text:
If there's nobody to get enlightened, why bother?
It seems the goal of Buddhist practice is to become an Arahant - someone who won't take a rebirth, and therefore will be eternally relieved from suffering.
But WHO is this someone who doesn't get reborn?  I mean if there never was a self to begin with, then who exactly achieved Nirvana?
Seriously, this line of thought is screwing up my motivation. All this work, just so someone who doesn't exist yet, and never will, doesn't have to suffer.
Buddhism doesn't promise relief from suffering in the current lifetime, in fact it guarantees us we'll all die, and most of us will suffer from sickness and old age (not to mention loads of other suffering), but it promises an end by not taking a rebirth - but the whole concept of rebirth is made utterly confusing by the concept of non-self.

Do you want an answer from any particular tradition?

Just a little tip. Oriental philosophy in general are very different from western ones, in regard of logic. When you think about oriental philosophies try to embrace paradoxes, dilemmas and openness. For example, in the west there is self or there is no self, and in east the self may exist and may not exist at the same time. If you try to use western reason to understand  eastern philosophy you will get nuts.

This linguistic terminology generally has caused a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding.
The notion of not self is that is there no:

unchanging everlasting component which we can identify as self. Other contemporary teachers tried to identify such a part which they called Atman
there is nothing to which any one can have absolute or ever lasting control over either externally or internally

Also the notion of self, self consciousness, ego, thoughts relating to oneself all is:

delusional
a source of misery

Since you do not have any control over any of the what make up this self you cannot have futuristes view of your self and destiny. Also since your influence to the external world is limited, you can get to own or control is also limited. But when we think about I will to this or that, there is a sense of absolute control of destiny or the environment. This is delusional as you cannot to things to absolute certainty and any deviation result is you becoming disappointed.
If you drill down more deeply when some tough or contact comes through your sense doors. (E.g. some one is scolding you or you remeber someone is scolding you.) 1st you recognise this is some one is scolding, then you identify this incident it is me who is getting scolded. At this point you get a bad feeling (literally) in your body. You have a mental reaction to this and then form volitional though like I will scold him back. Likewise if it praise you get an opposite feeling. Though this itself is subtle you lose the balance of your mind, as you might get puffed up, when some one does this type of talk. Also you cannot get the pleasantness of praise to last always which sometimes lead to subtle disappointments. Thus each time you get any notion of I, me, mine, etc. coming up in your mind some disappointment is bound to happen if you analyze it fully and realistically, thus not understanding this fast is a delusion. So the notion of no self, in this this context. If you you hold onto a notion of self (Pudgala - Sanna) misery arises, letting go of the notion of self your mind gets free from misery. Hence the linguistic rendering of no self.
Also the absence of anything upon which you can exert absolute control or any component which is permanent, to which you can reliably apply the label this is me or myself - the eternal me (this part of me never changes) or this is image of me (a good person, strong person, etc.) or belongs to me or in my control (this should be as I wish or will it to be) - viz. noting identifiable as self, me, mine, I. Since there is nothing we can use the word or label with the word self, considering either of the properties of everlasting, absolute control, we say there is no self.
This does not mean you do not exist in any colloquial sense or any sense outside the above definitions (permanent, controllable properties). So if you or any body practices to get you mind to be stress and disappointment free, the benefits are to be reaped by the person getting enlightened. So you should be be motivated to achieve it. So do not get some play on words deter you. (These are very difficult to understand concepts, thus should be careful of misconceptions using the same wording or rendering.)
Also developing this notion (any concept or notion is Manasikara) as a beginner (though you have to abandon this view also at higher stages of meditation) can help dissolve your ego, self consciousness, self awareness, concept of self in you mind. This can be an early stage catalyst in your progress (also helping you reduce stress and disappointment due to the concept of I, me, mine) than somethings reducing your motivation to practice
In Buddhism you should experience the peace within this lifetime and in each step you take. More you practice more powerful your peace becomes. Lesser mental reaction you have towards great, pleasant, unpleasant, hurt, sour, etc. feelings caused by external stimuli more balance your mind will be and more peaceful you will get.
Also remember Buddhist concepts are not easily explainable in words as the concepts are not really mainstream, thus the the language and ability to communicate them has not developed. When translating these into languages with not Buddhist or related culture, things are even more difficult.

