book about Zen that it had been another school and got adopted/fused into Zen Buddhism but that is clearly not the case

That's not terribly wrong @kingkero. I don't remember all of the history, but that's the gist of it actually.

Many times, especially when responding to speculative questions, the Buddha announced that he teaches just two things — the universality of suffering and the path to the ending of suffering. That's what Buddhism is all about, no matter which of the many traditions. The Buddha taught the cause of suffering is clinging. This becomes a particular problem when one clings to the notion of a self or to a goal, such as the question implies.
One compounds the suffering if one announces to the world one is seeking the end of suffering. Thus the arising of the Mahayana, the first major division among the disciples of the Buddha. Mahayana pointed out the contradiction. They proposed an ideal of helping all others towards their ending of suffering, through compassion and generosity — the Bodhisattva ideal. Vajrayana derives from Mahayana and thus includes the Bodhisattva ideal.
Modern Theravada teachers frown on announcing whether one has become enlightened. Only those who had ended their concept of a self to be clung to, having achieved complete selflessness, would know whether the speaker had achieved complete selflessness. This takes the issue of Enlightenment off the table.
In the end all Buddhists seek the end of suffering. Some use the Bodhisattva vow to do it. Others seek it quietly. But all paths lead to the same end. At the end of the day, to be a Buddhist is to seek the ending of clinging.

Simple answer to your two questions
Is Nirvana a goal which every Buddhist must achieve? Yes. Ending the suffering is the ultimate goal of a true budhist
Is there any other things more important than attaining Nirvana? No
To answer this more, All budha's sutta and all teachings point to how to attain nibbana nothing else. In order to attain nibbana only thing you have to do is look into yourself and your sitha how thoughts come and go every second. Trick is not to attach to any of it because its impermanent. But if you get attached to these thoughts and feelings karma cycle begins in another words life begins at that moment.
Look at the Four stages of enlightenment and first step most important Sotapana.
The three fetters which the Sotāpanna eradicates are: (excerpted from Wikipedia for better explanation)
Self-view - The speculative view that a so-called self exists in the five aggregates (physical forms, feelings/sensations, perception, mental formations and consciousness) is eradicated because the Sotāpanna gains insight into the selfless nature of the aggregates.
Skeptical Doubt - Doubt about the Buddha, his teaching (Dhamma), and his community (Sangha) is eradicated because the Sotāpanna personally experiences the true nature of reality through insight, and this insight confirms the accuracy of the Buddha’s teaching.
Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery. Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the Right View of the Sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye.
The Sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path.


text:
Where does a person go after attaining Nirvana?
After attaining Nirvana, what happens to the person(conscious) after death?
Does the person cease to exist?
If not, does the person go to some peaceful place?

In one sense he continues just as we do. Once he attained nirvana under the Bodhi tree, the Buddha carried on teaching for another 50 years. It was only on the death of his physical body that he underwent parinirvana, that is to say final release. However this just pushes the question on from nirvana to parinirvana.
The question of what happens to an enlightened being after death is one of the unanswered questions i.e. does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death. The Buddha refused to address metaphysical issues such as these. He teaches one thing and that thing is liberation. He views other issues such as this, the nature of the universe, the nature of the 'soul' as a distraction.
It's not to say that this isn't a good question but it is one that is deliberately unanswered by the Buddha. As such I'm probably not going to be able to do it either.
It's the answer of no answer
NOTE
This answer is based on Theravada teachings and is not the stance of all Buddhist schools. Other answers here will be from different perspectives and should be considered along with this answer.

Could you make a note that your answer is based on Theravada teachings? In Vajrayana, for example, it is very clear and well-defined what happens to an enlightened being after death.

Posting an answer from Vajrayana perspective should be just fine, I believe. However, could I ask you to edit your answer so that readers know it is not a general stance of all Buddhist schools? Your answer is nicely upvoted so it might mislead some people.

