text:
If I am not the skandhas, then what entity/group of entities am I being responsible for by being a good person?
I'm look more for an epistemological Buddhist answer to this question.
If I am anatta (not self because composite) then who is the one responsible for his/her actions? Why am I still responsible for my karma? What is it that transmutes from life to life?
Who is the one making the choice?
Why is it even possible to do good (as opposed to fatalistically going along with things)?
How do you resolve this paradoxical quandary?
Edit:
To clarify the cause of my question, it was not mere metaphysical musings. I want to know more about the Director, the Leader, the Chooser because not only is it more conducive to proper behavior but actually because I want to more practically cultivate the specific aspect of Buddhism which indicates that we can direct our rebirths to a very high degree after death.
The answer to this question I believe is Awareness as Tibetan Buddhism would indicate where it is repetatively emphasized that we should cultivate so as to be aware throughout the death process and not startled by the manifestations. Thus, we can choose and direct our rebirth with clear functioning.

The doctrine of anatta too deep to be understood or grasped intellectually. It can only be understood experientally through insight meditation practice.

Fair enough. No amount of sheer eloquence can parallel experience. Yogacara does try though.

You are right. It is helpful to try to grapple with these concepts intellectually but one has to know the limits of the intellect.

Agreed the 10 omnipresent factors R beneficial to grapple with for instance

What are those? I think i do not know them or maybe they have other names as well?

Buddhist concept of not self is always difficult to translate. It generally means:

There is no core or soul
You have no absolute control over your aggregates or the world at large

Also when you have the perception of self you have a yard stick which you use to measure other people, their actions, standing, wealth, etc. with respect to you. This creates misery. If you drop the yard stick then you get out of misery.
Having said this though there is no lasting entity as you there is a mind matter process. What ever you do becomes fabrications which at that point influence the process and also has a "loop back" at different times.

There is no core is agreeable by anyone. But the 2nd concept, "You have no control" really befuddles me... if I have no control then who is the one that is making Right Effort... heck why is the whole spiritual effort even necessary?

@Ahmed no absolute control, eg. no control of your form, no control of your feelings, etc. "For if, bhikkhus, form were self, [...] it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'" -- SN 22:59

I still dont think that is entirely true. I can control my form through exercise and I have even been able to heal myself through visualization. I can control the skandha of sensation in a similar way... Sometimes it is through influence but sometimes it is through directly willing it to be so via hypnosis or visualization. As I understand, the Buddha himself said that in the heavens it is like this even more so. The skandha of conception (thought) is even more self-controlled and thus self-responsible. Correct me if/how I am wrong.

Why does a seed grow into a plant and then to a tree? Why not just stay as a seed? Does it require a soul for that or does it require fertilizer, sunlight, air, a viable seed etc. Does water require a soul to turn into snow in the winter season? Regarding Karma, why does the seed of a mango tree gives a mango plant, but not a coconut plant? Why does a plant of a mango tree have qualities similar to the parent tree? Does it require a soul for that? Certainly not!

Good analogy. To go further, even if someone says it is the "seed" that is the "decider", the "soul", it is still not correct because many seeds do not start to grow until many cycles of a specific type of whether and temperature... and none of that growth is possible... Thus, a monk on youtube was saying that buddha said there is no self but also to use your own judgjment... there is not no-self either...

I think the problem is that a tree is not self aware, but we are. The apparent contradiction is a lot harder to solve for sentient beings. There is a middle way, as usual, between the existence of a controler and moral nihilism.

No, the problem is that when you say self aware, you have already made the assumption that a self exists

"Then, in the mind of a certain bhikkhu this thought arose: “So, it seems, material form is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations are not self, consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?"

The same question was raised by a bhikkhu in MN 109, and the Buddha provided a great answer here
Sutta's synopsis:

"A thorough discussion of issues related to the five aggregates. Toward the end of the discussion, a monk thinks that he has found a loophole in the teaching. The way the Buddha handles this incident shows the proper use of the teachings on the aggregates: not as a metaphysical theory, but as a tool for questioning clinging and so gaining release."

This answer is avoiding the question but I think this is the right Early Buddhist answer. The aggregates are a conceptual model designed to defeat suffering and forced rebirth and thus gain happiness and liberation.
The Buddha himself said karma-and-reincarnation are one of the four questions that are impossible to answer fully, the other three things being a Buddha's behavior, the origins of the universe, and the depths of dhyana practice.
Nonetheless, maybe some Consciousness-Only Buddhist might be able to give a precise, conceptually satisfying answer.

In terms of skandhas, the act of willpower and action is possible due to the volition skandha, particularly a few factors of the 5 omnipresent factors. The 7th consciousness combined with ignorant clinging is also the thing that wraps one up into a self that bobs from life to life, as the 12 nidanas (12 causes) explains.

Death is conditioned by birth . . .  birth is conditioned by becoming
  . . .  becoming is conditioned by grasping . . .  grasping is
  conditioned by craving . . .  craving is conditioned by feeling . . .
  feeling is conditioned by contact . . .  contact is conditioned by
  sense . . .  sense is conditioned by mind-body. . .  mind-body is
  conditioned by consciousness . . . consciousness is conditioned by
  forming force . . .  forming force is conditioned by ignorance. (SN ii
  25)

Even though it is still creating karma, one must build a strong foundation (satipattana, samatha, samadhi, etc.) to stand on can you shine the light (vipasasna, prajna) to stop the process of craving, becoming, and ultimately even the 1st cause... ignorance.
Building the foundation consists of the 2nd training, shining the light is the 3rd training.
The "being a good person" is the 1st training aka making merit, indispensible to gaining entry into the Buddhist realms of cultivation and cutting off the nidanas closer and closer to the root.

In Mahayana who you really are is everyone collectively. (At least my understanding of the Huayen version and my reading of Tom Pepper's work on sunyata)

If I am anatta (not self because composite) then who is the one
  responsible for his/her actions? Why am I still responsible for my
  karma?

We are collectively responsible for our actions.

What is it that transmutes from life to life?

This is a logical puzzle, a corner Buddhist painted themselves into. The Buddha had to deal with an overhang of old beliefs surrounding him. Some, like the efficacy of animal sacrifice, he rejected outright. Others, he kept, even though they don't work well with some of the new ideas like annata. Nagarjunas logical gymanatics attempted to address this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna#Two_truths
Personally, I think enlightenment is the liberation from heaven, hell and the cycle of rebirth because you realize that they can't exist. The consequence is that we are a collective consciousness, which reframes the question of our personal liberation to the question of universal liberation. It also shifts the possibility of immortality from personal immortality (either an unpleasant one involving reincarnation, or a pleasant one involving a neither here nor there state of nirvana) and replaces it with the fact that collectively everyone else lives on after we die, excluding global extinction.
ref: Tom Pepper for a good description of the collective consciousness and alternate interpretations
http://www.nonplusx.com/app/download/708268204/Taking+Anatman+Full+Strength.pdf
He's very lucid & doesn't resort to "well you just can't understand" or "faith" as explanations.

Let's say you knock your head on the wall and feel pain.
I'm guessing that in future, you will avoid knocking your head on the wall. Is it because you think you have a self? Is it because of some sense of responsibility? Is it because you think you have a choice?
No. You will avoid knocking your head on the wall in future, because you want to avoid feeling pain again. It's very practical. So, the question to ask oneself with regards to karma is "what should I do or avoid doing in future, that will lead to my long term happiness?"
Also, it is not useful to analyse whether there is a self or there is no self. Instead, it is more useful to ask, "how does the perception of the self arise and cease?", "how does the perception of pain arise and cease?", "how does the will to make decisions and volitional actions arise and cease?"
Would thinking or believing that "all phenomena is not self", prevent me from experiencing pain in future? No. This is because the perception of self is relatively true and equally true as the perception of pain.
Since the objective is to end suffering, it is better to ask questions that are more conducive for leading towards this goal.
Rebirth is a more difficult topic that is answered here.

I'll answer in two parts.
Regarding not self: The body, feelings, perceptions, volitions and consciousness exist. They just don't exist the way you think they do. We have a misconception about these aggregates and the misconception is that there is an entity, the "I", that is somehow the essence of these aggregates. This "essence" is conceived as permanent, independent and uniquely individual. It is the "me", or "I". The deluded enchantment with this entity, and with what can bring happiness to it and what can bring suffering to it, is what causes suffering. Our whole life is trying to be happy and avoid suffering based on this misconception. But this misconceived entity does not exist. There is nothing permanent and independent about the aggregates. The aggregates exist, but are in a constant flux. And when this is seen clearly, there is no permanent and independent entity found. This is such a radical change in perspective that our whole life changes when we fully realise it. There is no more suffering.
Regarding choice: It is true that everything arises and falls due to causes. It seems like the inevitable logical consequence is that we are but puppets in this everchanging and causal universe. In a way that's true. Let me give you an analogy: say I throw you a ball for you to catch. You know that it is in the nature of the ball to be subject to gravity. But how does that help you to catch the ball perfectly? It is of little help, really. In the same way, you can observe that these aggregates are constantly changing due to causes, so they are completely subject to causes, just like a ball is subject to gravity. But that doesn't mean that you know precisely how your actions will affect others, just like you don't know the precise trajectory of the ball. So when you don't know with full precision what are the specific consequences of your actions, you have several outcomes and, thus, a subjective choice. That's why it's best to choose to act ethically. To act with kind intentions usually brings the best results for you and others.

