text:
I'm a widow trying to find myself
My best friend, business partner and lover died four years ago, and I’m struggling to find myself again. I’ve tried meditating before, but it doesn’t seem to work at 5 minutes a day. I have lots of time, please help me. Where do I start?

Please state your problems & short- & long term goals in specific terms. If you're vague, it can be difficult to give you a helpful answer. Also, couple more things: (1) Meditation might not be a cure-all panacea; (2) How have you processed the death and/or being alone/without purpose?; (3) Realize that it takes time to change oneself. Often it's just two steps forwards & one steps backwards, and sometimes even two steps backwards & just one step forward. Best wishes.

Buddhism explains a person's self-identity is generally based on the external things the mind attaches to (MN 44). Therefore, it is expected or normal a widow may struggle with their sense of self if their partner passes away. Buddhism calls this 'aging-&-death', i.e., when a loved one dies, something within the living partner also 'dies' (mentally).
Also, while it may sound pessimistic, Buddhism tells us all conditioned things are impermanent and ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (AN 5.57)
Buddhism also says: "Separation from what is loved/pleasing is suffering" (SN 56.11).
However, Buddhism does not instruct us to completely forget loved ones. DN 31 says: "I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives."
The starting point of Buddhism is Refuge in the Three Jewels, which are the Buddha, the Dhamma (Teachings) & the Sangha (Noble Community).
Since you sound aggrieved, finding a trustworthy Buddhist group may help offer some support and noble friendships.

You may be feeling lonely even after 4 years of separation from your loved one because you are searching for meaning in your life and is not content with the answers that you’ve got so far even from meditating. You continue to feel lonely, for you have not found something even from Buddhism which could satisfactorily be taken as a refuge yet! Sometimes, your loneliness may serve a deeper and more positive purpose if you start seeing Dhamma in a new light.  If you could see Dhamma in this light, the joy of Dhamma is unlike another. One comprehending Dhamma will never be lonely.
For this I will give you another equally plausible meaning to some words in the Buddhist Doctrine. They are aniccata, dukkha & anattata, and it’s opposite,  nicca, sukha and atta. Also of two other words in ‘sam’ (pronounced as ‘sung’), and ‘Iccha’ which means “strong attachment”. ‘sam’ (pronounced as ‘sung’) means grasping with strong desire (sam).
The Buddha Dhamma promulgated the natural phenomenon of nicca, sukha and atta of what is once grasped (upadana) with sam tendencies. (nicca =desired objects are rooted in the mind as unchanging attitudes; sukha=feeling that the desired object always remains pleasurable; atta= the belief that the desired object can be brought under lasting control). This is the very reason that the Buddha Dhamma proclaims …
“Sabbesaṅkhārā aniccā ti,
sabbe sankhara dukka ti,
sabbe dhamma anatta ti”.
(sabbe – all; sankhara – intentional activities based on sam;  anicca – inability to hold steadfastly to outcomes of 3 fetters; dukka - what is desirable inevitably turns in to a conflict; anatta – these outcomes are worth nothing or meaningless to bring under one’s ownership as everything transforms inevitably).
Iccha born in a mind, which arises as a tendency of sam activates nicca, sukha and atta setting the wheel of paticca samuppada in motion. Engaging with a desirable object is known as paticca. Because of paticca, a relationship is born in the mind. This is known as the samuppada dhamma. All the following Pali terms “samudaya” = “samuppada” = “sambavan” = “sambhūta” explain how an existential relationship is formed. All the 4 above terms indicate an effect or a consequence. The cause for samudaya is grasping with strong desire (sam) or paticca. When there is no paticca samudaya will not be born. Paticca, is a mental tendency that latches to the objects encountered by the eye, sounds heard by the ear, odors sensed by the nose, tastes experienced by the tongue, touch detected by the body and mental phenomena (dhamma) pondered in the mind. The reason for paticca is the undisciplined sensorium; Lack of sensory discipline. Sila or code of ethics is required to achieve a disciplined sensorium (samvara). Disciplining of all 6 sense organs eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind can be only done from within by own-self and there is nothing in the external world that can be disciplined.
Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind of person cannot be disciplined by another person. Also no one else can discipline your sense organs on your behalf. One must understand this natural phenomenon.
Samudaya is born only in the mind. The main reason for samudaya to arise is due to actions rooted in 3 fetters/defilements of raga, dosa and moha. To stop samudaya, one must reflect on anicca, dukkha and anatta and prevent inebriation of the mind caused by the former. This approach will lead to renunciation (nibbidā), none affinity or freedom from raga (viragā), no wheeling of thoughts based on sam (niroda) and freedom from all upadana (patinissaggā).
The reflection of anicca, dukkha and anatta is essential to break free of from paticca.
Sabbe sankhāra anicca – all sam based activities end up as anicca
Sabbe sankhāra dukkha – all sam based activities end up in dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta – all phenomena are anatta
(sabbe – all; sankhāra – intentional activities based on sam; anichcha – inability to maintain the nature of what was grasped as iccha i.e. desirability (loba=raga=1st guise)); undesirability (dosa =2nd guise); comparability between the two (moha= 3rd guise); dukkha - result of desirable turns inevitably into unendurable afflictions; anatta – these outcomes are unworthy or meaningless to bring under one’s control since everything transforms inevitably).
One must reflect on the above to break free from paticca. (pati – bond; iccha – desire; sam – 3 fetters – lobha, dosa & moha).

If you are "struggling to find ME again" then you will have experienced what the Buddha told Rahula:

MN62:3.1: Then the Buddha looked back at Rāhula and said, “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

If you have worked closely with someone you love, then you will have experienced the beautiful:

SN46.54:12.8: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

If you have lost someone dear and close to you, then you will have experienced suffering and faith certainly, but perhaps not joy:

SN12.23:3.11: You should say: ‘Joy.’ I say that joy has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Faith.’ I say that faith has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Suffering.’

For immersive meditation, beyond Joy you will need Bliss, Tranquility and Rapture:

SN12.23:2.16: I say that immersion has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Bliss.’ I say that bliss has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Tranquility.’ I say that tranquility has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Rapture.’ I say that rapture has a vital condition.  And what is it? You should say: ‘Joy.’

Perhaps it may be time to start reading the suttas, to rekindle or spark that joy and beyond?
We have all faced and suffered through great loss. I myself and going blind and will never see the stars again unaided. Yet that suffering does bring faith. And that faith does lead to joy and eventually to immersion.
If the suttas do not yet inspire, seek a teacher and a sangha.

Without knowing the OP, but from what was written by her, I'd assume that she has a long way from immersion if she just meditates casually for a couple of minutes. It's also questionable whether the advice in MN62 mentioned above is really all that helpful for her, if she faces loneliness & a sense without purpose.

Good point. I edited the post to take into account suffering.

Loneliness, and isolation are real, physiological problems, not something that can be overcome with the mind.
We are a social species, and our lives can only flourish if great relationships are a part of it. So I would suggest that Buddhism, mainly Zen, can be used as a mindfulness technique, but moreover you need to give yourself time to heal, move on, and find new fulfilling relationships.


text:
What could be some teachings that Buddha has not revealed to us?
In Maha-parinibbana Sutta Buddha has said:

"there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the
Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who
keeps some things back."

however, in Simsapa Sutta Buddha says:

"there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to
you. What I have revealed to you is only a little."

Do we have any knowledge about the teaching that he has not revealed to us? The commentary on accesstoinsight writes, "This famous saying has been taken to justify the doctrines of various Mahaayaana schools, Theosophy and so on."
Could that be the teaching of tantra? I hope there's some good insight here.

Yes,  of-course buddha hid lot of teachings.  They were mostly related to superpowers like how to use capability of  brain to control others,  flying,  instant-transmission,  preaching to deva-lokas,  teaching in future(time travel) and what not?
Alas!  It was all for nothing as later on various tantriks at nalanda university were probably having advanced knowledge on all this and for goodness,  it was burnt down otherwise today would have been worse in terms of black magic,  sex-tantrism,  immoral monks and much more.
These type of teachings were never required and have nothing to do with attaining nibbana.

The Buddha revealed enough to enable us to discover the rest for ourselves and any practitioner will end up knowing things they have not read in the sutras. After all, in the end we don't need books.
For me the most interesting omission is an explanation of metaphysics (except by implication), but as someone who writes about this topic I can easily understand why he didn't want to do this. His concern was soteriology and not time-consuming theoretical matters. It is said that in his time there was a prediction that someone would coma along later to explain metaphysics, and a few centuries later Nagarjuna does so in great detail.
It would be implausible to suppose that the Buddha said all he had to say given his understanding of Consciousness and Reality, but really there would have been no point is saying much more since being told is no substitute for discovery and knowledge.
I'd suggest he mentioned everything he needed to mention of the sake of our salvation and anything else was not worth mentioning because we will discover it anyway if we take the medicine and follow the method, while being told about it will not help us.
As for Mahayana and Theosophy, I don't think they need the justification of pointing to what the Buddha did not mention. If no sutras existed they would still need to justify themselves. Indeed, it may be the other way around since Nagarjuna's metaphysics is a philosophical justification for the sutra teachings.
Not sure that this is really an answer but perhaps its relevant.