@Rabbit Just to note I've asked a meta question around the issues you have raised http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/242/157

There was no person existing in the 1st place to cease to exist. What you mistake as a person is just the 5 aggregates of clinging. They are just natural processes of causes and effects. Once you attain Nibbana, the causes for continuation of the 5 aggregates are removed. Hence no continuation.

This answer seems self-contradictory. You say there was no person, but then you say that a person is the 5 aggregates of clinging -- natural processes of causes and effects. Those -- 5 aggregates, and natural processes -- are things to which we apply, apparently, the term "person". In other words, even if "person" is an illusion, illusions are still things.

It's similar to someone pointing at a mirage in the desert and calling it a lake. Then I say it is not a lake! In reality, it is an optical illusion caused by light refracting differently through air at different temperatures. If you apply the same line of thought to my answer, you wouldn't find it self-contradictory. Illusions are illusions! But they are caused by things.

Right, but there you have two things: the "real" thing -- the lake; and the illusion -- the mirage. For that to work as an analogy, we need those two things things to correspond with two things in the "person" question. Presumably you consider "mirage" to correspond to "person"; so what corresponds to "lake"? As far as I understand it, the analogy is invalid, because there aren't two things -- there's simply a misunderstanding about what the one thing -- "person" -- is. But that thing still "is" (whatever "is" means).

Lake isn't real. Lake itself is the illusion. The real thing there is just light refracting through air. The word 'mirage' is merely a pointer to that. A misunderstanding or an illusion is not a thing. It's simply a product of ignorance.

"An existing person" is a false thought caused by ignorance. It does not point to the 5 aggregates. It only points to ignorance. Only thoughts that perceive the 5 aggregates as they are points to a thing or reality.

Interesting. But since SE isn't really set up for debate, we should probably call this little discussion done, yes? Thanks for some thought-provocation though :-)

As I understand it, Crab Bucket is correct that this is a question to which an answer is never given. I will contribute some source and try to flesh out this answer a bit:

According to the Avyakata Sutta, the Buddha says that holding a viewpoint about what happens to an enlightened one after death is 'anguish' [Pāli: 'vippatisara'] and that well-instructed, noble disciples don't declare an answer to it.
According to the Culamalunkya Sutta, the Buddha does not declare any of the ten 'speculative views' about the cosmos, the soul/body, or parinibbāna:

"Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does
  not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to
  disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct
  knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it
  undeclared."

According to the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, the Buddha says that he doesn't declare an answer to the question and that the four positions (does exist, doesn't exist, both does and doesn't exist, neither exists nor doesn't) are a 'thicket of views'.
He then uses an analogy to illustrate why these positions don't apply to him, namely, to try to describe him after death would be like trying to pin down a fire that has gone out--where did it go? Where is it now? He then uses another simile, describing himself as 'deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.' The second simile may be intended to prevent the development of an annihilation view. (cf. Bodhi, 320, 2005)
Bodhi, B. In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pāli Canon, 2005.

This question is a useful one because: 1. it is inevitable, 2. it illustrates the kind of thing that is considered 'vexing' or leads to "thicket of views", etc. So, plunge in! Knowing what not to waste one's time on is very beneficial!
If the Buddha refused to answer, then as everyone has said, that should tell you something. A lot of breath is wasted on debate about what exists or does not. My Self Inquiry teachers talked about there being only Two Real Things: The Void and Experience. Perhaps these correspond to Nirvana and reality as we perceive it. They are one, but that is not usually seen.
The analogy of the flame going out - where did it go? - is a common one. I prefer this analogy: A life is like a musical performance: when it ends, it is done. It did not come from somewhere, and did not go anywhere. If it was an improvisation, like live Jazz or something, then it is not even written down. If it was not recorded, then other than peoples' memories, it has no enduring effect at all.
The key to considering such an imponderable as Death is to ask oneself: Why does this matter to me? Keep asking until you figure it out, then move on. That is Self Inquiry, which leads to Nonduality.

"Win. Lose. No matter."