***Very simply, the illusory self. This is the director of one's actions. This is the orchestrator of our fantastic illusory dramas life-time after life-time.
You are responsible for your actions because you act on behalf of this illusory self and accumulate karmic traces and patterns in your mind stream because of your attachment to this illusory self.
On the basis of our extremely subtle luminous natures, the karmic winds transmute and propel you to your next life.
It is possible to do good and bad because we are very much caught in the relative manifestations that occur, despite the fact that they are illusory and that nothing - absolutely nothing exists as it appears. However, the lighter the karma becomes the easier it is to blend with our ultimate true nature. Eventually, we get to a stage, after a great deal of purification, accumulation of merit and meditation, where there is no distinction between good or bad - Everything is "All Good". That is the Kingdom of Samantabhadra.


text:
Was Buddhism the dominant religion of India for one thousand years?
I read in a book by Amartya Sen 'The Argumentative Indian', (link) that Buddhism was the dominant religion of India for about a 1000 years, and that foreigners referred to India as a Buddhist kingdom. Is it true?
This map from wikipedia shows that Buddhism was influential only in a small part of North-East India, and not at all in the southern or western part. Kindly provide online references, if possible.

This question seems to be about history, not about Buddhism. It might be better to ask it on History.SE.

This question has now been asked on History.SE

Wikipedia's History of Buddhism in India says that:

Maurya Empire (322 BCE–185 BCE) was Buddhist
Kushan Empire (30 CE–375 CE) was Buddhist

Decline of Buddhism in India says that decline began in late Gupta Empire (320 CE–550 CE)
So for more than 500 years, there were Buddhist empires ruling the whole of what's now India except its southern tip.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The emptiness of nirvana
Maybe a strange question, but I wonder if emptiness (sunyatta) is also a characteristic of the state of nirvana?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! I hope you found use in the answers to your question. I've removed your reply answer since it didn't answer the question, comments and upvotes (and accepting answers, which you've done) are more traditional ways of indicating that you appreciated an answer.

Yes, but if you look around nirvana is right here, right now. Nirvana is simply heaven on earth.
You might read The Heart Sutra Explained by Donald S. Lopez. It explains the fullness and emptiness of shunyata.

Yes.
Emptiness characterizes everything, including Nirvana and even emptiness itself.
Have you read the Heart Sutra?  I highly recommend that for an example of the all-permeating nature of emptiness.

Actually, Nirvana... is something beyond emptiness.
Emptiness (sunyata) is the stopping phase of cultivation.
Nirvana is the "seeing" phase, where you transcend even that stopping, which is a type of total non-existence, still dual.
Nirvana is beyond all dualism. It is not existence nor non-existence.
Heart sutra is reccommended.
Nirvana is a synonym for the enlightened state. The Enlightened state is beyond non-existence ("emptiness") and existence (experiencing the skandhas) and is capable of existing and exercising its function anywhere, no matter what, be it in hell or heaven. N onetheless, we must experience both sides fully, existence and non-existence before we can enter into the non-dual, indescribeable, open awareness of Nirvana.
Note: despite this, emptiness is still the first step, especially in this age where everyone is obsessed with materialism and existence. Finding emptiness IS the first step. You must make your mind empty and clear and must discover and BECOME emptiness, particularly through attainment of samadhi before you can truly succeed on the vipassana path.
Of course, others have differing perspectives saying that "dry insight" is enough to get to Nirvana but I don't think it's that easy or even reliable as a path.
Calm your mind (emptiness, samatha practice, focus your mind on clarity), and see (Nirvana, vipassana, let go of everything and just witness).

Good answer, @Ahmed. (Also love your Cundi profile picture. )

@Methexis thank you! hail mommy buddha accepting of all as-is, can be chanted anywhere :)

I think not: because "empty" is a characteristic of 'conditioned' phenomena, but nirvana is unconditioned.

Yes. Nirvana is empty in two ways.
Firstly, Nirvana is empty of a self. This is covered by "all phenomena are not self" (sabbe dhamma anatta from Dhp 279) and the Suñña Sutta.
Secondly, Nirvana is empty of the essence given to it by mental conceptualization / objectification-classification/ reification/ papanca. Please see this question for details.
MN 1 covers both, making the former a specialized case of the latter.

I have some analogies

A statement [expression] is eg 'xyz' and it is in & by itself empty of context other that what we give it for context and whatever context there may be, that context is empty of the expression. The expression is not context and context is not he expression.

A person's name or the name of a thing, is in & by itself empty of meaning. If we say a word in a foreign language it lacks a linguistic context and is meaningless. Meaning is not the same as the word.

Thinking in & by itself is empty, void and is without context [linguistic structure], as one can be thinking about anything, it is not thought of as being that which is thought about and is that word which is said to entertain the object [theme] of ideation.

That which is thought of as 'that which perceives', 'the perceived' & 'contact' are thought of as the context in which that which is thought about is thought to occur.
It is said 'delusion is making of limits' one needs a context for an expression and context limits it, it collapses the probablity function and it becomes 'a special case' of expression contextualized.
Nibbana can be spoken of in several ways;

as to it being approached
as to the effect of approaching
as the principle which is seen by approaching
as the principle upon which one is said to become absorbed
as to emerging from said absorbtion
as being a destruction of delusion
as a removal of delusion which is a narrative & a making of
limits
as that which is void of delusion, void of limits, void of
objects & objectifiction; one can speak like this in a qualified & definitive sense.
as the unobjectified, unborn, unspecified, uncollapsed, as being empty of this
or that, as a freedom, as unrestricted, unrestricted as potential, as emptiness, as empty of change, empty of
elements & variables.

therefore the categorical answer depends on the exact referent. EG

"Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The
Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no
residue left.
"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
Nibbana-element with residue left.
"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here
a bhikkhu is an arahant... completely released through final
knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced,
not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is
called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
"These, bhikkhus, are the two Nibbana-elements."
These two Nibbana-elements were made known By the Seeing One, stable
and unattached: One is the element seen here and now With residue, but
with the cord of being destroyed; The other, having no residue for the
future, Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.
Having understood the unconditioned state, Released in mind with the
cord of being destroyed, They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving), Those stable ones have
abandoned all being.
Iti 44

When one speaks about the mind of the Arahant, it is void of delusion in a qualified sense but it is not the extinguishment principle which is a truth & reality by seeing which defilements come to an end and the attainment of final extinguishment which is an abandonment of all modes of being, context & expression. The mind of the Arahant is contextualized and is not thought of as not being a part of the story of the Arahant, contact and feelings which can be grasped with wrong view to be personal for the Arahant.

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

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


text:
What are the differences between the Yogacarin & Brahma Net Sutra Boddhisatva Precepts?
This google books link indicates that there is a version of the Bodhisattva Precepts with 4 major and 43 minor (as compared to 10 major and 48 minor in the BNS Bodhisattva Precepts). Does anyone know what these are?
I will also provide a link to google to demonstrate that google does not provide an answer since that seems to be a common answer here.

I take it you know the BNS precepts already, so you're asking about the Yogacara tradition.
I wonder whether this might be close to what you'e looking for (4 major and 41 minor precepts).

The Four Major Precepts
Great Ones, the following four parājikas [grave sins] are in the
  mātṛkā [collection of treatises] written by Bodhisattvas.

Praising Oneself and Criticizing Others
  If a Bodhisattva, out of his greed for benefits, praises his own virtues and criticizes others, it is called the first parājika.
Begrudging Possessions or the Dharma
  Suppose a Bodhisattva is well-to-do but stingy by nature. If he fails to invoke compassion and give poor people—who have nothing to
  depend on—the things they ask for, or refuses to teach them when they
  ask to hear the Dharma, it is called the second parājika.
Refusing to Accept Repentance
  If a Bodhisattva, out of harming and terrifying anger, refuses to accept his offender’s repentance, uses abusive speech and, not feeling
  satisfied, hits him with hands, clubs, or stones, it is called the
  third parājika.
Maligning or Adulterating the True Dharma
  If a Bodhisattva maligns Bodhisattva teachings, or pronounces supposedly similar dharmas and pretentiously establishes himself on
  such dharmas, which come from his own or someone else’s understanding,
  it is called the fourth parājika.

These precepts are in addition to the four grave prohibitions:

The eight major precepts are the “four grave prohibitions” in the glossary, and the four major precepts in the Book of Bodhisattva Precepts (Sūtra 31).