Interesting. In my own native language I see people increasingly using the word "ego" (which has itself many conotations, but the central point relates to egotism) when refering to the "self". I see expresions such as "the traps of the ego". I agree that wording may be confusing to some people, and I like your explanation here very much.

Yes perhaps you can say "getting to no ego"

Better wording is soullessness + lack of control.

You say that "Buddhism doesn't promise relief from suffering in the current lifetime", which I think is wrong, so let's take that from the top.
Suffering or "Dukka" can (and should) be analyzed: The First Noble Truth says,

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha;
sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha;
association with the unbeloved is dukkha;
separation from the loved is dukkha;
not getting what is wanted is dukkha.

In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

The "five clinging-aggregates" which are listed above correspond to the five skandhas. Buddhism teaches that what we normally think of as "our self" is actually five different skandhas (a skandha translates as "aggregate, mass, or heap" in English); the five skandhas being,

"form" or "matter"[e] (Skt., Pāli rūpa; Tib. gzugs): external and internal matter. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs.[f]
"sensation" or "feeling" (Skt., Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor-ba): sensing an object[g] as either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.[h][i]
"perception", "conception", "apperception", "cognition", or "discrimination" (Skt. samjñā, Pāli saññā, Tib. 'du-shes): registers whether an object is recognized or not (for instance, the sound of a bell or the shape of a tree).
"mental formations", "impulses", "volition", or "compositional factors" (Skt. samskāra, Pāli saṅkhāra, Tib. 'du-byed): all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.[j]
"consciousness" or "discernment"[k] (Skt. vijñāna, Pāli viññāṇa,[l] Tib. rnam-par-shes-pa): cognizance,[5][m] that which discerns[6][n]; or a series of rapidly changing interconnected discrete acts of cognizance

You can observe that the above (forms, sensations, perceptions, etc.) are impermanent. You might think of your "self" as permanent (e.g. that you are the same person you are yesterday); however, observations suggest otherwise, and suggest that none of the above are your permanent self.
In fact the marks of existence are (together with Dukka or suffering, defined above), "impermanence" and "non-self".
Your question complains that if there is no self, then how can there be enlightenment?
Well, if the "self" doesn't exist, is there suffering? However, simply pretending that "self" doesn't exist does not make your suffering, your vulnerability, go away: for example,
If nothing exists ...
Buddhist practice is to "realize" this.

Buddhism does promise release from suffering: that's The Third Noble Truth
The "end" isn't only by "not taking a rebirth": the Buddhist argument is that suffering is caused by desire/craving; and that stilling craving and letting go of attachment (to a false self) will end suffering. No desire also results in no rebirth, but it's the "no desire", the "control of mind", the "wisdom" which causes or results in "cessation of suffering".
In other words the argument is, "no desire implies the cessation of suffering (in this life), and no rebirth (in the next life)".
The argument is not, "no desire implies no rebirth, which implies no suffering in the next life, but meanwhile you cannot affect your suffering in this life".
A tamed mind brings happiness.

might a more accurate translation be:, "no attachment implies the cessation of suffering..."? It seems "desire" can be cause for the awakening factor energy to arise (for Noble Eightfold Path to awakening).

I think attachment is slightly different ("Upādāna") ... attachment is when you seize on something when you perceive it as desirable. The Noble Truths talk about "Taṇhā", usually translated as "craving" (or maybe "thirst" or "greed") ... which I think of as undirected, i.e. I think it's a generalized craving for anything, not (or, before) an attachment to something in particular. You're thinking of "Chanda"