After attaining Nirvana, what happens to the person(conscious) after death?

After attaining Nirvana, the person is and is not after death.

Does the person cease to exist?

The person does not cease to exist, nor the person exists.

If not, does the person go to some peaceful place?

The person does not go to some peaceful place, nor the person does go to some peaceful place.

"This does not answer the question" ha ha (and that is the answer)

I'll take a stab at this one. The thing that needs to be understood for this is the idea of 'anatta'. This is not 'no-self' it is 'not-self'. The difference is this: 'No Self' is an opinion. A point of view. To know that there was 'no self' one would need to know everything at all times past, future and present. Holding points of view is thoroughly condemned by the Buddha as being merely opinion based on contact through the senses.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/dn/dn.01.6.olds.bd_end.htm
The idea of 'not-self' is a thing which can be seen for one's self: "This" (and "That") are not self. The understanding that a thing is not self is based on the idea that if it were the self it could be controlled, such as, for example, to say that it was not to die. That cannot be, so that which is out of our control cannot be the self.
The dialog goes like this (from Vinaya Pitaka, MV 1):
"Consciousness is not self ... Inasmuch, monks, as consciousness is not self, therefore consciousness tends to sickness, and one does not get the chance to say in regard to consciousness, 'Let consciousness become such for me, let consciousness not become thus for me.'
What do you think about this, monks? Is body permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, Lord."
"But is that which is impermanent painful or pleasurable?"
"Painful, Lord."
"But is it fit to consider that which is impermanent, painful, of a nature to change, as 'This is mine, this am I, this is my self'?"
"It is not Lord." ...
That understood it is to be extended to everything that has come into existence, understanding that 'that which has come into existence is subject to time, and subject to time, has a beginning, middle, and end. One of many ways Gotama used to describe 'everything in existence' was the khandhas (the stockpiles): body, sense-experience, perception, own-making and consciousness. Another was 'The All': the eye and sight, the ear and sound, the nose and scents, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, and the mind and things.
What happens after death on attaining Nibbana (or Pari-nibbana) is best understood by first understanding how coming into existence occurs. That is the Paticca Samuppada, which is briefly: This being, that becomes, upon the ending of this, the ending of that.
Because the previously existing individual at death does not see the outcome in further pain and death in the assumption of existence, he acts in such a way as to create new existence. His identification with acts of body, speech and mind intended to create existence result in identified-with consequences taking the form of: contact with identified-with consciousness of named-shapes. "I see shapes."
If that individual had not acted in such a way as to create contact with identified-with consciousness of named-shapes, there would be no coming into identified-with existence and no coming to an end of that existence.
That is Nibbana. The sitting before, as it were, the possibility of existence and not doing that.
So it is not that 'a person' attains Nibbana, it is that 'the person,' that which has been previously identified with as 'Me' or 'my' or 'I', the khandhas, the all, is abandoned for the attaining of Nibbana.
Whatever it is that is left cannot be described because language (especially English with it's subject, verb, and object) is bound up in the terminology of existence. Nevertheless speaking conventionally there is mention of the Arahant experiencing un-identified with sense-experience (in his case the experience of sensations that are neither pleasant nor unpleasant), and consciousness (vinnana, the so-called vinnana anidassana, the unseen consciousness).
For a collection of materials on vinnana anidassana see:
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/glossology/green_tea/green_tea_toc.htm

Athma or soul gives life to the Body. A body is simply a tool for achieving the duties of an Athma, or Karma. Every time when someone or something is born, it is to do a set of duties.  Salvation or nirvana is attained once and forever when a soul completes all its duties and free itself of its responsibilities. When a person fails to do its duties and roles, he is reborn and the circle of life, death and rebirth goes on till the soul achieves the same. The athma is assigned a new body and a new set of duties.
After attaining eternal salvation/nirvana the soul joins a circle of souls called pithru-athmas. Meaning athma of forefathers. The reason why the souls stand or sit in a circle is because among souls, nobody is greater or smaller, just like a circle has no end or beginning. Once the salvation is achieved the soul takes its rightfully earned position among the Pithru-athmas. Peace. :)

Welcome to Buddhism SE. Your answer does not appear to be answering the question from the Buddhist perspective and might be considered off topic for this site.