A simple example illustrates the Buddhas vast knowledge.
The Buddha was Sakka thirty-six times, which presumably gave him skills and knowledge beyond our ken. Yet I also very much doubt that teaching us how to be Sakka would be of any use to us here and now in our journey along the Noble Eightfold Path:

AN7.62:2.2: I was Sakka, lord of gods, thirty-six times.

A more concrete example is DN1, which summarizes all the ways (i.e., teachings) where one can get "lost in the weeds" thinking about the past and the future. These are comprehensive yet not fully elaborated, since elaborating wrong views would be of no use to those with right view. Summarizing suffices to hold us back from wasting time pursuing such teachings:

DN1:3.72.1: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

The suttas dedicate themselves to the end of suffering. Other teachings are a distraction.

Do we have any knowledge about the teaching that he has not revealed to us?

There are three factors to determine what the Buddha has taught:
One is, the teaching is not limited by what the teacher can teach, but by what the student is capable of receiving. An Einstein, when being the teacher for a kindergarten, he can only teach ABC.
Two, the Buddha only responses to question. In general, the Buddha doesn't teach if not requested. Therefore, how good our classmates were able to ask the question determine what we could have in the Sutras. Example, since Ananda didn't ask the Buddha to clarify what were the minor precepts that could be removed, it indirectly caused the spilt of Samgha after the Nirvana.
Last is, some of the sublime knowledge are revealed when a practitioner reached advanced stage. By that time, the Buddha or Bodhisattva will teach the practitioner directly, as stated in some Chinese Sutras.

Could that be the teaching of tantra?

From the Original Mahayana school, which is the Chinese lineage, Tantra is categorized as non-Buddhist. By the Tang Dynasty (600CE), Buddhism in India started to mix with Hinduism, the old Indic religion in the form of Shaivism reared its head again and turned Buddhism to its host. Three famous "Buddhists" came to China and translated their "Tantric Sutras" into Chinese, they received welcoming receptions from the Emperor. However, once their texts came out the Emperor with the learnt Buddhist masters and scholars reviewed, he confiscated the "Tantric Sutras" and ordered that these texts should never be circulated because it was against the Buddhist principles, and the moral degradation and corruption embedded in them. The Emperor bounteously rewarded and gifted the three "Buddhists" then sent them away. Until 700-800 years later, in 1300CE, when China fell to the hands of the Mongolians, the Mongolian kings were followers of Mongolian Shamanism and favoured "Tantric Buddhism". These texts once were confiscated by the Emperors of the Hans were promoted and started to gain popularity. (Chinese were/are fetish of keeping knowledge bits and historical bits, they will never destroy any bits of knowledge but faithfully keeping all evidences.)
Buddhism in Tibet was first transmitted from China. In 650CE, Princess Wencheng bought the Chinese Sutras and translated to Tibetan. Until Moheyan (800CE) lost the debate to Kamalaśīla who represented Indian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism turned fully Tantric, mixed with Bon and empowered by Padmasambhāva (800CE), followed by many Rinpoches coming from India to transmit the Vajrayana | Tibetan | Tantra "Buddhism". In fact, only Tibetan Buddhism itself and the Rinpoches declared themselves the "Mahayana" school, as of today, 1200 years after Moheyan the Mahayana Buddhist was rejected and expelled from Tibet.
I just recount the history of Tantra the part related to Buddhism,  how would you like to take it is your call.

In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha said he kept nothing hidden from his disciples.
Yet in the Simsapa Sutta, the Buddha said he knew more than what he taught.
So what didn't he teach?
He did not teach anything that was not useful towards the goal of ending suffering, as you can see in the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow below.
The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow from Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta:

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or
golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city...
until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow
or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was
wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I
know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or
cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with
which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a
peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which
I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a
langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed
until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
to him.
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life
under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The
cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists
nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still
remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

The teachings to be passed on by Maitreya.
As for the teachings of Maitreya Buddha, they are yet to be seen.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
gratitude towards & repaying the debt to one's parents
Consider these two texts:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html
the part that contains:

Mother & father,
  compassionate to their family,
  are called
  Brahma,
  first teachers,
  those worthy of gifts
  from their children.
  So the wise should pay them
          homage,
          honor
      with food & drink
      clothing & bedding
      anointing & bathing
      & washing their feet.
  Performing these services to their parents,
  the wise
      are praised right here
      and after death
      rejoice in heaven.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html

But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father.

What is are the appropriate ways to combine the meaning/purpose of these, considering that there is some potential to misunderstand the way these two guide us to treat our parents?

First the first and if possibility the secound: Sila (duty, having nurished me, I nurish them, raised, took care...), then generosity. And Sadhu for asking, pointing on it, good householder.

As the conduct toward ones Brahmas are actually always the same Mv I 15: Upajjhāyavattakathā — The Discussion of Duties Toward a Preceptor might be useful for certain proper ways. As for the duties alone, the Sigalasutta DN16, may help.

See alsoWhat did the Buddha say about gratitude?

@SamanaJohann Sadhu! I also read your top answer about forgiveness and admitting a mistake; thanks!  My main doubt regarding my mother is what kind of reprimands are acceptable — I have gone quite extreme and taken some unorthodox paths to talk sense into her, but I feel I have crossed the line several times, but I also feel it might actually be effective to save her from foolishness and stubbornness.

If you'd like to try to chat with @SamanaJohann then you might try to do that on his web site (i.e. http://sangham.net/) -- possibly for example as a reply to this message -- because I think he won't be posting on this site (i.e. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/) this month.

Thank you, useful info.

Combining these 2::
There are lot of if-else cases here, might not be able to cover them up.
Understand from below scenario.
I am a well grown up person, a householder. Living independently, standing on my own foot. Either I regularly pay visit to oldies or live with them. I take care of them although they are stingy, fool, unvirtuous etc. in terms of dhamma or might be physically as well. I respect them, wash them, provide them food, clothing, medicines, etc.
I also try to change their views, try to establish them in dhamma by myself trying to walk on Noble path of householder under dhamma.
Another Scenario::
Parents are enjoying their oldage in their own way, they have enough financial & physical support other than me. Either they don't want to see me or yes we have still good relation.
In this case, I am also living independently, living my householder life under dhamma. Here,  I maintain compassion in mind towards them & gives metta so as they would also take homage to buddha & his dhamma.
As a homeless or as a monk::
I am living my peaceful life and never turns back from my parents, if they are against me & want to kill me for I joined Buddhism, who cares? Death is certain? If they are not against me, it's good. Whatever the case is, I maintain compassion for the body I received from them. This compassion here acts as mental-vibrant-food for them and also as blessings for them. I am ready to accept them in Sangha, if they are ready to follow stated percepts.
Whatever the case is, I am not running away from maintaining compassion. I am not running away from the duties. I am not doing it to get something in return but by understanding as to how difficult it is for a parent to give out a new body.
This doesn't mean that I support their wrong view of buddhism or of dhamma. In terms of dhamma & sila in life, I am still determined & strong.

Brahmaviharas are debtfree, regardless if it comes from a nurturing parent or a grateful child.
Conversely, giving something with the agenda of getting something in return is in essence one of the many flavors of greed.

But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father.

This means that the greatest gift of gratitude is the gift of dhamma by way of the above: establishing conviction, virtue, generosity et c.

A little personal background: my mom is Filipino, and my dad is Sinhalese (he professes to be Buddhist but is verbally, physically, and psychologically abusive). My mom is not a Buddhist but her life insights have enriched my Dhamma practice.
I see toxic people as bottles of poison or pesticide: you know they’re harmful if in contact with but you don’t have any hatred or animosity. Because that’s just what they are: bottles of poison, nothing to hate there. You just avoid any contact with it.
Same approach with toxic parents: I don’t interact with them. Occasionally I get angry when I recall dad did but I counter that by:

Calming myself and acknowledging that the thought of hatred arose. I know aversion (dosa/dvesha) has arisen and that I shouldn’t act on it. A mind engulfed in raga, dosa/dvesha, and moha is like a murky glass of water stirred with dust: you can only see the water clearly when the dust has settled.

Acknowledging the thought is impermanent. I don’t reject the thought as it arises because it adds to the stress. I merely observe it BUT don’t act on it. The thought arose, sustains, and will eventually die.