This link says that's Yogācāra:

What specifically are your concerns? I just looked at Rulu's translation of The Book of Bodhisattva Precepts and the four parājikas are the same as what is given in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra.


text:
Overwhelming thoughts - Mindfulness and awareness
So I have read and know something about awareness and doing regular tasks with attention and focus. But recently there has been chaos with my job and cause for consternation. Thoughts keep arising from my mind and there has been anxiety and that is overwhelming. I don't really resist them as they are thoughts and as such I know that is the nature of the mind. I try to accept it. But I then feel weak and give way to appease those thoughts and then start acting or reacting to them.
Could somebody's experience with Buddhism and meditation here help out with the nature of those overwhelming thoughts? It is possible there is no other way apart from meditation and accepting them calmly. But it gets too strong and then "resisting" becomes a natural tendency and I lose composure.
Also the problems tend to keep repeating themselves from my mind because they are long standing problems albeit impermanent. Makes me feel that that is the nature of problems of this worldly life anyway and then I even feel caged.

You have the same issues as everyone else. But you are choosing to work on your reactions. This in itself is a victory.

If you have thoughts that are repeating in a loop, most likely you are focusing on them or obsessing over them, intentionally or unintentionally, rather than "not resisting" them.
My understanding of not resisting thoughts is this. If you are practising mindfulness on the breath, then when any thoughts appear, just take note of the fact that the thought appeared, then go back to the breath. This way, you are neither focusing on nor suppressing those thoughts. You are instead, focusing on the breath. As soon as you realize that you left the breath to think of something else, your focus returns to the breath.
If someone tells you "don't think about monkeys", what would appear in your mind when you focus on that? Monkeys. The best way to not think of monkeys is to focus on something else. In this case, we are focusing on the breath and eventually, the mind will stick to the breath and the repetitive thoughts would rarely or never arise.
If you face problems, then you may want to solve them or mitigate their effects, if that's possible. Repetitively thinking about the problem does not actually solve the problem. Instead, it results in depression. Solving a problem and obsessing over a problem are two very separate things.
In the solution process, you may list out actions to take, execute those actions at the appropriate times, then review the outcome of those actions at the appropriate times. In between, while waiting for the "appropriate times" to come, if the repetitive thoughts return, then mindfulness meditation would be helpful to bring peace of mind.
Thanissaro Bhikku instructs in his essay:

If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.

This Scientific American article tells us the benefits of mindfulness for depression and anxiety:

As a remedy for depression and anxiety, mindfulness meditation may
  help patients let go of negative thoughts instead of obsessing over
  them. Training people to experience the present, rather than reviewing
  the past or contemplating the future, may help keep the mind out of a
  depressive or anxious loop.

Basic Breath Meditation Instructions and A Guided Meditation are two essays by Thanissaro Bhikku that instructs one into breath-based mindfulness. If the Five Hindrances disturb you, then there are antidotes mentioned in this essay by Ajahn Brahmavamso. To make mindfulness easier, Thanissaro Bhikku suggests using the "Buddho" word in the second essay. You might find that very helpful.

Great answer +1. I especially like the section on "the solution process". Thank you.

A few excerpts from suttas concerning this (I recommend their full reading):

[...] As I abided thus, diligent, ardent and resolute, a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. I understood thus: 'This thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna'. When I considered: 'This leads to my own affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to others affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to the affliction of both', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna', it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu  frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. [...]
But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

and:

[...] If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. [...]
If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation(*) of those thoughts. [...]
If while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind(**) (***).
-- Vitakkasanthāna Sutta, [Bodhi Trans.] MN 20

(*) "relaxing of thought-fabrication", per Thanissaro Bhikku
(**) "crush his mind with his awarenes", per Thanissaro Bhikku
(***) "crush unwholesome states of mind with wholesome states of mind", per Majjhima Nikāya Atthakathā

As simple as that. If it took years to get in to a bad thought-habit, how much practice does it take to reverse it? If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. But sometimes realize that force of will can add to the energy behind the obsessions. Better to see the pointlessness of them if that happens. Ego will fight for its life, but if you starve it, the battle can be won.

I really liked the way Shinzen Young recommended noting thoughts as just "image" (visual thinking) or "talk" (verbal or auditory thinking). You fully acknowledge that the thought is there, but in a way that turns you squarely away from the story/content of the thought.

Meditation is a practice that lends awareness to thought. Illuminates it in such a way that we realize that we have an awareness larger than thought... thought is not our identity and limit of reality.
This gives us a larger space in which to live and create. Tightening around the thought, avoiding the thought, clinging to the thought, wishing to have no thought so we are more comfortable... these are all "selfing"
Let the thought go, let it come... freely. Say hello and give it a hug, kiss it goodbye it is just one thought. Another will come. Welcome it also. Have some tea with it. Ask it some questions. Why have you come? What do I need to know to help you? Why do I need you to be other than you are? This is nonresistance.
The thought comes from a place that fears an outcome or desires one is trapped by karma. A belief that "Okayness" is contingent. Freedom is free from karma, not trapped by the outcome or contingency.
Be aware that each moment arises independently. That there is no self. That possibilities exist to resolve the issue effortlessly and they will be revealed as the greater presence with our being takes hold more and more.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism.SE. If possible, some citations would be useful to support your words - rather than being an advice forum, we're trying to aim for expert answer backed by authority of some sort.


text:
What is dry insight?
Following up from this answer - What is 'dry insight' exactly and how does it work. Is it a practice that someone will activity engage in or is it something that just happens to someone - a flash of inspiration out of the blue? I'm confused about how one could practice insight independent of any samatha practice if that is the meaning of it.

People who practice just dry insight seem to often be very  dry in  the loving-kindness department. A lot of dry practitioners practice Metta as well and that helps give the practitioner an attitude that leads them to peace & happiness. A cat is toying with a mouse...one monk says "look at Samsara over there" and does nothing to help the mouse. Another monk comes along and immediately  shoos  away the kitty. Who do you think practiced Metta? Are both monks correct? Does one have a better attitude?

@Lowbrow Why shoo the cat away?  Who are you being compassionate toward?  If it's a house cat, well-fed and taken care of, perhaps the answer seems simple.  But, if it's a feral cat?  Do you shoo the cat away and deprive it of its meal?  It seems you've forgotten the Jakata story of the Bodhisatta feeding his own body to a starving tigress to save her cubs.  It's definitely samsara, sure.  But is it metta to disrupt the natural flow?  Or is that just creating a different kind of suffering?

Dry insight or bare insight (suddha-vipassana) is the 'direct' way (Pali: ekayano maggo) to insight (nibbana), without jhana meditation practice (i.e. without 'upacara samadhi' or 'appana samadhi').
This direct 'momentary concentration' is called in Pali parikamma samadhi. This is the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw; U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka and others. The practitioners are called 'bare insighters' or 'dry' insighters.
You can find more information in 'The Progress of Insight (Visuddhinana-katha)' by Mahasi Sayadaw (1994): 'This approach to the ultimate goal of Buddhist meditation is called ‘bare insight’ because insight into the three characteristics of existence is made use of exclusively here, dispensing with the prior development of full concentrative absorption (jhana).’

"Dry insight", is not practicing without concentration but it is practicing without cultivating much jhana.

I wonder what the word 'dry' is implying? When I first heard the term, I though it meant an intellectual realization, rather than one based on an inner experience. Another answer says this (it is based on direct awareness of the 3 characteristics of experience) but also says that it involves a flash of insight, if I understand correctly. In what sense is it 'dry' or what would be considered not dry?

@no comprende It just means that there is no one pointed meditation or samatha but instead momentary concentration is used. Momentary concentration is when you jump from one meditation object to another with an anchor in the breath. So usually, we start out watching the breath and whatever distracts us is what we turn our awareness to until it is no longer a distraction and then we go back to the breath.

Wow. So many ways to peel the onion. I often feel after reading various descriptions that I have done many of them spontaneously at various times. I was instructed in a few ways, but encountered lots of experiences along the way that I was never told about. Big world.

Yes, there is. Like I don't know if Satori and Nibbana are even the same kind of enlightenment. Did you know that there is supposed to be a rough standard progression of spiritual progress that spans all religions?  In the Mahasi tradition they use a 16 stage progression and they have this same progression in Christian Mysticism although it's hard to recognize as the same thing so it's debatable. First we  get to know the difference between mind and body then we start to understand cause and effect between mind and body and so on up to 16 stages. It's can be challenging but rewarding.

There might well be stages that apply to many people. Have you read about the research topic: Non-Symbolic Experience? Even with stages, people vary enough that what works for one does not always work for another. As I understand it, Satori refers to a sudden insight, or "awakening experience", but Nibbana would be a persistent condition of realization. Knowing is rewarding.

Non-symbolic experience sounds like another word for empty experience.

The researcher was collecting data on nonduality, it it was the only term of hundreds he proposed that people accepted. His name is Jeffrey Martin, at Harvard.

This is the practice aimed at developing insight before wisdom. Ideally you should aim a system of practice which both can develop but taking a natural course in which develops first as both are needed. E.g. practice of Anapana.


text:
Vibrations while reading
Sometimes, when reading some Buddhist sutras, it happens that I feel strong vibrating sensations all over the body. On such occasions I 'know' that the best I can do is stopping the reading and practice vipassana. I wonder if this is 'normal'.