Welcome to Buddhism SE.  Please consider formatting the answer in a format with sources quoted.  If you are comparing concepts of Nirvana between religious traditions, please quote sources and relate how your answer addresses the question by comparing religious traditions with Buddhism.

Welcome to Buddhism SE. Please be aware that we're a new site and we're all trying to help each other figure stuff out, and as a result new members often find themselves the recipient of multiple "Welcome to Buddhism SE" comments, and critiques of their questions! Please consider all advice as friendly, and, as we're all saying (incessantly, but genuinely), WELCOME!! :-D

Hinduism and Buddhism are both closely related. Buddhism also has its origin from Hinduism. I would also like to invite all the members of this community to visit the Ajanta and Ellora caves. And also that i find @Sankha Kulathantille's answer all the more convincing than mine. And i  must confess my answer is more of a Hindu Perspective of the cycle. :) peace.


text:
Is zazen practised for its own sake, or as a means to end suffering? Experts seem to say different things
It is confusing to me that what what the goal of zazen is (and is not), as proposed by various people with more or less authority on the subject, varies so greatly. Some say no goal, and others identify various goals.
Rationally speaking, no goal makes sense. It is a form of non-dualism. If there is a goal, then there is an attachment to becoming something which one is not. But no goal is also nonsense. If there is no goal, then there is no goal to end suffering. The Four Noble Truths become descriptive, and the Eightfold Path is unimportant.
This is as far as my thinking has gotten. I conclude with some verifiable examples of what the goal of zazen is said to be.
remove wrong perceptions

the practice of meditation, the practice of looking deeply, has the purpose of removing wrong perceptions from us
  —“What is Nirvana and How Does It End Suffering?” by Thích Nhất Hạnh at MeditationPlex

see ourselves

Zazen deliberately tries to remove all entertainment and distractions from our minds so we can see ourselves as we really are
  —The Laughing Teabowl Sangha

there is no goal

There is no starting point nor goal, nothing to attain
  –Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki

grasp enlightenment

the only way to grasp enlightenment is through a calm and settled mind
  —Zen Guide

engage with reality (not to make your life better)

The real practice of Zen is to engage directly with reality, not to use it as a method to improve your health or make your life better
  —“Zazen Posture” by Josho Pat Phelan at Chapel Hill Zen Center

not to learn

Don’t think of practice in terms of “eventually”
  —“Zazen is not step-by-step learning meditation” by Harada Sekkei Roshi at Buddhism Now

compassion

the purpose of zazen is compassion
  —“Beyond Thinking: Dogen’s Teachings on Zazen” by Norman Fischer at Upaya Zen Center

There is such a thing as "doing without doing", "actionless action".

My experience has been that what a teacher says depends on who is asking the question.  The multiplicity of answers reflects, I think, the multiplicity of ways that we have of getting caught.

You’re mistaking pedagogy for ontological statements.

It seems to me the three comments above give the correct answer. There are always two ways of looking at these things, as Nagarjuna explains, and for didactic purposes maybe more. There is a goal and there isn't. All the quotes you give seem correct.  .

Actually, the answer is very simple: meditation is practiced to achieve tathata (suchness), which is a state of realization of the Third Noble Truth. Because tathata involves cessation of aversion to any "this" and of longing for any "that", its attainment requires a mindset without a goal. It would be more precise to say that no-goal is a method of meditation, but that would risk leaving some subtle shadow of goal in practitioner's mind, hence the official statement that meditation has no goal. Because Buddhism aims at liberation from (among other things) deep-lying stereotypes/assumptions and implicit conceptual boundaries it necessarily involves tricks like this. Another corollary of the above, is that it's never enough to reason about these things intellectually, one needs to take them on as actual frame of reference for them to have an experiential effect.
This point is well illustrated by Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128 or 3.130 or 131 depending how you count) -- the below amateurish translation is mine but here is another one.

Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and
  said:
-- As much as I, friend Shariputra, try and look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, try and see things with thousandfold-superhuman
  vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in
  tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I
  can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of
  mind".
-- All these thoughts, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I try and look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I try and see things with
  thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.
And the thoughts of the kind "I train in confidence unmovable, in
  awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused
  mind unscattered" -- this is your pathologic restlessness.
And the thoughts of the kind "still I can't "having stopped
  maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your
  remorse.
You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three dharmas abandon; To these
  three dharmas not attending, the deathless aspect assemble with mind.

Here "the deathless aspect" (amrita-dhatu) refers to Nirvana, in this context also described as vajradhatu, "the indestructible space that accommodates everything, samsara and nirvana. Nothing can challenge this space. In spite of its clarity, or discriminating wisdom, it is still indestructible." (Chogyam Trungpa)
"see ourselves as we really are", "engage directly with reality" and "grasp enlightenment" -- all refer to the same thing. This is when "compassion" happens naturally. In order for this to happen, one has to "remove wrong perceptions", "remove all entertainment and distractions" -- which includes removing the notion of goal or attainment, hence "no starting point nor goal, nothing to attain" without any trace of "eventually".

Is the state of tathata similar (or maybe same) to the state a Dzogchenpa would have achieved? Thanks!

Yeah, should be the same

Zen teachings can be likened to "the finger pointing at the moon."  Based on my experience at Dharma Field in Minneapolis, MN.  They always mention zazen and the other Zen Buddhist practices are just fingers point at the moon.  It is important not to get caught by the form of zazen but to utilize the practice for your own practice.  The practice methods are tools to be used to help the practitioner with their daily meditation practice.  As the following image and koan help explain:

Courtesy of HappyHauiku

The nun Wu Jincang asked the Sixth Patriach Huineng, “I have studied
  the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas i
  do not quite understand. Please enlighten me.”
The patriach responded, “I am illiterate. Please read out the
  characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning.”
  Said the nun, “You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you
  able then to understand the meaning?”
“Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the
  bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a
  finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the
  finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze
  beyond the finger, right?”
  HappyHauiku

The seemingly inconsistent points of view on zazen are generally utilized to help the practitioner's meditation from leaning too heavily in one direction or another.  It is basically a corrective process to mentally stay on the middle path, not going off one tangent or another. 1

Meditation Now or Never: Steve Hagen

Joshu Examines a Monk in Meditation

Joshu went to a place were a monk had retired to meditate and asked
him: `What is, is what?' The monk raised his fist.
Joshu replied: `Ships cannot remain where the water is too shallow.'
And he left.
A few days later Joshu went again to visit the monk and asked the same
question.
The monk answered the same way.
Joshu said: `Well given, well taken, well killed, well save.' And he
bowed to the monk.
Mumon's Comment: The raised fist was the same both times. Why is it
Joshu did not admit the first and approved the second one? Where is
the fault?
Whoever answers this knows that Joshu's tongue has no bone so he can
use it freely. Yet perhaps Joshu is wrong. Or, through that monk, he
may have discovered his mistake.
If anyone thinks that the one's insight exceeds the other's, he has no
eyes.

Borrowed from: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/11.html I added the emphasis.
The point being that it's not one way or the other. It's both and neither.