Radiate metta (friendliness, not necessarily compassion) to the person because they:

(a) have unresolved issues and are victims of previous abuse and weren’t aware of that when they did those same things to me;
(b) there is no person as such to ‘hate’ because the so-called person is a constantly-changing entity composed of constantly-changing matter (rupa)  and non-matter (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana). There is nothing to like or dislike in something that is constantly changing. The hatred doesn’t go overnight but if you practice, it will erode over time.
So if at first I was hateful of the toxic parent, now I acknowledge they’re toxic but with less aversion. Its not good to harbor thoughts of hatred because they harm you, in the short and long run. I can acknowledge that a person is abusive but at the same time have metta for them because they’re harming themselves. And it also does not mean I have to embrace them again, unless they’ve genuinely changed; and if they haven’t changed, they’ll just hurt/harm you again and you become an enabler for their bad actions. “Loving the tiger from a distance”
Forgiving toxic people does not mean rekindling a relationship with them: it’s about you healing from the past and rewiring how you perceive them and what they did. Knowing they’re toxic doesn’t mean you’re hating them: you’re just acknowledging they’re toxic and that they aren’t helpful to you. Bottles of poison
Dosa/dvesa (aversion) doesn’t go away overnight and takes diligent practice. Its not easy to practice these but its not impossible (if Buddhas and Arahats uprooted their aversion, why not I too). As much as possible, I don’t intellectualize my practice because it hinders the practice. Over time I understand the deeper meanings of some Pali terms because of my practice, so I know I’ll be fine as long as I keep steadfast on this Dhamma path. The point of Dhamma practice is to avoid and uproot raga, dosa/dvesha, moha. The Buddha laid out the path/practice but everyone treads it according to their own capacity.
Hope this helps, fellow wayfarers

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


text:
Mindfulness, conciousness and directing attention
Often as part of mindfulness meditation (at least the Westernized form with which I am familiar) we can practice awareness of breath, parts of the breath, arising thoughts etc.
However, if the aim of mindfulness is to be in pure consciousness, how can we at the same time be directing attention to something? Wouldn't this constitute a 'doing' which arises from thought rather than from consciousness?
EDIT: I have accepted an answer that seems to be the most useful for me right now, but I can see that this a complex subject and I will certainly not ignore the content of the other answers.

Food for Awakening: The Role of Appropriate Attention and The Agendas of Mindfulness and Mindfulness Defined are useful helps on the base, good householder.

The word "mindfulness" means "recollection"; to "remember" or "bear in mind". MN 117 says:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness.

So yes, the aim of mindfulness is to keep the mind free from craving; thus to keep the mind in pure consciousness. Pure consciousness means a consciousness without unwholesome defilement.
When this is done, yes, attention is never directed onto anything (apart from to keeping the mind free from craving). Attempting to direct attention onto something, such as the breathing, is probably the greatest obstacle to stream-entry and properly practising Satipatthana.
When there is no directing of attention, if consciousness is pure, it will automatically connect with the breathing (because the breathing is the grossest sense object for a pure consciousness). Although the suttas describe observantness of breathing, feelings, mental states & Truth, the sutta do not teach to direct attention (except to having no craving).
MN 118 & SN 48.10 say, for example, the development of mindfulness, concentration & jhana relies on letting go ('vossagga') rather than the directing of attention. Mindfulness remembers to abandon craving; to let go. When this letting go of craving occurs, consciousness will be relatively pure and can automatically progress to greater purity.
Ajahn Buddhadasa explained:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi.

From a traditional Buddhist perspective, the purpose of mindfulness is threefold:

At a superficial level, the level of mere beginner or layperson, we pay attention to what we do and how we do it, evaluating it against the basic Buddhist guidelines, in order to overcome our basic unwholesome habits.
On a deeper level, the level of dedicated practitioner, mindfulness is viewing everything through the prism of Dharma, which means our basic frame of reference we use to interpret all of our experience is superseded with the Buddhist system.
On the deepest level, mindfulness is practiced as a way to cultivate tathata or suchness. This is when we learn to observe phenomena with no judgment or taking sides. In the absence of taking sides our experience becomes pure reflection of whatever is happening, with no conflict of interest generated when experience mismatches the expectations of the side we took.

As you can see, nowhere on this ladder do we try to "be in pure consciousness" without directing or doing. What we try to do is change our frame of reference and indeed our identification to free ourselves from all traces of existential conflict.
This means that "doing" and "thinking" is not your enemy, it's not your goal to stop them or to go without them - not at all. Your goal is "cessation of craving & attachment", meaning to not take sides or boundaries in any way that would lead to experience of suffering.
Your entire mental machine - including thoughts, emotions, and impulses - should keep functioning, it's only your attitude that must undergo purification and "liberation" (from mind-made boundaries).
Among other things this means that at some point you even stop judging your own thoughts and taking sides wrt them. But of course, there is a fine line here between allowing your mind go unbounded vs letting the pathological urges and neuroses drag you around. The standard Buddhist approach is, first you liberate yourself from crude types of conflict, then gradually move onto more and more subtle kinds.
In general my advice is, as you go around your day, your mindfulness should be in how you don't get involved in maintaining drama - not in trying to avoid controlling anything at all. Your level of involvement in drama is something you must control, all the way until this very control remains the only extant drama, at which point you drop it too - but not before that.

The practice progresses and starts with directed attention, which is subsequently relinquished. This process is detailed in AN8.63 as it is applied in its entirety to different focuses of meditation:

AN8.63:3.1: When this immersion is well developed and cultivated in this way, you should develop it while placing the mind and keeping it connected. You should develop it without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. You should develop it without placing the mind or keeping it connected. You should develop it with rapture. You should develop it without rapture. You should develop it with pleasure. You should develop it with equanimity.

Another translation of the same passage offers similar advice:

When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture… not accompanied by rapture… endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity. an8.63/en/thanissaro

In general:

We can agree that the training progresses gradually, from coarse to more subtle. This includes using such aids such as auto-suggestion, thematic thinking, directed attention, and effort&control - useful in the beginning, dropped as we go along. – Andrei Volkov♦ 3 hours ago

The translation above is questionable.

Thank you. Added Ajahn Thanissaro's translation, which is similar in progression.

Its still a wrong translation. Vitakka in jhana does not mean "directed thought".

Ah. Please let Ajahns Sujato and Thanissaro know. I do not know Pali. I just study the suttas.

You appear to study translations. Why don't you read what Sujato says here: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/why-vitakka-doesnt-mean-thinking-in-jhana/

Sujato is confused. His understanding of the two suttas he quotes as support for his main thesis is flawed. Vitakka/vicara basically means a type of auto-suggestion or conditioning the mind by going over certain topics. Jhana is not a trance.

Why don't practice to know for your self? Of course that starts with right view and Sila and the rest would come by its cause.

Well then. What can we agree on?

We can agree that the training progresses gradually, from coarse to more subtle. This includes using such aids such as auto-suggestion, thematic thinking, directed attention, and effort&control - useful in the beginning, dropped as we go along.

Maybe it’s an irony that the more you try, the more you fail. I used to be a Buddhist and it hurt me to think that I can’t do what the teachings want me to.
Yet, I think there is something to your question, to walk so much in tune with a mind that you exactly what it wishes or the same thing it is doing with you.
Maybe you are seeking a Who rather than a What. I hope that helps.

"However, if the aim of mindfulness is to be in pure consciousness, how can we at the same time be directing attention to something?"
As Andrei said, the premise of your question is wrong. That is not the aim of developing single pointed concentration.

@Yeshe Tenley Could you elaborate on a plausible alternative? Just stating that X is wrong doesn't help a lot.

Hi Erik, I wish I could’ve been more helpful, but the question lacked detail as to how the faulty premise came to be.


text:
Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy?
Simple question: Is the Noble Eightfold Path a path of celibacy?
[Note that this isn't given for Sex, stacks, trade, exchange but for escape from this wheel]

Possibly-related topic -- Is celibacy intrinsic to Buddhism?

And what is right action?
  Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity.
  Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
Magga-Vibhanga Sutta

Brahmacharya is one of the prime teaching of Buddha. You have a very deep understanding of Buddhism. Thank you for those original words from Pali. Buddha also talks about restraining all 5 senses and taming the desire. Maybe it is for this path of Brahmacharya he never went back to household life as well.

No, the canonical definition of the Eightfold Path does NOT include any explicit mention of celibacy. The actual language is both broader and goes further than mere sexual abstinence.
The right action (samma-kammanta) is defined as abstaining from (three) major types of wrong conduct, one of which is:

Kamesu micchacara

Kamesu is a form of word Kama, which is the same word as in Kama-Sutra and means something like "pleasure of the senses".
Miccha means false or wrong, and Cara or Acara means practice, conduct, behavior.
The literal translation is either "wrong conduct motivated by desire to enjoy sensual pleasures" or "the wrong behavior of enjoying sensual pleasures".
You may interpret this in any way you want, but you have to accept that celibacy is only one of several possible meanings.
Given the usual Buddhist emphasis on the danger of "indulging in the binding types of pleasure", and how it leads to craving and then to suffering, I think we can safely interpret this more broadly as abstaining from all sensory indulging and not just one of sexual nature.
This would therefore include abstaining from indulging in food and deserts, indulging in bodily comfort, indulging in spectator's arts, music, theater, and binge-watching TV, dressing up and using cosmetics or decoration, and all other forms of behavior connected with indulging in pleasures, however harmless and even healthy it may seem to non-Buddhists.