That's cool you pointed that out.
The Buddha and many masters of course would say that you are practicing learning-yoga where through absorbing the expressions of anyone with cultivaton attainment, you too come closer to what they experienced. Some masters even got enlightened when they heard a particular thing from a master and it caused them to look directly at "Who is the one listening?" and they found out their True Self.
Whenever I noticed this sensation in my body (very frequently) I actually get the same thought... that vipassana is the direct road... that vipassana is great and awesome and the meta-physical life is so simple, just pure awareness, and I am grateful that it is so.
I also feel my body vibrating, especially my legs sometimes my body.
I tell myself I should get to practice but due to the ideas and good feeling I oftentimes keep reading until my time is up waiting till my scheduled time to practice.. :-/
I am convinced that this is the energy channels opening and that instead of sitting like a dead duck when such an opportune moment comes, one should meditate for 10 or 20 minutes because Master Nan, one of my late teachers, himself said that we cannot attain samadhi at any time we choose, there are certain opportune moments that we should seize!
I should definitely stop myself and practice what I learn much much more like you have thought, I think that is the wise choice of action reccommended by my teachers, especially William Bodri who states that you have to mix up theory with practice, either one alone will get you nowhere.

You may be experiencing piti or rapture delight because of being concentrated on or being absorbed in reading the sutta.


text:
Impermanence and suffering in Buddhism
I have an intuitive agreement with the idea that impermanence does mean that everything either is or ends in suffering.
But I am not sure it makes rational sense.
Can anyone explain the arguments for and against this characterization of dukkha?
E.g. perhaps something has innate value, is its own end, but only relative to some time and place, such that we are not separated from the value of it when it passes. Surely, one might cliam, that would mean it is not dukkha.

There is a convolution of meanings for dukkha which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness".
Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.
In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.

So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.

hello thiago, i found that this didn't answer my question, cos i wasn't talking thins being innately unsatisfactory, but either being or ending in that, as in when we no longer have the nice big sandwich :)

Im afraid i dont understand then. Can you elaborate on your question? Ill try to revise the answer once its clear to me

i have to find quotes? i thought it was standard reading of the pali canon to say that even what brings us pleasure will be painful "separation from the pleasant is dukkha"

I'm sorry, feel free to correct me if you notice I still don't understand. The example you gave in your question is dukkha in the "bigger sense" (first noble truth sense) described above by Bodhi. The sandwich example is dukkha also in that sense. It is not dukkha experience, however, in the ordinary sense of painful experience (which the word "dukkha" is also used) -- it passed, it was pleasant, but it it is not an "existential, permanent satisfaction", grossly speaking. I believe variant terms for different kinds of dukkha are used in some texts, but I'm not quite familiar with this.

The "even what brings us pleasure will be painful" refers to something else (though related): its known as the danger of sense pleasures, and our tendency to develop craving/clinging to such things, thus further developing ignorance, etc. In this way, the Buddha recommends "sense pleasures should be regarded as dukkha".

same in the higher realms tho, i thought? i'll find a quote :) ! or try...

collins:
suffering thru change... can be registered phenomenologically as ordinary suffering thru the distress at the cessation of pleasurable feeling
selfless person p1nine1

After you eat the sandwich you will be hungry again.
After years of enjoying a loved ones company they or you will die.
After paying your electric bill you will have to do it again next month.
After having good physical health for several years you will get heart disease or cancer.
After buying your new car it will eventually need a new transmission and you will have to buy anothet car.
After a major promotion at work you will eventually become to old to work and you will retire.
After enjoying a sunset, it will become dark outside.
It is all impermanent.

The Dukka (translated as 'suffering' in English) explained by Lord Buddha in Dukka Ariya Sacca is not the sorrow we feel due to hardships, etc. in day to day lives. Even non Buddhists are aware of such things, and you don't need a Buddha to explain it. The Dukka Ariya Sacca described in 4 Noble Truths, refers to a much deeper concept. This is elaborated in Saccavibhaṅgasutta (aptly named as it means to elaborate the truth).
As someone who studied Dhamma in my native language, I find it quite difficult to explain this in English. This is one of the most subtle and deep portions of Dhamma. So, you should do your own research and study in order to understand Dukka properly. Please excuse me for the long answer, but I don't think summarizing is possible without destroying the meaning.
Lets take the eye for an example;
Your eye receives a picture (bunch of photons). When this picture is received, and it is combined with the mind, to result cakkha vinnana which results vedana (sense), Saññā(signal), Saṅkāra, vitakka and papanca. (Refer: Madhupiṇḍikasutta for more details).
This process results us building a world around us. Which is not the reality. In this interpretation, when you see things, lets say your house, your family, your kids, etc. it results the view of 'nicca' or constant/permanent world around us. Lord Budhdha explains to us about the view of 'anicca' (non constant or impermanent view), which helps us see through this bubble we have built around us. Anicca in this context means; effects will cease to exist, when the causes for those effects are ceased (93. Dutiyadvayasutta). Personally, I view this as an explanation of a process rather than a 'thing'.  We deceive ourselves (moha) by interpreting this process as a constant world, and convince ourselves that there is a 'self' that perceives that world.
Take for an example, a man comes in front of you.

If you are a parent of that man - your see a son.
If you are married to that man - you see your husband.
If you are one of his kids - you see a father.
If he a friend of yours - you see a friend.
If you are holding a grudge against him - you see an enemy.

Did the man change from occasion to occasion or person to person? did the photons that traveled from his body to your eyes changed in these occasions? Everyone saw the same man, but each party interpreted that picture differently, based on the associations formed in their mind. Like this, we only feel our mind. The picture from outside is just a helping stimulus. The feeling, the reality we build in our mind is personal to us. Based on the abstraction we have built up in our own mind, we generate attachments; ether lobha (attraction), dosa (repulsion) or upekhā (neither attraction nor repulsion). This is the reason, while the parents, wife, kids may love the man in the above example, the person who holds a grudge views the same man as an enemy. Man's picture that has met their eyes were evaluated against different abstractions, and placed in different characters in each receiver's world. None have see the man, everyone had seen a reflection of their own mind. And we constantly try to find happiness in this made up world.
Let me prove that this conceptual world is personal to us. Lets say a homeless person who have not had a meal in days received a Pizza. How would it taste to him? Could be the best Pizza he ever had. A billionaire is given the same Pizza to eat. He would view it as 'crappy food' and even reject it. That same billionaire gets kidnapped and thrown in a room where he have to starve for days. Would he view the Pizza with the same contempt after being starved? Did the Pizza change? Why did the Homeless man and Billionaire view the same Pizza differently? Its because their conceptual worlds are different. Why did the same Pizza was viewed differently by the Billionaire before and after starvation? Its because the concepts in his conceptual world changed.
While we live in our conceptual world, in the reality the picture that stimulated the eye is no more. The picture of the man has met our eye, generated a stimulus and ceased to exist in that form. This is why Lord Buddha teaches us 'cakkhu aniccaṁ' - eye is impermanent. But in our conceptual world we see a Son, a Husband, a Father, a Friend or an enemy (a person) who continues to exist. None of those classifications came to us with the picture of the man that met our eye. All that is assigned by our own mind. Concepts associated to the external stimulus builds the conceptual world that each person lives in. The main reason behind building this conceptual world is to ascertain yourself that 'you' exist. The logic is simple; 'because I see the world, I exist'.
'Ditto dittamattam' - What you see is simply a picture. It ends then and there. 'vinñāṇaṁ vinñāṇaṁattam - What you learned or 'got to know' (as a result) ends there. The reality is that these are two processes. Since the causes of these cease to exist, their effects cease to exist too. Its us who combine these two and build up a whole world around us fooling ourselves to believing a 'nicca' (constant) conceptual world exists.
See, 22.85. Yamaka Sutta; where it discuss the question: 'Is there a re-birth for Arahant after death?'. A monk named Yamaka was in the view that Arahant is not re-born after death. To break this wrong view Maha Sariputta Thero asks Yamaka Thera the following questions:

Do you think the rupa became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think vedana became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think sanna became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think sankhara became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think vinnana became Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.

Was there an Arahant without the above 5 elements? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Do you think those 5 elements was the Arahant? Yamaka Thera answers: no.
Then what Arahant won't be born after death?