To answer this question you shouldn't only look at the goal as stated by Zen itself, but rather an anthropological explanation of Buddhism from an outside perspective.
From that perspective Buddhism, and consequently Zen, fall under the umbrella of religious practice, which always has the aim of relieving suffering.
Ask yourself: why would someone practice zazen if they had no aim in doing so? In other words, there must be a goal for those practicing zazen. And as with other religious seekers, that goal is usually to relieve worldly suffering, to achieve peace of mind.
Make no mistake, there is a lot of value in Zazen meditation, and in the modern era it has similarities with scientific therapies, primarily Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. But there is a risk of practitioners immersing themselves too deeply in the mysticism of Zen, while missing the everyday reality that Buddhism is a perspective we take on the world, a philosophy and useful worldview.
EDIT: Four years after originally answering this question I'm updating it with a more current understanding, but I still stand by my initial interpretation. Zazen meditation is pleasurable, and can be done for it's own sake, but ultimately it's done to center oneself and achieve peace of mind, which is one and the same with relieving suffering.

I downvoted because you seem to massively undersell Zen. Enlightenment 'might be called a 'certain perspective', but to call a correct view of Reality this seems odd. To say on a Buddhist site that there is lot of value in Zen is to damn with faint praise. To say this perspective was called 'enlightenment' in ancient times is not untrue, but odd since it is still called this. I would even question the notion that zazen is a religious practice. although can see some justification for the claim if 'religious' is carefully defined.  . .  .

@PeterJ respecfully, I don't see a critique of my answer here outside of 'I don't like it'. Fair enough, I'm not surprised that this answer would get a cold reception at a Buddhist site. But if you're able to critique the veracity of the answer I'll gladly remove it.

I feel no need to explain in detail. Your words are plain enough. Given your lack of knowledge of Zen and your scepticism I cannot imagine what leads you to post an answer here.

Actually I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism and Zen and practice regularly. But as someone who's studied religion (Christianity, Judaism, Asian, and both NA and African Indigenous) I'm able to categorize Buddhism how I see it. Maybe you need to look closer at my answer. Sorry I caused conflict brother.

I mean, just look at the most up-voted answer to this question, the quotes it includes are laced with phrases that imply that practitioners aim to relieve suffering. The original Buddha himself explicitly stated that the goal of Buddhism was to relieve suffering. I don't know why it would be offensive to you to put Zen under the same umbrella.

A misunderstanding. Of course Zen is about overcoming suffering. But the goal-less goal is beyond the gate-less gate. .

@PeterJ I downvoted because you seem to massively undersell Zen. Instead of only downvoting and criticising an existing answer, it's sometimes polite to post an answer of your own as an alternative which you see as more correct. Also "given your lack of knowledge" assumes facts not in evidence and over the line of what's welcoming, then "I cannot imagine what leads you to post an answer here" is a fair beyond that. Please consider that comment as reproved. :-)

@ChrisW - Usually I agree with your comments but not this time. This answer is ill-informed and there are others that are not. To say 'there is a lot of value in Zen' is to say a lot about how little one thinks of it. My comment was for the sake of others reading this and not the author, who is not a fan of Zen. Besides, I gave some specific criticisms and they seem adequate. The poster ignored them.  .  . . .

@PeterJ Zen I'll admit is a tradition which I barely understand. Even so I've seen other users say that having studied Zen they found it made more sense after they then additionally studied the earlier doctrine, if Canadian wants to draw a parallel with what's explicit ("suffering") in the earlier doctrine I see no cause to denounce that; is your principle complaint that it was damning with faint praise, or that it's misses the mark entirely? In any case, the extent to which it is personal (i.e. your lack of knowledge, and why would you even post here) is where I feel I ought to draw a line.

@ChrisW - I would want to re-write the whole answer and it would take more than a text box to do it. I objected to the authoritative tone, which seems misplaced. I could have done so more helpfully I suppose, and I take on board your comments.

@PeterJ I would want to re-write the whole answer and it would take more than a text box to do it. Yes, that is what I suggested -- in this case, not that a simple comment is never appropriate. I take on board your comments. Thank you. And that's a pretty good job of imitating my tone, which I wish were more welcoming and easy-going. My schooling was all in French if that's any excuse, so my English does tends to be formal -- too bad, eh? :-) My own background is like Canadian's (and perhaps yours) having arrived at Buddhism via a study of other schools!