Yes I think that brahmacariyā too is "both broader and goes further than mere sexual abstinence".

Yes, this was the norm. e.g. Wikipedia: "The fourth of the five great vows of Jain monks, for example, is the vow of celibacy, which in this case means a total abstinence from the sensual pleasure of all five senses, including the avoidance of sexual thoughts and desires".

where in the suttas does it say this andrei: "The right action (samma-kammanta) is defined as abstaining from five major types of wrong conduct, one of which is:" . I've only seen samma kammanto defined as a 3fold, with 'kamesu micchachara' sometimes replacing 'abrahmacariya'.

yup, you're right - updated the answer

Gautama Buddha explicitly called his teachings 'The Middle Path,' in the Dhamacakkappavattana Sutta:

Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has
  gone forth from the household life. There is addiction to indulgence
  of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people,
  unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to
  self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.
Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata (the Perfect One) has
  realized the Middle Path; it gives vision, gives knowledge, and leads
  to calm, to insight, to enlightenment and to Nibbana. And what is that
  Middle Path realized by the Tathagata...? It is the Noble Eightfold
  path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought,
  right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness and right concentration.

The question this raises is whether or not celibacy is done as an act of self-mortification; if so, it is not 'right' in senses the Buddha outlines.
I understand why celibacy is often a feature of monastic settings. Sexual urges are strong, and those who are not yet developed or established on the path are easily caught on that hook. A rigid 'no sex' policy places a barrier against sensual indulgence, keeping those caught on the hook from debasing themselves by imposing a form of self-mortification. Such a rule creates a tension between extremes which is a substitute (although a poor substitute) for a calm middle-ground. After a monk has found his footing, the hedonistic urges attenuate, and the celibacy restriction becomes less necessary; I suspect monks maintain it out of habit, convention, or even the compassionate act of 'setting a right example,' but I do not think it's essential at that stage.
The difficulty of the middle path is that it is a path of constant awareness. Rules are by their nature unconscious — actions we take without reflection — and rigid rules ultimately become a hindrance on the path, like any empty ritual. I'm not suggesting that monks shouldn't be celibate, or that they should; I'm saying that we must develop the right understanding to navigate right action in each situation the world presents to us.

To avoid misunderstanding, "a path of celibacy" means "to walk on a path that requires celibacy". Question is not asking for "a path to celibacy"?
Very straight and simple answer::
Yes.
What is Celibacy?
An activity that is done & maintained to prevent loss of semen(in physical way) and loss of viriya in spiritual way.
**Insight::**
Celibacy from what?
Celibacy from defilements.
What are defilements?
This is a term given for a particular behaviour pattern which consists of sankharas within.
What are sankharas?
These are at atomic scale which act as force for Wrong View, Wrong Livelihood,...
What is Wrong?
Opposite to Right.
What is Right?
This is Noble 8 Fold Path, which I assume is already known by you.
[This is given for those engaged in Sex, Stacks, Trade, Exchange etc. to knock them out of their sleep in darkness]

pācittiya 68 (From the Theravadin monastic code);
Not to affirm that things such as sexual pleasures are not an obstacle to the development of ariyā stage or to jhāna realisations, nor to rebirth in the deva world, when the Buddha explains that these things are precisely an obstacle to those, and not to maintain erroneous views. Those bhikkhu who hear or see another bhikkhu make statements such as these, or saying incorrect things that Buddha never taught, must tell him not to attribute such statements to Buddha, because he never taught these things. In giving him the reasons that cause obstacles to attainments or to favourable rebirths, they must tell him that this is what Buddha taught. They must tell him that such is the dhamma that must be explained to those around us. Next, they must forbid him three times in succession to renounce those words. If he retracts, he does not commit the offence. If he refuses to abandon his view, he commits a dukkaṭa.

People in general hold varying opinions on what exactly is the 8FNP but i can't recall anybody holding that; '8FNP is neither the development nor the attainment of ariyā stage or that of jhāna realisations'
Therefore most would have to accept that in a categorical sense; '8FNP is not a path of sexuality but is rather a path of celibacy'.
If a Theravadin monk refused to accept this and kept affirming that '8FNP is a path of sexuality' or that 'Sexuality is not an obstacle to the development or attainment of the 8FNP' in a categorical sense, then imho, such Bhikkhu would likely be placed outside of community.

I might say "yes but no" -- or, "yes but I wouldn't teach it that way".
Not that I try to teach the N8P at all, but for the sake of answering...
It seems to me that there's potentially some problem of conceit.
Given this topic -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- I summarise conceit as a comparison e.g. "I am better than you".
If or when it exists it seems to me that conceit is an important problem -- harmful to self and/or to others.
A statement like, "I retain my semen therefore I am celibate therefore etc." sounds kind of self-important to me -- not exactly how I'd want to teach doctrine.
To me the word "celibate" implies a comparison -- with "non-celibate" -- and potentially further ideas like "my being celibate is superior" and "you're being non-celibate is despicable" which I think is really kind of wrong.
I don't mean "wrong" as in "untrue" I mean "wrong" as in "unskilful" and potentially "immoral" ... like in the definition of "right speech" it isn't enough that speech be true -- it also needs to be kind, beneficial, said at the proper time, etc.
A lot of the Pali words I like are phrased as a negative -- for example averena for non-hatred or kind.
I wonder if a negative English word would be better than "celibate". The third precepts are phrased as a negative, i.e. "refraining" (refraining from sexual misconduct and/or refraining from sexual activity).
One more thing, I note the Pali word being used -- brahmacariya. I might wish that word were better explained, I think that the "brahmaviharas" are quite well-explained as a positive role model -- things you should do, attitudes you should have -- not only negative.
But anyway...
There's a Tissametteyya Sutta (Snp 4.7) which I'd like to recommend. When I read it (just reading the English, I'm not checking the translation), I read it as starting with a description of celibacy -- for example having "renown and fame" which is diminished by indulgence in sex. There's also reproaching others, words of reprimand, and so on.
It ends like this:

So train yourself in solitude,
  for that’s the life of Noble Ones,
  but not conceive oneself as “best”—
  them near indeed to Nirvāṇa.
The sage who’s rid of sense-desires,
  who to them’s indifferent,
  who’s crossed the flood, is envied then,
  by those enmeshed with pleasures of sense.

Note, "not conceive oneself as best".
Also note, it isn't a state of existence ("I am celibate") -- instead I read it as a state of non-existence of hindrance ("rid of sense-desires").
The very next sutta, Snp 4.8, is about the disadvantages of debate -- loving praise, getting angry, elated, depressed, etc.
So a statement like "the N8P is a path of celibacy not of non-celibacy, it's the path for me and not a path for you" seems to me a situation described by Snp 4.8.
One more story, from  different tradition.

Muddy Road
Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
"Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

I realise that the story might sounds scandalous to a monk, against vinaya and improper for one who wears the robes you wear -- there's something about the story that I like though.
I was reading today that inhibitions too are a manifestation of ego. That a person who learns to meditate may have less ego therefore fewer inhibitions. Having fewer inhibitions their behaviour (or speech) may become more immoral -- unless they do something about that.
One of the things a person might do, I guess, is accept the Vinaya -- which would preclude the kind of behaviour described in the story "Muddy Road".
And yet I'm not inclined to criticise the people in the story.

Why is that?
  Because I have compassion for the boy, sir.
(MN 58)

brahmacariyam is used in the Dhammapada, verses 155 and 156 -- it's translated as "the holy life" here and "life of Purity" here.
I presume it means specifically chastity when it's used in the context of the 3rd precept (of the "8 precepts").
I think it means something more than that though -- in the context of SN 45.8 perhaps it's "remaining a monk" and in association with the Sangha instead of becoming defeated.
The famous SN 45.2 is an explanation of brahmacariya:

Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda!
“Mā hevaṃ, ānanda, mā hevaṃ, ānanda.
Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.
Sakalamevidaṃ, ānanda, brahmacariyaṃ, yadidaṃ—kalyāṇamittatā kalyāṇasahāyatā kalyāṇasampavaṅkatā.

It's also a word which exists outside the specifically-Buddhist tradition.

This question presupposes that it isnt. And this is only true in one of the two truths. Meaning this is not true for all (at any single given moment in time). Self-cherishers would say celibacy not required for one to enter stream. Once stream winner is a different question.

The own opinion is the most lowest secure, the Sublime Buddha told. And is again a chicken and egg issue, since it is normal that truth isn't seen before really seen for one self. So it's quite normal to be in all the kinds of relation-desire involved till reaching independence. On the seven levels of sex: Methuna Sutta.