While we view that an Arahant will not be re-born after death in the conceptual world, we must realize that the aforementioned process cannot be recognized as a person or animal (satva, puggala saññā) in reality. Just a cause and effect relationship of 5 skhandha which cease to exist when causes of those skhandha ceases (Referred as: skhandha udayabbaya).
Lord Buddha teaches: 'Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ' - everything that is 'anicca' results 'Dukka'. This does not mean the suffering we feel in our body or mind or loss in material world. The Dukka Ariya Sacca discussed in 4 noble truths must be perceived through wisdom. Its not a thing you can feel. It is not a thing in your mind. It refers to 4 characteristics of elements:

Pīḷana (Pīḷana atto): This refers to dissolution of cause. If we take the example of the eye; can the photons that bring the picture maintain the picture constantly? No it can't. Can the eye maintain the picture constantly (on its own)? No it can't either. The moment the photons provide the stimulation, the picture was created, and the next moment it ceases to exist. The next moment, a new set of photons provide a new stimulus and eye can generate a new picture which ceases to exist the next moment.
Saṅkhata (Saṅkhata atto): refers to the elements that are the results of a cause. The picture that resulted due to the stimulus from the photons.
Viparināma (Viparināma atto): since the causes cannot maintain a constant existence, and they continue to change, the effects have to undergo changes as well. This transforming characteristic is referred to as Viparināma. The photons provided the stimulus ceased to exist in that form, the resulting picture also ceased to exist.
Santāpa (Santāpa atto): Refers to the maturity of nama and rupa. It is explained that this is related to Tejo dathu which is related to the ability to mature or grow.

Dukka Ariya Sacca is referred to as Dukka due to the above 4 characteristics. Take note that those 4 characteristics exist in everything. Things we evaluate to Happiness, Sadness or upekhā (neither sad nor happy) all things have above 4 characteristics, making Dukka Ariya Sacca a universal truth.

this reads a bit like the claim that, because everything is impermanent, it is like a picture of things, and so any value (I don't mean pleasure we partake in with) it has  is likewise a mirage. is that right?

The Dhukka Arya Sathya explains characteristics of the perceived world. The ultimate question however is not about the outer world. What started as a bunch of photons stimulating a sense, ended up being a person, animal or a thing and we ended up  forming attachments of different sorts to them. These attachments result us with different sensations which binds us to Sansara. The biggest sensation we strive through all of this is to ascertain that 'I exist'. In the end its all a process which makes up the cycles of Sansara.

the 1st paragraph of this answer appears wrong.

the following statement is wrong. "Lord Buddha teaches: 'Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ' - everything that is 'anicca' results 'Dukkha'. This does not mean the suffering we feel in our body or mind or loss in material world. The Dukkha Ariya Sacca discussed in 4 noble truths must be perceived through wisdom."

the suffering felt in the body or mind or loss in material world is the subject of  the Dukkha Ariya Sacca discussed in 4 noble truths, that is, the 1st Sermon of The Buddha

Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ is the topic of the Three Characteristics, the 2nd Sermon of the Buddha.

@StopObama-BidenStopWar: I learned Dhamma in my mother tongue and it is inevitable I still think in my mother tongue. If you feel any of my answers are misleading you are free to, edit or even remove the answer. I understand that having an answer that creates confusion is against the purpose of this forum.

You should use the same Pali as others. You can learn easier than myself because your native language is closer to Pali than my native language. Thank you for your posts here but this is an English language forum and your Pali should be the standard form. The words I bolded i cannot discern. If i cannot discern your Singhalese then most other people cannot. Thank you

@StopObama-BidenStopWar Many thanks for editing the post an correcting the pali-english translation errors I have made. I have updated the ones you had marked in bold and added a few links to references. If you still feel the answer is confusing and beyond redemption, please go ahead and remove it. Confusing the reader was not my intention.

Not 'all' end in Dukkha, rather anything that follows Akusala-mula Paṭicca Samuppāda will end in Dukkha. But there is another version of Paṭicca Samuppāda which is the Kusala-mula Paṭicca Samuppāda which is the way to Nibbāna and does not end in Dukkha.
It is also said the way to Nibbāna is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle, and beautiful in the end. So for one who is treading the Kusala-mula version of Paṭicca Samuppāda no Dukkha will touch him/her.
The main point is that there are two types Paṭicca Samuppāda, one which is the painful endless cycle of becoming and the other of liberation. So it is not right to say "everything either is or ends in suffering"!

"If we translate anicca as impermanent, the connection among these Three Characteristics might seem debatable. But if we translate it as inconstant, and consider the Three Characteristics in light of the Buddha’s original question, the connection is clear. If you’re seeking a dependable basis for long-term happiness and ease, anything inconstant is obviously a stressful place to pin your hopes — like trying to relax in an unstable chair whose legs are liable to break at any time."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "All About Change" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/PurityOfHeart/Section0008.html

interesting, thanks

everything either is or ends in suffering

That which you say ends in suffering can be said on that account to be a creating of that which is there when it ends, for that reason also a suffering and not something that should be.

The word 'dukkha' is used in three different ways in the Pali suttas:
#1. 'Dukkha vedana', which refers to 'painful feelings' at sense contact. The fully enlightened continue to experience 'dukkha vedana', as explained in Iti 44
#2. 'Dukkha lakkhana', which is the 'unsatisfactory characteristic' or lack of pleasure in impermament things, which is the subject of the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59). The fully enlightened continue to experience or directly see 'dukkha lakkhana', as explained in Dhammapada 278, as follows:

“All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha #2)”—when one sees this with
wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha #3). This is the path to
purification.

#3. Saṅkhāra Dukkha, which means the mental suffering of self-becoming, attachment & craving, which is the subject of the Four Noble Truths. This type of 'dukkha' the fully enlightened have completely ended so it never arises again.

Impermanence is a profound concept. It says that feelings do not die or live forever. They are impermanent. They arise , change and vanish.
Let us say a good feeling arises...It will arise based on some condition. Let us say the a good food gives rise to good feeling of satisfaction...
Impermanence says that good feeling is not always achievable.
Sometimes the food is impure. Sometimes the stomach is not right. Sometimes there is no food.Sometimes there is no body to feed.
Bad feeling is inevitable,if there was a good feeling about something.
Why this is so ? Because all aggregates are impermanent... all sanskars are impermanent. Why are sanskars impermanent..? because sanskars are a result of conditioning.. and all conditioning are impermanent...


text:
Why choose to attain Nirvana when we can become Brahmas (or Bodhisattvas)?
As I understand, once someone attains Nirvana and passes away, there is no more dependant arising, meaning this person no longer manifests as a person or being in any realm. This also means that this person loses his personhood (although this personhood is impermanent and is part of dukkha).
On the other hand, by achieving the first four Jhanas, a person could be reborn in the Brahma realms, which I understand to be the best beings in the universe, besides the Bodhisattvas. Of course, this is still impermanent and part of dukkha, but one could keep trying over and over to be reborn again and again in the Brahma realms.
The other possibility is to become a (Mahayana) Bodhisattva, in which case one maintains his personhood also. Although a Bodhisattva is destined to become a Buddha.
The question is, why should sentient beings choose to end their personhood permanently, rather than trying to be reborn again and again as the best person possible?

"Of course, this is still impermanent and part of dukkha, but one could keep trying over and over to be reborn again and again in the Brahma realms." - Well, but it's not completely under your control - it may well happen that when one falls from a Brahma Realm and is reborn in a lower - one forgets about one's past life and one's bad karma having matured - one's intention is no longer pure (Moreover, the circumstances one is reborn in may be exceptionally disagreeable/unfavorable for treading the Path of Purity - depending on one's karma of course)

And of course - the important thing to realize is that the Brahmas Realms or even Bodhisattas are still not completely free from suffering - So, it is important ask oneself - Why would one wish to be content with a lesser amount of suffering - when the complete cessation of suffering has been declared to the world by the Tathagata ?

@Monk Good arguments. Please add it to your answer. Also with any scriptural quotes.

ruben2020, I have updated my answer

Interesting related sutta: https://suttacentral.net/en/iti22

"[...] This also means that this person loses his personhood (although this personhood is impermanent and is part of dukkha)."
I wouldn't say "loses". It may be worth reminding that Nirvana should not be considered annihilation. Complementing:

Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be suffering will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]. [...] [But] it is possible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be hapiness will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching].
-- Nibbāna [Bodhi Trans.], AN 6:101

"On the other hand, by achieving the first four Jhanas, a person could be reborn in the Brahma realms, which I understand to be the best beings in the universe, besides the Bodhisattvas."
Personal preferences aside, if we are talking about happiness, Nibbāna is declared to be supreme. A happiness and security from suffering unknown to a Brahma or Bodhisattva.
Also, perhaps is not so surprising the idea of devas of superior realms desiring to be born as humans:

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.
-- Khana Sutta, SN 35.135

"[...] but one could keep trying over and over to be reborn again and again in the Brahma realms."
...and, while trying, out of inattention or forgetfulness or simply ignorance, one may do something foolish -- because that's what we do as ignorants. Foolish enough to open one's mind to darker unwholesome states, perhaps in a chain reaction, and end up in a worse destination (though reappearing as a human during a time with no dhamma, and no condition to develop oneself to become a Buddha might be bad enough). Perhaps you were Brahma before, and now here you are, among humans (again?). I guess, as long as one thinks this endeavor is worth...
"The question is, why should sentient beings choose to end their personhood permanently, rather than trying to be reborn again and again as the best person possible?"
One way of answering is to ask "What's to end?".
Here is an appeal from the Buddha himself as to why one should reach Nirvana:

"Bhikkhus, this samsāra is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more: the stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable -- this or the water in the four great oceans?"
"[...] venerable sir, [...] this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans."
"Good, good, bhikkhus! It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in such a way. [...] For a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced the death of a father ... the death of a brother ... the death of a sister ... the death of a daughter ... the loss of relatives ... the loss of wealth ... the loss through illness [...]. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsāra is without discoverable beginning ... It is enough to experience revulsion towards all formations, enough to become dispassionate towards them, enough to be liberated from them."
-- Tears [Bodhi Trans.], SN 15.3

In addition to this answer, the story of a Brahma being reborn as a pig is also useful to show that being a Brahma is not guarantee of being reborn in good destinations.