@ChrisW - i started with Zen (40 years after abandoning Christianity), and feel it's the most direct and uncluttered method and teaching. This is partly because of its firm and clear metaphysical foundation as expressed by Nagarjuna. In case there's a misunderstanding I wasn't speaking about your tone (!) but that of the answer.

@PeterJ I think you misinterpret my intention when I say 'there is a lot of value in zen'. On the contrary I have a great deal of respect for it, and that respect seems only to be increasing as time goes by. My intent isn't to disparage Buddhism at all. At the same time I've come to expect a kind of clinging (at this site) to Buddhism as something related to a divine, rather than as a very exceptional philosophy and outlook. Zen, to me, makes more sense as a kind of therapy - although I'll admit there's something deeper to it than something like 'Acceptance and Commitment Therapy'.

If it makes you feel any better I've read about 700 pages of D.T. Suzuki, including one of his anthologies.

@CanadianCoder - Maybe I read things into your answer that you didn't intend, and in hindsight my tone above is a bit out of order. Still, it feels like you;re selling Zen short. You call it a 'kind of therapy' but this description applies to Buddhists teachings as a whole. I suspect I know what you mean about 'clinging' here and agree. The 'religious' attitude sometimes surprises me. But there's a strong sense in which Buddhism is a 'divine' philosophy, at least in the sense that it transcends the mundane. It's all about methods and to me Zen seems the simplest and most direct.

'Transcending the mundane' - that's along the lines of what I was getting at with my 'deeper' comment, and I'd agree. I think that sets us firmly back on the same page.

Zazen is a practice, and like any practice we do not practice for a particular goal or end. We practice to acquire a skill. All of the products that one might point to — enlightenment, self-awareness, removal of distortions, compassion, clarity, etc — are outgrowths of that skill.
A doctor spends years in school, reading books, studying charts, dissecting cadavers, etc, not because these acts are interesting or useful in themselves, but because the skills she develops from doing so help  treat injuries and diseases in the real world. Zazen is no different.
Of course, a 'skill' is a lot like an 'attitude': less a thing in itself than a relationship to the world. It's difficult to put into words.

Can't you say that developing a skill is a goal? If I want to become a better dancer, isn't that a goal?

"Being a better dancer" is an abstraction; it has no meaning outside of some specific act of dancing. No skill has any meaning or value outside of its application.

I mean, you can make a 'goal' out of anything, by forming an attachment to accomplishing it. But I think most buddhists will caution against turning meditation into a goal in itself, because that seems to defeat the purpose of meditating.


text:
Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in?
Does one take refuge into the concept of Buddhahood or refuge into Gautama Buddha?  What about Vairocana Buddha or Amitābha Buddha for that matter? I've heard various things from taking refuge in a cosmic Buddha principal to the actual Gautama Buddha over the years from various Buddhist teachers.   Perhaps taking refuge into the Buddha is a relative subjective experience.  Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in?

dupe of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1972/what-is-the-proper-understanding-of-taking-refuge-in-buddhism ?

@Andrei Volkov: Thanks for the feedback.  I see your point.   The previous question was regarding the concept of "taking refuge" in general, while this question is regarding "Which Buddha" does a person take refuge in.  I can reformulate this particular question to make it more clear.  Thanks again Andrei, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and answers.  :)

Hi @NeilD. Are you asking if the concept of "the Buddha" is understood differently among different schools of Buddhism? If by chance that is your interest, perhaps changing up the main question would clarify. :)

What is the point of having "theravada mahayana vajrayana" tags? Probably mistagged.

@catpnosis The tags were included for people of various traditions to share their perspectives of Buddhist practice regarding the subject matter.

@Robin111  I'll see what I can do to modify the question.  Thanks for the valuable feedback.  I tend to be long winded at times parsing out details.  Have a great day..