Thank you for sharing ur time with us Ven Monk Johann i thank u seven times

Shouldn't we investigate both and come to a ‘middle conclusion’ ?

The Sublime Buddha didn't invited anybody to find out the middle path by himself, but to trust his declaration of it, Nyom: Again The Middles of the Middle Way and on Uposatha: Ill-gotten if just sometimes

Thank you most highly venerable monastic may your happiness and good fortune only increase!


text:
Can super Buddhists eat bread?
Bread has flour and yeast. Therefore, a scientist can say that it is both an animal and a vegetable grain. Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

To be honest, my ego is completely confused. Still, for the sake of satisfying it.
Can super Buddhists eat bread?
If by super buddhists, you mean as someone of so high calibur that s/he will be aware of the presence of any tiniest living organism whether it's yeast or something else-- No, that venerable one won't eat cause it's killing.
Is there anything wrong with eating bread?
Sorry, I don't know.
But atleast, I can give metta to self and others. :)
With Metta.
May all the tiny living beings that I ate unintentionally till now be free from their suffering. May I reach to the level of venerable one to identify any living microorganism with mind. May I be free from my remorse of eaten yeast. May they pardon me.

No.
According to Buddhism, you required only to not to kill.
If someone or something is killed unintentionally it will not amount to killing


text:
Books on meditation?
I have tried meditating (by concentrating on the breath) but have not experienced any benefits from it. Are there any good books on meditation out there that can help me achieve a better meditation practice?

Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight is a good text for the development of concentration leading to midfulness & alertness. There are imho definitely some thing or things wrong in the Manual and i can't for sure know the extent of wrongness but i would still recommend it just because it is so comprehensive. As for the alleged wrongness therein i recommend you train and study to find out for yourself.
Similarly a Ledi Sayadaw's Manual of Breathing presents a quite practical exposition of the commentarial and the author's interpretation of some Sutta. Whether these interpretations are accurate is imo besides the point because i think the manual outlines a tidy albeit rigorous progression for a base development which i am sure a beginner could appreciate.
Third book is A Practical Guide To Jhanas by Leigh Brasington, the first chapters of this book outline a cookie cutter progression of a method which seems to work for many, the expression is consise & practical in contrast to the Ledi Sayadaw's Manual this is afaik the most beginner friendly guide to getting into development. As for the later chapters of high attainments i will not say anything.
That being said the best books are the Sutta, Patisambhidamagga and Abhidhamma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQbcZ98orNg&t=1622s

You can try reading:

THE TRUE POWER OF KANNI MEDITATION －The Essential Guide to Anapanassati & Vipassana
Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life
Mindfulness of Breathing and Four Elements Meditation
Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path

Breath meditation is covered in Ānâpāna,sati Sutta which you can directly read.

Thank you for this. Which of these do you recommend?

All of them as they cover breath meditation. Certain aspects may only be found in one book so it might be an idea to read different books on the subject to get a throughout understanding.

@NicoDamascus - Just to second what Suminda says. Best to read many books, since each one will bring something valuable and shed light on the previous ones. And this way you find the authors that resonate with you. .

Anything by Thrangu Rinpoche with the word "Meditation" in the title.
The Relaxed Mind: A Seven-Step Method for Deepening Meditation Practice
Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism
Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation


text:
Meditation side effects
Recently I tried to meditate in a moving car. I started seeing shadow like houses or roads with close eyes. It was followed by intense pain in eyes, nausea and dizziness. The headaches and nausea went away once I stopped meditating in the car.
I have also reduced my practice from one hour to 20 minutes. One hour of meditation was giving me lots of benefits as I was more present throughout the day.
Now I have come to know about the side effects of meditation and advanced stages like “dark night of the soul” and different psychological illnesses like depersonalisation caused by meditation.
My question is that can an average person who is meditating for half hour or an hour a day get these side effects?

Note that "carsickness" is something which a lot of people commonly experience, not from meditating but from just closing your eyes or reading a book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness#Motion_felt_but_not_seen

My question is that can an average person who is meditating for half hour or an hour a day get these side effects?
Assuming you are doing Vipassana.
Yes, any-type of experience is possible with a meditator.
It doesn't depend upon, "whether meditation is done for 1/2 - 1 hour or by seemingly average person" rather it depends upon , "how dedicatively meditation is practiced?".
You just started in car, for I started in a Bus later-on in a train. I started from 10s to 100s to 1000s of kms. journey.
Yes, symptoms remained same at start.
These were till I stopped having belly-full food during journey or before journey. Sometimes I would complete my journey by remaining hungry for 1000s of kms. and dedicatively focusing on meditation by taking adhitthana(it means to fixate your posture irrespective of room/place is shaking or not). This way, concentration increased, even the continuous noise of bus tyre or train helped me to focus on breath, sensations, seeing thoughts and analysing different sankharas through their body-effect.
Moreover, it was during journey till now, that I have made any progress in meditation.
It's just a start, don't flee away from it. Meditation is not always about merely getting calmness within 1/2 - 1 hr. It takes a lot to really calm and rectify your previous/current bad-habbits.

@Guest wants to remain within barrier of calmness,••• Better to stop doing meditation. Instead, use same time to go outside and play games(outdoor games), make new friends- different from your age. Get in touch with as many people as you can. Depression is of no good & it seems u r not ready for deep-meditation-- If u have realized this, better to stop doing it. When right time comes(ur body&mind is ready to adapt/tackle this feeling), u will know it and will go for deep-meditation. Initial teaching is also required to remain confident of what is being_done/to_be_done? Stop thinking. Metta.

intense pain iln eyes, nausea and dizziness

Sounds like the effect of wrong effort or overly strenuous effort & suppression. When meditation is practised, the mind should be at ease & relaxed. The proper result of right meditation practice is calmness, called 'samatha'. When meditation is practised correctly, the mind becomes continuously aware of the natural in & out breathing, which soothes, calms & tranquilizes the mind & soul.

“dark night of the soul” and different psychological illnesses like depersonalisation

'Dark night of the soul' is fear of/from selflessness. It is something beginners to meditation & solitude experience, rather than anything "advanced".
'Depersonalisation' is liberating enlightenment. If depersonalisation becomes psychological illness then that person possibly should not be meditating. What is called 'personality' is a survival instinct created by nature. Based on the history & teachings of Buddhism, only relatively few people can peacefully attain the liberating enlightenment state of depersonalisation. This is why the Buddha generally did not teach meditation or the Noble Eightfold Path to laypeople.
In summary, the mind should feel calm & buoyant when meditating. When the mind is calm, any depersonalisation will be liberating & result in enlightenment.

I have reduced my practice to 20 minutes now. I was only meditating for calmness, anxiety and being more present in my day to day life and it has been very beneficial for me. Does every meditator pass through these stages? There is a research by dr Willoughby Britton where it shows that meditation can have intense effects on teachers and sometimes they last for years.
I am really worried right now. I don’t even have a teacher in my city. Should I stop doing it? I have only learned it through videos and apps.
Thanks for your response guys.

My advice is to find a teacher or monk and meditate in a group with others. Most meditators do not experience "dark night" because their minds have too much ego. "Dark night" is fear of aloneness and fear of selflessness. Most meditators do not reach this stage. That is probably all the advice I can give you, namely, to find a teacher or monk. Kind regards.

I don’t have any teacher or group in my city. Is there any way to practice mindfulness without a daily meditation practice? Meditation has helped me a lot with being more present and noticing my thoughts as the arise. I don’t want to lose all the benefits I have gained from it.

I can't tell you what is the cause of the nausea but similar things can happen. One can experience unpleasant sensations while attempting to cultivate qualities and states that are good.
Lest it happens persistently it's likely not something that needs to be given much atrention.
As for the 'dark night of the soul' afaik that is terminology used on Daniel Ingram's board, not something common to Buddhist circles in general. As for depersonalization, it is also one of these terms that is very vague and not commonly used outside of that website and clinicians that for the most part have nothing to do with Buddhist studies.
Afaik it is not widely accepted that meditation causes mental illness, in general it is widely accepted that meditation does not cause mental illness.
Meditation is not something that is easy to pin down and so there are many questions about how to and about the variety of developments.
I think per definition meditation is the development of something good; not the development of mental derangement. I think people can do things that are harmful, ie they could sit cross-legged, eyes closed and contemplate the imponderables or otherwise cultivate the giving of inappropriate attention, it would be bad for them but do we call this development 'meditation'? I wouldn't.
There are four developments of Samadhi with prescribed development of perceptions, subjects for reflection and contemplation, these i would call meditation.


text:
Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?
Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?
If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..
But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.
I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.
And, while I never agreed, I wasn't sure what's wrong with that. I suspect, today, that it's wrong because they are in fact opposites -- opposites that need to be harmonized

See also What is tathata?