"Of course, this is still impermanent and part of dukkha, but one could keep trying over and over to be reborn again and again in the Brahma realms." - Well, but it's not completely under your control - it may well happen that when one falls from a Brahma Realm and is reborn in a lower - one forgets about one's past life and one's bad karma having matured - one's intention is no longer pure (Moreover, the circumstances one is reborn in may be exceptionally disagreeable/unfavorable for treading the Path of Purity - depending on one's karma of course). I think the following story should make this point clear.

IN BRAHMA LAND HE SHINES BRIGHT; IN PIG'S PEN, TOO, HE FINDS DELIGHT
At one time, the Blessed One went into Rãjagiri for almsround. On
  seeing a young female pig, the Blessed One smiled. Noticing the white
  radiation which shone forth from the teeth of the Buddha, the
  Venerable Ànandã knew that the Buddha was smiling. Accordingly, he
  asked: "What has caused, Sire, to smile?"
The Blessed One pointed out the young female pig to Ànandã and said,
  "See that young female pig? She was a young woman in human existence
  during the dispensation of Kakusanda Buddha. When she died, she was
  reborn a hen in the neighbourhood of a monastic feeding hall. The
  small hen fell victim to an eagle. But earlier she happened to have
  heard the recitation by a yogi Buddhist monk of a meditation subject
  which aroused in her wholesome thoughts. By virtue of these merits,
  the small hen was reborn as a princess named Ubbari in a royal family.
  The princess Ubbari later left the household life and became a
  wandering mendicant. Residing in the mendicants' residence she
  happened one day to gaze at the maggots in the latrine. The worms
  served as an object for meditation (contemplation of ugliness of
  worm-infested corpse or contemplation of a white object) by which she
  attained the first jhãna. When she passed away, she was reborn a
  Brahma in the first jhãnic Brahma world. On expiry from the Brahma
  world, she became the daughter of a rich man in the human world which
  she left again only to be born a pig now. I saw all these events which
  made me smile."
On hearing this story of repeated births in various existences,
  Venerable Ànandã and other monks became greatly alarmed and agitated
  with religious emotion. The Blessed One stopped going on alms-round
  and while still standing on the roadway, started teaching the dhamma
  in six verses, the first one of which stated:
Yathãpi móle anupaddove dalhe,
chinnopi rukho punareva róhati
evaõpi tanhã nusaye anuhate
nibbattati dukkhamidaõ punappunam

'If the main roots of a tree remain undamaged and in good condition,
  even when the upper branches are cut off that tree will grow again
  developing new buds and shoots. Likewise, if there remains defilements
  (lying dormant) which are not yet eradicated by ariya magga, this
  suffering of rebirth will arise time and again successively.'
What is conveyed by this verse is this: 'During her existence as
  princess Ubbari, she renounced the world to become a wanderer. By
  practising meditation, she attained the first jhãna which could dispel
  or put away by vikkhambhana pahãna (elimination by discarding) only
  the defilements of pariyutthana class, i.e. craving for sensual
  pleasure which appears as sensuous thoughts at the mind's door. By
  means of vikkhambhana pahãna, jhãna can put away the defilements only
  to a certain distance for a certain period of time. Thus, she was able
  to dispel the craving for sensual pleasure when she attained the first
  jhãna and later in the Brahma world. But when she was born again in
  the human world as the daughter of a wealthy man, the craving for
  sensual pleasure reappeared because it had not been rooted out by the
  ariya magga. The bhava tanhã (craving for existence), of course,
  persisted even when she had attained the jhãna. Because the latent
  defilements had not been completely uprooted, she had to descend from
  the Brahma world, through the human world, into a pig's existence. So
  long as the craving persists, repeated rebirths will take place in
  this way in various existences.'
In reference to this story of descent from the Brahma world to a pig's
  existence, ancient Sayadaws had left an aphorism, 'In Brahma land, she
  shines bright; in pig's pen, too, she finds delight'. But it is not
  possible to be reborn as a pig straight from the Brahma world, nor as
  any other animal nor in the realms of petas (starving ghosts) nor in
  the states of misery. By virtue of the upacãra bhãvanã, the access
  meditation, proximate to the jhãna previously attained, rebirth can
  take place only as a human being or in the celestial abode. The young
  female pig of the above story also passed through human life where she
  was born as the daughter of a wealthy man. It is quite possible that
  she landed in a pig's existence after being the daughter of a wealthy
  man because of the bad kamma she had committed then, in being haughty
  and insolent to those she should have shown respect.
When the young female pig died, she was reborn in a royal family of
  Suvannabhumi, which is generally taken to be the country of Thaton.
  Some scholars, however, take Suvannabhumi to be the Sumatra island,
  relying on the bronze inscriptions made by the King Devapala about
  1500 Buddhist era.
From being a princess of Suvannabhumi, she passed over to Varanasi,
  India, as a woman. She then became a woman in Varãnasi, in south-east
  of Bombay. From there, she was reborn the daughter of a horse-merchant
  in the seaport town of Supparaka, north-west of Bombay. Next, she
  became the daughter of a shipowner at the port of Kavira in the
  south-easternmost part of the Indian peninsular. This is the coastal
  district inhabited by the Tamil people, formerly called Damila. After
  that life, she was reborn in the family of a government official at
  Anuradha or present day Sri Lanka. Her next life was as a daughter of
  a rich man, named Sumana from Bhokkanta, a village south of Anuradha.
  She took the same name as her father, Sumana. Later her father left
  that village and settled down in the Mahãmuni village of the Dighavapi
  District. One day, a minister of the king Dutthagãmini, named
  Lakundala Atimbara, happened to visit the Mahamuni village on a
  certain business. Upon seeing the young lady Sumana, he fell madly in
  love with her. He married her with great pomp and ceremony and carried
  her off to his village, Mahãpunna.
The Venerable Mahã Anuruddha, who resided at the monastery of
  Taungsun, happened to visit her village for alms-round. While waiting
  for offer of almsfood at the gate of Sumana's house, he saw Sumana and
  said to his monk followers: "Bhikkhus, how wonderful, what a marvel!
  The young female pig of the Blessed One's time is now the wife of the
  minister Lakundaka Atimbara."
On hearing this exclamation, Sumana, the wife of the minister,
  developed jatissara ñãna (knowledge of previous existences). With the
  help of this faculty, she recalled to her mind the previous existences
  she had passed through. In consequence, she became agitated with fear
  at the prospect of repeated births in the cycle of existences. Asking
  permission from her minister husband, she went to a bhikkhuni
  monastery and got herself ordained. After ordination, she listened to
  the discourse on Satipaööhãna Sutta at Tissa Mahã Vihãra monastery.
  Practising mindfulness meditation in accordance with the sutta, she
  became a sotapanna, well-established as a stream-winner in the first
  stage of the Path and Fruition. Then, when king Dutthagamini came on
  the throne, she went back to her native village, Bhokkanta, where at
  the Kalla Mahã Vihãra monastery she heard the discourse on Asivisopana
  Sutta which enabled her to attain the fourth stage of the Fruition and
  became an Arahat, completely free from influxes, passions.
Going over the thirteen existences of Sumana thoughtfully and
  mindfully, one could get aroused with religious emotion. When, as the
  young woman at the time of the Kakusanda Buddha died, she left behind
  her family, possessions and her own physical body. The bereft family
  and friends would have grieved over her death. She became a hen. What
  a frightful thought, a human being to be reborn a hen! That hen would
  have a family and friends, too. She met with a terrible death, from
  decapitation, when an eagle seized her and struck her fiercely with
  its beak. There is consolation, however, that she was reborn a
  princess for the merit accrued from having heard a discourse on
  meditation. The hen would not, of course, know anything of the dhamma,
  but as she had given devout attention to the discourse, certain merit
  would have accrued to her for which she was reborn a princess.
  Listening to a dhamma discourse is thus very beneficial and fruitful.
It is a matter for gratification that she became a Brahma after being
  a princess by virtue of her jhãnic attainments. It is gratifying too
  that from the Brahma world she was reborn in the human world into a
  wealthy family. But it is very distressing to know that she left
  behind her family, friends and possessions reluctantly to be reborn a
  female pig. It is really frightful to think of descending to human
  plane from the Brahma world and to sink further still into animal
  kingdom as a pig. This should be enough to excite alarm and religious
  emotion because so long as the noble ariya magga has not been
  established, anyone is liable to find himself landed in lowly states
  of existence. It was with the intention of arousing religious emotions
  and exhorting the bhikkhus to take to dhamma in all earnestness that
  the Blessed One had told them the account of the female hen's
  succession of existences.
How the young female pig met her death was not mentioned in the texts,
  but it could be presumed that she was slaughtered by her breeder as in
  modern times. The young female pig must have had a family and friends
  which she left behind, causing grief to them. It was comforting that
  she was reborn afterwards as a human being in six places from
  Suvannabhómi to Anurãdha. But in each of these existences, every time
  she departed from one life there must have been considerable suffering
  from sorrow, lamentation and grief for her and her dear ones. That she
  finally became Bhikkhuni Sumana Theri is the most heartening part of
  the story.
The cause of the succession of her existences departing from one life
  to be reborn in another is tanhã or samudaya saccã, the Truth of the
  Origin of Suffering. Other people who are not yet rid of tanhã will
  likewise go through the cycle of rebirths, dying from one life to be
  reborn in another. It is extremely important, therefore, to get
  established in the practice of the Noble Ariyan Path in order to
  eradicate tanhã, otherwise called the Truth of the Origin of
  Suffering. Sumana Theri first heard the discourse on Satipatthãna
  Sutta. Then she practised mindfulness in accordance with the
  Satipatthãna method which helped her attain the status of sotapanna
  (the stream-winner). Then, hearing the Asivisopana Sutta, she devoted
  herself more ardently to the practice and attained Arahatta Fruition
  to become a female Arahat. Tanhã, otherwise samudaya, was completely
  eradicated from her. Therefore, there would be no more rebirth for her
  and she would be enjoying peace after her parinibbana.
Sumana Theri, therefore, declared to her colleagues that she would
  fully pass away (parinibbhuto) after the ayusaïkhãra, the vital
  principle for her present existence had become exhausted. Thereupon,
  her colleagues, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis requested of her the story of
  her existences. "I was a human woman at the time of the Kakusanda
  Buddha. When I died from there, I became a hen. I was killed by an
  eagle which broke off my head and devoured me. Then I became a
  princess in the human world . . ." she continued to recount her past
  existences till the time of her final existence at Bhokkanta village.
  She concluded, "Thus have I passed through thirteen existences
  encountering the ups and downs, vicissitudes of life in each
  existence. In this last existence, being wearied of the cycle of
  rebirths, I have become an ordained bhikkhuni and finally attained
  Arahatship. I urge all of you, my righteous bhikkhus and bhikkhunis,
  to put forth your endeavour mindfully to become fully accomplished in
  sila, samãdhi and paññã." Then she passed away, causing religious
  agitation in the minds of her audience, consisting of men, women,
  bhikkhus and bhikkhunis. This story of the young female pig is fully
  described in the commentary to the Dhammapada.