Rebirth and reincarnation only make sense with the full cosmology. The forms of Buddhism that take the full cosmology as literally true, either don't put much emphasis on annata, or do handwaving (stories about candle flames being transferred from candle to candle) or appeal to "how it works is beyond our understanding".
If you look at the historical Buddha as a man of his times, he, or is followers were not ready to give up on reincarnation. One solution they proposed was to try to split the difference between eternalism (eternal self) and extinctionalism (no-nonsense, no-self) and find middle path. The response to this being a contradiction is to appeal to monism and nondualism. Another way was to try to dismiss it as a useless metaphysical question. As a secular Buddhist, I just dispense with the reincarnation bit and not being useful and as you noticed, it actually gets in the way of understanding and using the useful parts of Buddhism, namely annata.
So back to annata. The Buddha posited that in our naive state, we think we have permanent soul. But by self inspection we can see nothing in ourselves is permanent-- it's all changing, all the time. It's like every second we die to be replaced with a new person linked by all the actions take before us up to now. The hope is that if we realize this, then we will stop grasping at things that don't even exist and we will be at peace. This is like putting out the fires of desire (for things that are just as illusory and unstable as our imagined self). That flame of grasping & desire is the flame "blown out" by nirvana (the word nirvana means blown out, like flame).  So that is the point were we achieve nirvana, right here and now. We benefit from it until we reach parinirvana and are dead.
After that, we only live on in the minds, memories and traces we leave on earth. (To use Stephen Batchelor's way of salvaging rebirth for secular consumption)
Reference-- this is drawing mostly on Glenn Wallis (Basic Teachings) and Stephen Batchelor's work.

Nibbana, the final goal of Buddhism is achieved while you live. All suffering go away once you attain Nibbana. You don't have to wait till you die. Suffering is a loaded experience. There's no 'who' or 'self' in it. Suffering feels like self because of ignorance. Suffering is  unpleasant. That is why it should be ended. Attaining Nibbana means the end of suffering. It is not a case of a self being rescued. Because as you have mentioned, a self doesn't even exist in the 1st place. The concept of rebirth has no conflict with the teaching of Anatta. Rebirth is an instance of causes and effect. Neither the cause nor the effect qualifies as a 'self'. Otherwise, you should be able to be born wherever you want.

"It seems the goal of Buddhist practice is to become an Arahant - someone who won't take a rebirth, and therefore will be eternally relieved from suffering."
In conventional terms, yes that is the goal, however an Arahant is somebody who has abandoned the desire to become anything. This is important in understanding the practice.
"But WHO is this someone who doesn't get reborn? I mean if there never was a self to begin with, then who exactly achieved Nirvana?"
The Buddha answers this here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.than.html
Nirvana is the unconditioned element, and is the cessation of conditioned consciousness. There is no need for a "self" to be involved, that's just an assumption. Birth is a conditioned process dependent on "becoming" which is ultimately dependent on "ignorance" — which includes clinging to the notion of self. Simply put, when there is becoming, there is birth. There does not need to be a "self" involved here.
"Seriously, this line of thought is screwing up my motivation. All this work, just so someone who doesn't exist yet, and never will, doesn't have to suffer."
Who is there to "not exist"? I've been in your situation before. Note that suffering only arises for those who cling to the notion of self. When the "self" is truly abandoned, there is no more suffering.
"Buddhism doesn't promise relief from suffering in the current lifetime, in fact it guarantees us we'll all die, and most of us will suffer from sickness and old age (not to mention loads of other suffering), but it promises an end by not taking a rebirth - but the whole concept of rebirth is made utterly confusing by the concept of non-self."
Buddhism does promise suffering in the current life time. He doesn't say that everyone can do it, but he says that it's possible as long as we follow the path.
Look at where "you" are now. There are the 5 aggregates, those are the elements of your experience. They arise due to conditions. Their complete cessation is nirvana, the deathless state void of suffering. What you are going through is doubt, which is part of the aggregates. This is an undeniable truth. The Buddha pointed the way which leads us to let go of the aggregates in order to realize nirvana and the cessation of suffering.
The aggregates of feeling, perception, and volition arise all dependent on contact with form, and you can see this here and now. What happens when there's awareness of the eye and eye-objects? Feeling, perception, and intention arise. So why are you doubting?
I don't mean to say you're wrong or anything, I just want you to understand that this is a conditioned state, and your suffering arises because you don't fully understand it.
So, relax. Watch your breath. Absorb yourself in Jhana. Isn't that peaceful? It's certainly more peaceful than being doubtful!

Edit?-- When you said "Buddhism does promise suffering in the current life time", did you mean "Buddhism does promise relief from suffering in the current life time"?