Your question is an interesting philosophical investigation, if you can break or crack a concept, it will bring you closer to enlightenment, at least. In fact the Gōng'àn (Jap: Koan) is doing the same thing but in the Eastern style, more intuition, and 觀.
I do not think that I can answer you with a word or few sentences to define what is tathata, or suchness. In fact no one has ever been able to do so, else why we left fumbling it but the Buddha not defined it definitely like he did to the aggregates, karma... or paramita?
But perhaps I can help to unknot the knot in your question.

Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?

No. Parted from phenomena there is no tathata existed independently, parted from tathata neither phenomena. It's like, you cannot say the ocean or a droplet existed independently parted from the water, and vice versa.
Therefore you cannot say "something in addition to". Is the water in addition to the ocean that make the ocean an ocean?

If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..

I do not know where does this "suchness of phenomena" phrase come from? Perhaps reading some bad writings on Buddhism by Teacher XYZ? At least, in the Chinese text materials this phrase doesn't exist; this phrase construct is invalid and ludicrous.
In Chinese Buddhism, tathata is 如, or 如如. The
Western civilization doesn't have equivalent concept, but I try to bring it closer for contemplation. The English words if, as it is, such as, as... could be close; or thisness/thatness the textbook one but really a bit misleading though. Hence, while your "the qualitative experience of a taste" is just an "as it is", "if", "as"; how more you can say about an "as it is" for giving the qualitative favor?

But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.

Again, you cannot put this 'no experience of taste amounts to its "true state"'; same as, is the true taste of the ocean the amount of all the taste of all the water, or just a drop of water? If it's the former, no existing being has ever known the taste of the ocean (perhaps it's sweet with caramel and orange tang? )

Specifically, when Buddhists say phenomena are empty of own nature, do they always mean phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves?

I can only say, tathata and svabhava are closely related but they are not the same.
Again, you cannot say "phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves", simply phenomena, or anything, cannot have two contradictory qualia(s). You cannot say the rat is in the mammal class also the mammal class is excluding rat.
This last paragraph quoted is clouded with bubbling blurbs perhaps is unhelpful to understand the core teaching. Suggestion, drop it. Sometimes words and the mind's ability to construct syntax is a hindrance.

To answer your real concern,

I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.

This saying is an erroneous error. Tathata does NOT mean qualia. If it is that simple to define, why the Buddha has to spend another 20-30 years to teach the 2nd and 3rd Wheel Turning Sutras?

i don't think 'suchness of phenomena' is an odd phrase. Google talks about "distinguishing Phenomena from Their Intrinsic Nature" or "the true mode of phenomena" [dictionary definition]

I think Mishu was saying you wouldn't see that phrase (combination) in Chinese -- and perhaps implied that "suchness" is a stand-alone noun. Perhaps "suchness of phenomena" would imply that suchness is an attribute (a quality or feature) of phenomena. But you wouldn't say "water is a feature of the ocean" -- water is the ocean.

Phew! Followed you to google: "...the realization of the suchness of all phenomena..." (Tenshin Reb A.); "...suchness of the Tathagata is the suchness of all phenomena..." (S. T. Katz); "To perceive this is to perceive the suchness of phenomena..." (Dalai L.). Raps, babbles. The downfall of grammar is, nonsense can be built formidably to fool. As @ChrisW said, in Chinese is: 諸法如相. "...有漏法無漏法如相。即是過去未來現在諸法如相..." (Pajna-paramita Sutra). Forced translation: Phenomena as the form of Suchness. Not "suchness of phenomena". There is no "suchness" hided inside phenomena, ok?

Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?
Perhaps it's the opposite -- i.e. phenomena without addition.
The suttas talk about craving and clinging -- from which I gather that you perceive things as "such" when you perceive them without adding craving and clinging etc.
Specifically, when Buddhists say phenomena are empty of own nature, do they always mean phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves?
I have a feeling (given that you're using words like qualia) that you're assuming a knowledge of western philosophy or psychology which I don't have
I think that emptiness might be a doctrine which helps you to deconstruct what you construct when you perceive  -- e.g. "that chariot is merely an assemblage of parts".
And as previously I think that suchness is what's left over, the chariot perceived without addition.
See for example what MN 11 says about "proliferation":

"Wanderers of other sects who ask thus may be answered in this way: 'How then, friends, is the goal one or many?' Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: 'Friends, the goal is one, not many.'[2] — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by lust or free from lust?' Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from lust, not for one affected by lust.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by hate or free from hate?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from hate, not for one affected by hate.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by delusion or free from delusion?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from delusion, not for one affected by delusion.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by craving or free from craving?' [65] Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from craving, not for one affected by craving.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one affected by clinging or free from clinging?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one free from clinging, not for one affected by clinging.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one who has vision or for one without vision?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one with vision, not for one without vision.' — 'But, friends, is that goal for one who favors and opposes, or for one who does not favor and oppose?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not favor and oppose, not for one who favors and opposes.'[3] — 'But, friends is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?' Answering rightly, they would answer: 'Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.'[4]

as a concept though, the chariot a a concept, rather than the chariot

and "chariot" is a word as well

not sure what you mean

Tathata is attitude you have when you really understand how and why things work the way they do.
For example, when kids are being kids, some people get angry. "Why are they noisy, why they don't listen, why they rush to judgement, why they are easily carried away?" etc.  But when you understand kids, you know how they think, you know why this is a natural stage in development, you know how they grow and why it can't be skipped, you know what motivates them - then you don't get frustrated or as much as surprised, you can even manage them effectively. Your experience of kids and your attitude to them at that time is tathata.
Of course this is just a small example to illustrate the principle, but if you expand it to your entire life - you get the real Tathata.

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

noun: qualia; plural noun: qualia
a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person.

'Tathata' refers to how the laws of nature are the laws of nature, regardless of 'qualia'; regardless of if a Buddha arises to awaken to the laws of nature or not.

Ignorance is a condition for fabricators.
avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
  regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
  principles, specific conditionality.
uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu
  dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.
A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes,
  and reveals it.
Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
  vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
‘Look,’ he says,
‘Passathā’ti cāha:
‘Ignorance is a condition for fabricators.’
‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’.
So the fact that this is real, not unreal, not otherwise; the specific
  conditionality of it:
Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā
  idappaccayatā—
this is called dependent origination.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo
SN 12.20

Now, observe that in the realization of impermanence there is the
  realization of many other things simultaneously. When impermanence is
  truly seen, this characteristic of impermanence is also the
  characteristic of dukkham, namely, it is ugly and unbearable. We will
  see the characteristic of not-self in it, also. Because these things
  are always changing, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and beyond our
  control, we realize anatta, also. Then we will see that they are void
  of selfhood, which is sunnata. We will see that they are just thus
  like that. Impermanence is just thus, just like that, thusness. And
  so, tathata is seen as well
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

not a bad answer, but it seems strange to say that dependent origination works "regardless" of there being any experience of it

yes, what the buddha taught seems strange to you.

i think you misunderstood in your rush to condemn someone

surely dependent origination is the dependent origination of experiences of the sense bases etc. if you only meant that dependent origination works independent of being awakened to it, then the answer is unclear


text:
Does the beauty of Buddhism lie in letting seekers seek beyond the bounds of religion?
When I was young I was told by a booklet that if I found a better religion, I can follow that one. I liked the idea of God centered, open-sourced religion back then so it was what kept me loyal and the reason I found out that there was more to know beyond it. Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?

Buddhism is not just a search of truth and knowledge for the sake of it. The Dhamma, as knowledge (of the principles of experience and reality) and practice, takes dukkha as the center of its analysis, because such analysis allows us to overcome dukkha.

The truth-seeker uses religion as a tool and not a belief system. If you are one then you will not belong to this or that religion but just take what you can from their various teachings and methods. A study of Buddhism allowed me to make sense of Christianity, Taoism and Sufism helped shed light on Buddhism, and advaita shed light on all of them. You don't have to choose this or that religion unless you interpret them to .be mutually inconsistent. Their inconsistencies are usually in the eye of the believer while the disinterested scholar tends to end up seeing their unity.

When I was young I was told by a booklet that if I found a better religion, I can follow that one.
Yes! allowed as per human rights.
As per buddhist scriptures, " Respect other philosophies, compare them with my(buddha's) teachings and follow me only when you find my teachings to be better ".
I liked the idea of God centered, open-sourced religion back then so it was what kept me loyal
Good, because sometimes(most of times, to be precise) philosophers dwelling in thoughts about anatta start breaking 5 percepts at mental level and become dishonest to closed-ones at body-speech level.
•••and the reason I found out that there was more to know beyond it.
Good, because your behaviour seemed to satisfy you and others in doing so. It doesn't mean that there is anything more to know beyond anatta.
Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?
Theoritically, as per buddhist scriptures-- when seeker stops even seeing/feeling/realizing h-im/er-self as 'seeker', when a state is reached where, "causes&conditions are interacting with causes&conditions", then
What seems to be yonder stops seeming because there is/was nothing to yonder to from the start.
Does the beauty of Buddhism lie in letting seekers seek beyond the bounds of religion?
Finally, yes if religion is binding you with 'Ignorance' of some atta.
May you be free from your confusion.
Metta.