And of course - the important thing to realize is that the Brahmas Realms or even Bodhisattas are still not completely free from suffering - So, it is important ask oneself - Why would one wish to be content with a lesser amount of suffering - when the complete cessation of suffering has been declared to the world by the Tathagata ?
You can read in greater detail about rebirth and dependent-origination here :
http://www.buddhanet.net/wheeld05.htm
This is how the Buddha compares rebirth in the Brahma Realm with Nibbana :

Sariputta : "What do you think, Dhanañjanin? Which is better: hell or the animal
  womb?"
"The animal womb is better than hell, Master Sariputta."
"... Which is better: the animal womb or the realm of the hungry
  shades?"
"... the realm of the hungry shades..."
"... the realm of the hungry shades or human beings?"
"... human beings..."
"...human beings or the Four Great King devas?"
"...the Four Great King devas..."
"...the Four Great King devas or the devas of the Thirty-three?"
"...the devas of the Thirty-three..."
"...the devas of the Thirty-three or the Yama devas?"
"...the Yama devas..."
"...the Yama devas or the Tusita devas?"
"...the Tusita devas..."
"...the Tusita devas or the Nimmanarati devas?"
"...the Nimmanarati devas..."
"...the Nimmanarati devas or the Paranimmitavasavatti devas?"
"...the Paranimmitavasavatti devas..."
"...the Paranimmitavasavatti devas or the Brahma world?"
"Did Master Sariputta say, 'Brahma world'? Did Master Sariputta say,
  'Brahma world'?"
Then the thought occurred to Ven. Sariputta, "These brahmans are set
  on the Brahma world. What if I were to teach Dhanañjanin the brahman
  the path to union with the Brahmas?"
[So he said:] "Dhanañjanin, I will teach you the path to union with
  the Brahmas. Listen and pay careful attention to that. I will speak."
"As you say, master," Dhanañjanin the brahman responded to Ven.
  Sariputta.
Ven. Sariputta said: "And what is the path to union with the Brahmas?
  There is the case where a monk keeps pervading the first direction
  [the east] with an awareness imbued with good will, likewise the
  second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, &
  all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the
  all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill
  will. He keeps pervading the first direction with an awareness imbued
  with compassion ... appreciation ... equanimity, likewise the second,
  likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all
  around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the
  all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with equanimity —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill
  will. This, Dhanañjanin, is the path to union with the Brahmas."
"In that case, Master Sariputta, pay homage to the Blessed One's feet
  with your head in my name and say 'Lord, Dhanañjanin the brahman is
  diseased, in pain, severely ill. He pays homage with his head to the
  Blessed One's feet.'"
So Ven. Sariputta — when there was still more to be done, having
  established Dhanañjanin the brahman in the inferior Brahma world —
  got up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Ven. Sariputta's
  departure, Dhanañjanin the brahman died and reappeared in the Brahma
  world.
And the Blessed One said to the monks, "Monks, Sariputta — when there
  was still more to be done, having established Dhanañjanin the brahman
  in the inferior Brahma world — has gotten up from his seat and left."
Then Ven. Sariputta 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, "Lord, Dhanañjanin the brahman is diseased, in pain,
  severely ill. He pays homage with his head to the Blessed One's feet."
"But why, Sariputta — when there was still more to be done, having
  established Dhanañjanin the brahman in the inferior Brahma world — did
  you get up from your seat and leave?"
"The thought occurred to me, lord, 'These brahmans are set on the
  Brahma worlds. What if I were to teach Dhanañjanin the brahman the
  path to union with the Brahmas?'"
"Sariputta, Dhanañjanin the brahman has died and reappeared in the
  Brahma world."
Dhanañjāni Sutta (MN 97)

Great story on a Brahma being reborn as a pig


text:
How do you "meditate on" a saying or subject?
When you search for "meditate on" on Google, suggested completions include scripture, love, death, a word.
I have read a lot about meditating by using your breath as a focal point, but have never come across an example where a word, phrase, or feeling is the desired focal point.  What is the process of doing that?
For example, how would I meditate on Yoda's well-known quote "Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try."?
For another, how would I meditate on a feeling, like love or fear?

For meditating on love - we use Metta meditation - in accordance with the Karaniya Metta Sutta and the Visuddhimagga - Ajahn Brahm teaches Metta Meditation in a very simple but effective way - you can read his teaching here - http://mettarefuge.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ajahn-brahmavamso-teaches-loving-kindness/ . For a much more detailed, Visuddhimagga-based approach , you can read Mahasi Sayadaw's teaching on the Brahmaviharas here - http://buddhanet.net/brahmaviharas/bvihara1.htm

Often, in Buddhism, we use words to focus the mind on our meditation subject but never purely on words - the reason simply being that words are a conventional reality - the correlation between the sound,image and meaning aspects of any word are merely a convention - whereas, as Buddhist - our primary goal is to awaken to the true nature of ultimate reality (in the sense of that which is actually experience-able, or phenomenological reality).

Thupten Jinpa describes how to meditate on loving-kindess and compassion, using yes, words.

The breath is one of forty meditation objects according to the Visuddhimagga. For the full detail, see here, for a brief summary, see here

The full document is an excellent resource. Thank you, @santa100!

I would say it depends on the tradition you follow. In general, it probably means to focus your mind on the word, phrase, or feeling, to the exclusion of other mental phenomena.
Coming from the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition of vipassana meditation, we might read a scripture, and make a mental note "reading... reading..."
While reading, we may get a pleasant or frightened feeling as we learn something from the text, so we then make a mental note "happy... happy..." or "fear... fear..."
As we go back to reading, we might come across a passage that we don't fully understand. Then we can make a mental note "confused... confused..." and so on.
The example I have given may or may not be helpful, since in our tradition we only meditate on directly observable phenomena as categorized in the Satipatthana Sutta. Overall, if you don't have much experience with meditation in general, I would suggest to find a teacher, and learn what you can. After you have gained some experience with meditation, then applying the teachings in daily life will be a more intuitive and less confusing task.
As for Yoda, all that I get is confusion so I say to myself (mentally) "confused... confused..."

Thank you, qweilun. Is the Satipatthana Sutta specific to the Mahashi Sayadaw tradition?