I think both interpretations should be somewhat intertwined and doesn't need to be clearly distinguished. See, you'll not say 'I only take refuge in Gautama Buddha, but not Buddhahood', or 'I will take refuge only in Buddhahood, but not Gautama Buddha', both of these sounds weird. Buddha Gautama represents Buddhahood, so we can not separate Him from Buddhahood.
Abhidharmakosa-bhasya of Vasubandhu explains taking refuge in Buddha like this:

They who take refuge in the Buddha, take refuge in the factors
  (dharma) of the perfected being (arhat) that constitute a Buddha
  (buddhakāraka), the factors that are the causes of the designation
  “Buddha” [buddhaprajñaptihetūn], i.e., the factors due to which, as a
  principal cause, a certain person is called Buddha; or else the
  factors through the acquisition of which a certain person,
  understanding all entities, is called Buddha. These factors are (1)
  the cognition of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), (2) the cognition of
  non-arising (anutpādajñāna), and (4) right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) (vi. 50,
  67), (4) with the factors that accompany (parivāra) these cognitions
  (jñāna), i.e., with the five pure aggregates (skandha).
As for the material body (rūpakāya) of the Buddha, it is not
  subject to modification through the acquisition of the status of
  Buddha. Thus, one does not take refuge in the material body of the
  Buddha, which is, in fact, the material body of the Bodhisattva.
[Question:] – Does one take refuge in all the Buddhas or in one
  Buddha? [Answer:] – According to the nature of entities [lakṣaṇatas],
  and in the absence of an explicit declaration (kaṇṭhokti), [one takes
  refuge] in all the Buddhas, for the Buddhas have always followed the
  same path, (1) a mundane (laukika) path and (2) a supramundane
  (lokottara) path (vii. 34).  [Lodrö Sangpo translation.]

Now we are spending the era of Gauthama Buddha. So we should take refuge on him. Vairocana and Amithabha are Bodhisattas(to be Buddhas). They haven't attain Buddhahood yet. So the Buddha we should take refuge on is The Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha.

When you take refuge you take refuge in the qualities of the Buddha. In more detail.
You have to take inspiration in the Buddha to to develop the qualities of the Buddha and the Triple Gem.
This interpretation may change from tradition to tradition.

It means literally accepting the Buddha as your refuge. Like how a child feels about his loving parents. When he gets into trouble, he will go to his parents. When he needs advice, he will look for his parents. He never doubts his parents or try to do DNA tests to verify if they are his true parents. :) Just like that, one should put his full faith in the Buddha in person and in his enlightenment to accept him as the only teacher who can show you the way to everlasting peace.

According to my teacher, which I feel is very much correct, we are taking refuge in the ideals of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. So whoever fulfills these ideals, we take refuge in them. Remember, that there were many Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautama.
So what are these ideals? It is easy to come across these ideals in the Buddha Vandana. It says that the Buddha is -
 1. the one who is Arahant which is portmanteau of Ari (evils) and Hant (destroy) which means destructions of all evils.
 2. the one who is Samma Sam Buddha - one who has become fully enlightened.
 3. the one who is Vijja Charan Sampanno which means who is perfect in wisdom and moral conduct.
 4. the one who is Sugato - the one who has travelled a  great path
 5. the one who is Lokvidu which is again a combination of Lok(in ancient India, it was not only the world which was called Lok but this body of ours was also known as Lok) and Vidu(intelligent, knower); thus a knower of the world and the body
 6. the one who is Anuttaro who is incomparable
 7. the one who is Puris Dhamma Sarthi - Puris means men/women and Sarthi means the one who drives - thus he is the one who has turned the wheel of Dhamma
 8. the one who is Satta Dev Manussana - the teacher of Gods and Humans
 9. the one who is Bhagavati - the one who is enlightened and blessed
Every Buddha who was ever born had these qualities and when we take refuge in Buddha, we take refuge in all of these qualities reminding ourselves of these virtues to be cultivated in ourselves.

None whatsoever. As Thanissaro says, any real insight is always a surprise.

Welcome to the site! We are looking for answers that provide a little more substance, would you mind fleshing out your answer?