Beauty is the third liberation.

AN8.66:3.1: They’re focused only on beauty. This is the third liberation.

There are seven other liberations, some before, more beyond.

Possibly so.
I was taught Roman Catholic doctrine ("cathechism") as a child, and that was of a variety which was old-fashioned even then. I found it was unobjectionable -- I didn't believe it, necessarily, but I didn't object to it -- except for their doctrine that "only this is true" ... i.e. that only the Church's doctrine is true and that everyone else is wrong (the Church's doctrine seems to have changed a bit since then, though that's off-topic here).
At the time, I refused to believed that ("every other doctrine is wrong"), and consequently I read the books of other religions eventually including about Buddhism.
Buddhism too has passages which say things -- like MN 11 -- which imply that Buddhism is true, and that only Buddhism is true (not that I'm trying to refute that).
But it's also said of the Dhamma:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo:
  The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
  sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
  visible here and now, immediate,
  ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  inviting to come and see, effective,
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

I think there are people who understand that as meaning that the Dhamma is true by definition because it is (by this definition) that (portion of it) which is visible and evident and effective and "individually ascertained by the wise".
And so (to tie it into your question) it is "beyond the bounds of religion" -- i.e. it's practical etc. -- if by "religion" (as opposed to e.g. "science") you might mean, "that which can only be an article of faith" (see also for example What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity?).
We're also told that Buddhism is a "gradual training" -- maybe starting with "be kind and don't kill people" and working it's way on up from there.
There's also this quote from the Dalai Lama which you may or may not appreciate, to understand in context.
Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?
Um.
Well ok. Maybe that was a rhetorical flourish rather than a question but there's something to do with maybe stopping seeking. There's a Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) where the protagonist suggests that the path is endless, and Ananda replies that it ends "when you reached the park".
As a footnote I think that, in that sutta, "the park" is where they were -- "at Ghosita's Park" -- and that "park" can be understood as "forest monastery" i.e. before there were big monastic buildings, the monks in the forest or wilderness or in parks which they were given to use (perhaps by rich land-owners or kings).
There's maybe also something to do with no longer seeing yourself as a seeker -- or seeing "seeking" as a "yourself". MN 11 for example lists four kinds of grasping ...

The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha claims to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping. He describes the complete understanding of grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.

... of which I think "I am a seeker" might be one, i.e. one of innumerable examples of a theory-of-self: whereas, conversely, Buddhist doctrine includes anatta.
If you want to make this a comparative-religion question (which perhaps you don't) other religions might have doctrines which could be compared to anatta -- like Christian unselfish love or Islamic mindful obedience. Buddhism (at least as it's explained in the suttas) more-or-less does without "God" though, so, yes, in that sense, "beyond the bounds of religion".


text:
When is it love? When is it attachment?
I have this misunderstanding about love and attachment as they relate to one another. It's hard to put in words, so I'll try with some examples first.
My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return. While love where you need or want something from the other person (like for example, expect that other person to make you happy, or you want to control the other person in some way, or try to change them to be more of how you would want them to be, etc) is actually attachment.
One example of true love I can think of is love for your children. You love them unconditionally. You understand they are their own person, with their own dreams, aspiration, thoughts, etc, so whatever they do, good or bad, you support them, help them, etc. You don't try to change them, or influence them, or impose your ideas on them, or have them accomplish the things you couldn't (e.g. I couldn't go to med school, but my child will), etc. No matter what happens, you love them because they are your children, and you love them no matter what they do.
Taking that further, even in the presence of death, I still can understand love (at least I think I do). Everyone dies. Your children might die. And even if you love them and will miss them if they are gone, or suffer after they are gone, that suffering doesn't linger. You continue to love your children even after they are gone (or at least the idea of them or the memory of them).
But here is another example. You love your partner. You think you love them like in the example above. But then they cheat on you with some other person. If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that... I think. If being with someone else makes them happy, you should be happy for them, right? But in most relationships, you expect from your partner that they don't cheat on you, or to behave in a certain way. When that expectation is broken, you suffer. Arguments start, resentment, maybe violence towards that person. Is this because of attachment to the person and not love? Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only ours to have?
So I guess, my question is this: What is love and what is attachment in a relation with your partner? What happens to love and attachment when they cheat with someone else? (for most of the people I know, death is less painful than being cheated upon; suffering caused by death eventually heals, but being cheated upon lingers for much longer).
Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?

If one is in an intimate relationship with another person, one is attached to them. The Piyavagga says:

From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then
  fear?
From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. For one who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then
  fear?
From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then
  fear?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.16.budd.html

Above & below, Buddhism teaches any engaging in sensual intimacy is attachment:

Now delight in feelings is clinging/attachment.
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi

One is attached to another person when, if that relationship ends, one feels alone. One feels something missing or incomplete in their life. This sense of loss is called 'hurt'. It is emotionally painful. The Piyavagga says:

From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. For one
  who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then
  fear?

Buddhism teaches to avoid hurting others, as follows:

This act I am
  doing leads to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s
  unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula,
  you should desist from such a deed.
https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/sujato

This means 'duty' or 'obligation' in respect to right behaviour is required in relationship (rather than 'unconditional love'). For example, the Buddhist scriptures teach a husband has five duties or obligations towards his wife and, upon performing his duty, the wife returns her love in five ways, as follows:

In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be
  ministered to by a husband:
(i) by being courteous to her, (ii) by not despising her, (iii) by
  being faithful to her, (iv) by handing over authority to her, (v) by
  providing her with adornments.
The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her
  compassion to her husband in five ways:
(i) she performs her duties well, (ii) she is hospitable to relations
  and attendants  (iii) she is faithful, (iv) she protects what he
  brings, (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.
In these five ways does the wife show her compassion to her husband
  who ministers to her as the West. Thus is the West covered by him and
  made safe and secure.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

In other words, the love of a wife & husband, in Buddhism, is conditional. One condition of a husband/wife relationship is each is sexual faithful.
If husbands & wives are not sexually faithful to each other, the relationship will generally inevitably fall apart. The Samajivina Sutta says:

If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present
  life but also in the life to come [in the future], they should be in tune [with each
  other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in
  tune in discernment. Then they will see one another not only in the
  present life but also in the life to come.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.055.than.html

Therefore, it generally won't help maintain a relationship if one partner attempts to unconditionally love an unfaithful partner. Instead, by attempting unconditional love, one partner is often enabling the bad habits of the unfaithful partner. The scriptures call such a situation "wretchedness", as follows:

Here, the husband is one who destroys life, takes what is not given, engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; he is immoral, of bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of miserliness; he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins... but his wife is virtuous,
  charitable, generous. She is a female deva (goddess; angel) living with a wretched
husband.
https://suttacentral.net/an4.53/en/bodhi

At least in relation to a wife, the scriptures say an immoral wife can be expelled from the family home of the husband, as follows:

If a female has the powers of attractiveness, wealth, relatives, and
  children, but not that of ethical behavior, the family will send her
  away, they won’t accommodate her.
https://suttacentral.net/sn37.30/en/sujato

Similarly, Buddhism teaches parents have five duties towards their children, which include restraining their children from doing evil (harmful/hurtful) things and nurturing their children to do good. It follows the love of parents towards their children in Buddhism is not unconditional. It is conditional, as follows:

In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the
  East by their children, show their compassion:
(i) they restrain them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good,
  (iii) they train them for a profession, (iv) they arrange a suitable
  marriage, (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to
  them.
In these five ways do children minister to their parents as the East
  and the parents show their compassion to their children. Thus is the
  East covered by them and made safe and secure.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

For example, if a child wishes to engage in drug taking, sexual orgies & other evil deeds in the family home, the duty of parents is to restrain their children. It is not to unconditionally love children so the children of the family are free to take drugs & have sexual orgies in the family home.
For example, in the scriptures, there is the story about an unethical misbehaved wife. The Buddha, who was visiting the family home, tamed the wife, as follows:

Householder, what’s with the people making that dreadful racket in
  your home? You’d think it was fishermen hauling in a catch!
Sir, that’s my daughter-in-law Sujātā. She’s been brought here from a
  wealthy family.She doesn’t obey her mother-in-law or father-in-law or
  her husband. And she does not honor, respect, esteem and venerate the
  Buddha.
Then the Buddha addressed Sujātā, saying, “Come, Sujātā.”
“Yes, sir,” she replied. She went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat
  down to one side. The Buddha said to her:....
https://suttacentral.net/an7.63/en/sujato

In conclusion, there appear to be no teachings in the Buddhist scriptures that say, in the context of vital co-dependent social relationships, you can truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do you do not end up suffering.
The Metta Sutta, about unconditional love, says:

This is what should be done   By one who is skilled in goodness, And
  who knows the path of peace...