@StevenEdwards no actually. It is the basis for many modern meditation schools in the Theravada tradition, especially in Burmese traditions like Mahasi.

The idea of a "focal point" is somewhat misleading, in that it implies attempting to impose a permanent point of focus. Even within the phrase "focus on the breath" we see that this does not refer to some limited focal point, but rather an ever fluctuating process.
To narrow this even further, if we just look at it from a moment-to-moment relation, at the so-called in-breath/out-breath as it happens. What we see is that the in-breath itself cannot be pin pointed, nor can the out-breath.
In other words, there is no-point of focus to be found!
The terms "focus" and "concentration" can be easily misappropriated as implying "to gain control".
So, the phrase "focal point" can also be misappropriated as implying "to gain control of a specific object";ie. to gain control of thoughts, awareness, breathing, etc.
Probably the most common mistake in practice is when it is motivated by a "gaining-idea"!!
For most students/practitioners this is also the most difficult aspect of meditation practice to understand and overcome.
That there is no-thing to be gained, no-point, no-reason, no-purpose, etc. to be found in the practice.
To simply "just sit" and nothing more!
To do so without attributing any reason, purpose, etc., and without conjecture, explanation, expectation, or any other storyline/narrative as to why we do it, why it's important, or what we gain or lose as a result!
So, in regards to words, phrases, etc., as a focal point, it is simply a matter of curiosity, contemplation, examination, etc., without any ulterior motives, or expectations of gaining.
It's not a matter of some specific focal point, but rather of simply paying attention to the breath, to thoughts, to the inconsistency of focus itself, and to the limitations of our influence.
And rather than picking one particular word, phrase, etc., as an object of focus, we should just be open and curious in general, and respond intuitively with the appropriate question.
What is this?
Where did it come from?
Does this have some origin?
Who is asking?
Who wants to know?
Etc...

Thank you for the response, Brad. Does this mean if I wanted to examine a word/phrase/feeling, I would focus on its essence--of what it means to me? Taking love, for example, would I examine its meaning, its implications, etc?

I'd say that just focus on the overall fluctuation without attachment, letting the thoughts flow without examining them.
Ultimately you will reach a pure silence.
First you have to be good at normal meditation (read breathing meditation) in order to understand all the elements in my 1st sentence.

Well, you should challenge what it means; both to you, and as general conventional term.
You should challenge that there is such a thing, and that anything at all possesses any inherent meaning. You should challenge this desire for certainty, this desire to make speculative assumptions about any and all phenomena, to attempt to isolate them, attribute definitive labels and meanings to them, categorize, and pin things down. You should challenge that there is anything at all to be gained or lost, to become or annihilate, etc.
What is love? Does it actually exist beyond these four letters which are aligned in a specific order and designated to a particular concept? If it does, then how? As a feeling? What is a feeling beyond the concept of it?
Etc.. Etc.
The point is to deconstruct our own preconceived notions, and challenge our certainties. Because the essence of things is not found through speculative assumptions mistaken as certainties, or imposed meanings mistaken as the essence.
If we expect meditation to be some sort of tool for 'gaining this' or 'losing that', we will inevitability be disappointed by these expectations.
So, if we engage in meditation with the expectation of 'attaining/gaining' some sort of understanding or certainty, or 'avoiding/losing' pain and discomfort, this is a mistake. Meditation is a tool for recognition only. Simply recognizing everything as it is, that is liberation.
Shunryu Suzuki Roshi said something like:

"When you see something, then you intellectualize it.
  Then it is no longer what you saw."

To intellectualize things is to project a conceptual shadow over reality. We mistake these conceptualized forms, these shadows for being real. Then we chase them like kittens because we think that they can be captured and pinned down. And despite the futility of this, we continue to chase them every chance we get.
During meditation we just watch these shadows dance around without chasing  them. And whenever we find ourselves being tempted to chase them, or if we have already begun to chase them, we simply return our attention to the breath.
So, it is this balance between "chasing"; deep contemplation, curiosity, challenging preconceived notions and biases, and "not chasing”; returning our attention to the breath, simple awareness as it is.
I hope that this is of some benefit and helps to encourage your practice :)

Probably the closest that Buddhism comes to what you described is koan practice.  In that form of meditation, the meditator focuses on the "turning phrase" of the koan.  For instance, in regards to Joshu's Dog, the practitioner simply repeats the word "mu" on every out breath.  No discursive thought is made on that word.  You simply repeat it in your mind as if you were actually saying it aloud.  The difficulty here is that inevitably, discursive thought will arise - both about the koan and about things in general.  As the mind drifts down these avenues, the practitioner must reapply it to that word.  Eventually, the meditator will begin to notice certain things about that word; certain experiences will also arise.  These are the things that are then presented to the teacher who will in turn decided if the student has penetrated into the meaning of that particular koan.


text:
Was meditation not practiced for most of the history of Buddhism?
In a recent Buddhist Geeks podcast the presenter Bodhipaksa stated that by the time the Buddhagosa wrote the commentary Visuddhimagga in the 5th Century CE, meditation had been largely abandoned. He goes on to state that there is good evidence that 500 years previously Buddhist monks had given up meditation and felt the best they could do was to pass down the Buddhist texts to further generations.
To what extent is this analysis of Buddhism true? Was meditation really not practiced for a large proportion of Buddhist history? If this is the case then when was meditation 'rediscovered' or at least reinvigorated?

I don't have any reference to the state of affairs in such early date, but this blog post contains many references that can be used to sketch the recent (from 16th century) revival of meditation practices in Theravada.

Good question. Not only does the podcaster say that meditation had mostly died out by Buddhagosa's time, he said that Buddhagosa himself did not meditate. That surprised me because I'd previously thought that Visuddhimagga could only have been written by someone with extensive practical experience and not just scholarly knowledge.

The best teachers aren't always the best practitioners and vice versa.. Often times it is the opposite because the better you can use your mind (to explain things to people) the less you can easily understand emptiness and attain samadhi (the mind's creativity becomes a trap). The initial story of Asangha and Vasubandhu illustrates this as well as Sariputta being able to memorize the entire Buddha's words but never attain samadhi until after Buddha's passing.

It is quite safe to say that the Buddhist interest in meditation is much higher than a few hundred years ago. David Chapman argues that vipassana was basically reinvented around 1900. His post is certainly controversial, but he provides sources, so it is a good starting point for researching the subject.
It is rather certain that some of the vipassana techniques originated in the 19th century, e.g. the "New Burmese" method was created by The-lon Sayadaw:

According to Strong Roots, cited below, “The-Lon Sayadaw… put this textual guidance [the Visuddhimagga] into practice without a personal teacher to guide [him] in mindfulness practice” (p. 110).

Origins of some techniques are less certain. For instance, Chapman argues that Ledi Sayadaw invented his own technique. However, an answer to a related question provides sources that say that he only learnt a technique that had been practiced in the caves of Sagaing Hills:

Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills, which was honeycombed with meditation caves and dotted with forest monasteries

In any case, even if is the case, the meditation wasn't widespread at that time. In The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw, Erik Braun writes:

This is not to say that no one meditated prior to the colonial period, but [...] such practice was limited, especially among the laity.

It's very untrue to say that meditation wasn't practiced in Sri Lanka at that time. What actually happened is that the community of monks specialized itself in two divisions. The city monks who lived in monasteries within cities and villages and they specialized in memorizing and studying texts, and the forest monks specialized in meditation. It's not that meditation died out, but rather it wasn't done on large scales in the city and village monasteries that most people went to.
And even then it's a bit of an oversimplification. Some city monks devoted themselves to meditation, and some forest monks also spent a good deal of time studying.
Of course at different times in history meditation has been more common or less common, but I don't think you could ever say it died out.

There were periods in which the practice declined. E.g. In Sri Lanka the Sangha also declined and was later restored by Weliwita Sri Saranankara Thero. Also Ven. Nanamoli's translation of Path to Purification has in its introduction about the decline in early periods.

In a recent Buddhist Geeks podcast the presenter Bodhipaksa stated
that by the time the Buddhagosa wrote the commentary Visuddhimagga in
the 5th Century CE, meditation had been largely abandoned. .... To
what extent is this analysis of Buddhism true? Was meditation really
not practiced for a large proportion of Buddhist history?

I think it is just another speculation. The content in commentaries and sub-commentaries and many other historical books that were written in those days give many clues otherwise.


text:
What are conditioned as opposed to unconditioned phenomena?
I have come across the term 'conditioned phenomena'; what is meant by the qualifier 'conditioned'; are all phenomena conditioned, or are some phenomena unconditioned?

conditioned might mean dependent on something, or composed of something. i'm actally not sure! i tend toward the latter tho.

All things are conditioned (matter, feelings, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness itself). Conditioned in that their arising, form and duration are influenced by other things. Only nibbana (nirvana) is unborn, unaging and unconditioned in the original Buddhist teaching. It is because such a state exists that escape is possible from all that is born, changing and conditioned (which is ultimately unsatisfactory and the cause of suffering anyway). See Udana text, sutta 3 for more.