In other words, the Metta Sutta appears to not recommend the practice of unconditional love to those who are not skilled in goodness.

When is it love?
There's Buddhist doctrine about the brahmaviharas which are three different kinds of love ...

I hope you're well
I don't want to hurt you
I rejoice in your virtue/success

... plus equanimity as the fourth.
If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that
In the old days before "no-fault divorce" people (in Anglophone countries) used to sue each other for adultery: and the alleged "damage" used to include Alienation of affections.
I think the theory was that if your partner was adulterous then you'd be receiving less affection from them -- an affection which should have been, as their spouse, rightfully yours.
And I think that contradicts your premise, i.e.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return.

I think another Buddhist theme is that, you do things because they (actions/intentions) are morally right or virtuous. Conversely you don't do things just because you feel like it (e.g. presumably shouldn't hurt people if or because you feel angry).
Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only yours to have?
I guess that -- expecting behaviour -- might work if you can form a contract, have a meeting of minds, with a sane and reliable partner.
Conversely some people (sometimes children) don't like conforming to other people's expectations.
With such a one, unreliable, a possible winning strategy might be (I don't know if this is applicable to you, feasible, or Buddhist -- but based on experience) if they ask e.g., "What do you expect me to do here?", reply, "I don't expect you to do anything. You can do..."
Then provide a safe environment, where they can't easily hurt themselves. And the necessities of life. And age-appropriate toys or tools. And good friends, some enjoyable group/social activities -- role models.
I think that behaviour/misbehaviour is partly conditioned/dependent -- if somebody is seeking some liberation then perhaps it's wise to ensure their environment is moral, safe, sane, unoppressive and with opportunities for them to be or to become good friends themselves.
Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?
I think so if you're semi-enlightened.
You suggested already that you can have children without their causing your suffering.
If I know children, they'll transgress in various ways, large or small -- and you're probably supposed to interact with them and correct their behaviour -- maybe without stopping-loving them though.
There's some doctrine here about choosing a spouse or partner, for what that's worth -- preferably one who is equal.
I think that a or the key to "not suffering" is to behave ethically. There's a sutta Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1) which begins ...

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"
"Joy has etc.

I equate that "freedom from remorse" with non-suffering -- "I do not regret it".
See for example Sīlānussati
In context I think that an example of sīlānussati might be Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) where the buddha seems to be happy.
In my experience that happiness might be in retrospect, i.e. good behaviour now leads to "joy" later.
See also What is the basis?

Love is loving (=accepting) as is. "As is" means, without condition or boundary like "only when".
Love that adores one thing and rejects the other is not real love "as is", it is attachment or preference. Love that divides the world into the loved and the unloved is not real love, it is attachment or preference.
Real love is Nirvana. I know this is hard for you to understand. Let me elaborate. Real love is loving everything as is, without aversion, without boundaries. Love is the true nature of mind. When mind is free from attachment, aversion, confusion - what remains is suchness, also known as love.

Buddhism teaches compassion instead of love:
==============
Compassion (karuṇā) has the nature of being moved by the suffering of others. The sadness we might experience over the suffering or loss of a loved one is not true compassion. Such sadness is sentimental, a manifestation of grief. Real compassion arises when the mind, detached from self-referential concerns, is stirred by the suffering of others, feeling the suffering as its own.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

Don’t worry, almost everyone is very confused about love and what it is. We confuse it and bind it up with other emotions both negative and positive and this is what causes the confusion.
Fortunately, real love is simple and clear to define and once you understand what it really is you can begin to unravel all the confusion.
Love is nothing more than the wish for another to have happiness.
That’s it. Really. It is that simple.
It is defined as one of the four immeasurable minds which we should practice and develop.  And now that you know what love is... I will tell you what compassion is.
Compassion is nothing more than the wish for another to be free from suffering.
Again, very simple and clear and another of the four immeasurables. And you will notice that love and compassion are like flip sides of the same coin.
All the rest that we normally associate with “love” and “compassion” are just confusions of other emotions usually involving attachment and/or aversion.
In your question you cite examples of love that people feel for there partners and/or children. Most people do genuinely love  both their children and partners, but also feel all kinds of attachment and desire and wants and other non-virtuous emotions towards them as well. Once you are clear on what real love is ... see above ... then the question becomes what are these other emotions we associate so often with love and what is the nature of them? Are they virtuous? Non-virtuous? Do they cause happiness in ourselves or others? Suffering? Like that...

Buddha truely loved everyone, no matter what they did, he didn't end up suffering.
His 'true love' was given a term as compassion. He 'truly loved' to the extent that no matter what devdutta did, he always preached and showed him Noble 8 fold path.
His 'love-talk' and 'true-love talk' were always same, " pleasure is dukkha, everything (including every relationship) is impermanent so don't let craving/aversion disturb you or make you unhappy".
It's the image(inside our mind) of someone with whom we remain attached within. This craving is dukkha, this image is not permanent,... such were the lovy-dovy talks of buddha.

One important lesson that I’ve learned as a young Christian back then was to get the cultural context of these religions sprang up in. In fact, I was driven by the maddening impulse that the words of the New Testament weren’t enough, there was just too much that the Bible assumes you already know and much that can’t add in. Thankfully, my pastor was a real scholar.
I know Indians quite well, as I have grown up in a country where half the population consists of racial minorities.
Indians idolise material success. BMWs, Beverly Hills mansions, billion dollar IT firms and of course, fair skin. This is their religion that Hinduism tried so hard to break in order to save it from social chaos and destruction. It’s an unspoken truth that the Indians who have the almost as much success as the Indians with the best characters are also the ones who will murder the person who exposes their true colours.  Am I so much better as a Chinese? I too have idols to break every day. At least, unlike those Indians, I can break the idols of lies without a second thought.
The success of Hinduism resulted in a society that consists of people who seemed doomed to be of a certain class or sink to the bottom in their lifetime. Imagine being middle class; you cannot help but pull strings and make threats so that your children will have a brighter future or else their afterlives turn to vinegar. Always the rajahs are crushing you with their thumbs from above while your employees are always plotting the demise of your enterprises. Hence, an oversimplification of their suffering, their attachment.
The Buddha saw this and understood much. He told the crowds that attachment is suffering. Many disciples with questionable loyalties made the definition of attachment as general as possible, so that even feeding the neighbourhood orphan is also condemned attachment. The Buddha was powerless to stop the corruption of his doctrine because a part of what made his rebellion against social strife also made him pliable to stakeholders with loyalties towards false righteousness. Buddhism as we know it today has a multitude of embellishments by people who know how to paint false pictures.
It is okay to feel the love you feel. I say this as a man who has known the love of a blonde woman. This bond is not of the condemned, whatever the turncoats say. Turn it into a mighy oak of legacy. Be blessed.

Indians idolise material success Except those who don't: Ganesh, but, Shiva? Could you try to avoid talking about other religions on this site? Because other religions are not on-topic -- the OP's asking here implies they'd like an answer informed by a Buddhist perspective. And, readers being unexpert, might not distinguish whether what you say is true, untrue, or half-true. OTOH it's good to base your answer on something: "something that happened to you personally", or,
"something you can back up with a reference".


text:
can meditation and dharma alone take us to higher levels of consciousness?
I have been practising dharma and meditation now for more than 2 years and i feel a good progress within me. Does these 2 tools dharma and meditation alone can take us through to different levels of consciousness ?

If by dharma you mean the Buddhist teachings then I'd suggest that just meditation is enough, since the teachings arise from meditation.

i feel dhamma is common phenomenon in this spiritual process. Astanga Yoga says about dhamma in the terms of iyama and niyama. I come from Tamil language where tirukural literature talks about dhamma in the terms of aram. i strive to walk in the path of dhamma always.

@SGN:: clarify what u mean by dharma in question? Is it dharma or dhamma u r asking for as you strive to walk on dhamma?

The Dharma alone is the true medicine and it alone can cure us of the unsatisfactoriness of samsara. The Buddhas and Sangha are like the best doctors and nurses in the world and can help guide us in the best way to take the medicine - the Dharma - but it is the medicine alone which actually heals!
Theoretically, if we just take the medicine at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount... we do not need doctors and nurses... the medicine is enough.
Practically, we almost always need good doctors and nurses to help us prescribe and apply the medicine and thus we need to take refuge in the Buddhas and Sangha as well.
This is how it has been explained to me.

Dhamma:: Right Teachings
Meditation:: Tool to establish in dhamma
Different levels of Consciousness:: Comes when one uses tool to establish in dhamma.
Other tools:: Enable one to be able to use Meditation tool.

There's doctrine which says that a good friend (perhaps "exemplar") is important too: for example SN 45.2.
Apparently the Buddha, having no-one to take as a role-model, used the Dhamma -- Reference request for "the Buddha takes the Dhamma as his superior"