As others have pointed out, the 3rd noble truth does promise relief.
Re. the question of identity (or of "collective identity" in connectedness, or "impermanence of identity" as an aspect of reality),
not-being-"personal" does not weaken enlightened dynamics:
you can have it as "happening in the space"
(regardless of whether "I" am "causing" something, or an "I" for it to happen to).
So, it can simply be present, even if there is no experiencer.  And even if it is not some "thing" for an "I" to create, it is still
-- something(s) for there to be awareness of,
-- something(s) for there to have relatedness in,
-- something(s) for participation to be happening with,
-- something(s) for there to be organization around / synchronization in.
Personally, when I'm treating ALL things with love/respect, and when I'm including love/respect for points-of-view of "individual", that, ironically, has it be easier, & more natural, to embrace experiences of "collective".  Implicit in that practice, for me, is a practice of re-presencing that "individual" is connected, (not separate).
Pema Chodron, in teaching "tonglen", talks about an "absolute practice" (like watching), and a "relative practice" (like letting in "dark stuff", and sending out "compassion" / the 4 immeasurables), and presents having both an absolute practice and a relative practice.
It seems to me that in an absolute practice there is nothing to do -- another thing that can mess with motivation, lol -- and in a relative practice there is something to do... and in the example of a tonglen practice, she teaches beginning and ending with the absolute practice.
Like, the "nothing to do" is a context, in which sometimes the "something to do" happens.

if you're practising buddhism to achieve an end to multiple lives, you're still doing it for the promise of cake - and to be honest, buddhism has a cookie for you right now: clear-mindedness. i'm told that's a tasty cookie, if you can manage to eat it.
besides, are you dying this instant? is whatever might happen "next" an actual issue right now? practically speaking, if you're dead you'll have nothing to worry about, so why worry now? and if you do still find yourself worrying, you're clearly not dead in any useful, end-of-your-existence way and have more time than you thought to figure this all out and practice it. so why worry?

as for who; "i" is a tricky concept. it's supposed to mean "this continuum of experience given rise by this physical form," or at least that's fairly close to how we tend to think of it. but what it usually, actually means is closer to "the story this continuum of experience tells about itself to itself."
"who" is a semi-autobiographical, semi-fictional novel in your head in which the protagonist is of course the author. subjectively, the story is so broad and long and complex that it's very easy to mistake for you-the-continuum, as it does share some similarities.
we relate things (including living things) to each other by story, and it's a survival trait, but it'll still bite you in the ass.
it's useful when you're making plans to meet someone at a cafe next week, or remember where the best escape route from that tiger is, or do maths. it's less than useful when you're dwelling on how much you miss someone, or how "unfairly" you were treated that time.
either you-the-continuum, from instant to instant, perceiving each instant, chooses how you use that story; or you don't choose, so then you perceive through the lens of that story and react according to it rather than reality.

now, as for relief from suffering; that's not a philosophy for living we're talking about, that would be opiates and alcohols - and they come with suffering of their own, eventually at least. maybe some unscrupulous huckster sold you a dream wrapped up as buddhism?
here's my contention: given an able enough torturer, any buddhist or masochist will be subjected to suffering by the pain they're forced to experience. whether that torturer is a homo sapien, extreme dehydration, some awful disease or whatever else doesn't really matter.
a philosophy cannot "end suffering," only help you learn how not to waste your energies railing against that which you cannot change, and how to focus your attention on what is best for you (and perhaps everyone. i believe that which is truly best for you is best for everyone, and vice versa) in the long run.

tl;dr
forget about the cake you've been "promised" later. enjoy the cookie you can have now.

Points all well-taken.  Something to share, that you may have intended to be implicit:  sometimes a practice can "end suffering".  Here's an example from the Sedona Method (a set of tools that seem very Buddhist-flavored for me, for processing "limiting feelings" and being present, with equanimity) -- in the Sedona Method there is a "pain-clearing technique," that I learned the day before I slammed my fingers, closing a window.  5-10 minutes later:  bloody fingers, no pain.  Of course, some elements of the technique will not surprise you:  welcoming the "right-now sensations".

This is what Buddhism teaches: suffering and prevention of suffering.
And what is suffering? Suffering is the painful feeling of wrongness, frustration, helplessness we experience when life sends us lemons. What Buddhism teaches, is how to make lemonade out of those lemons.
But first, we need to understand that we are not helpless victims of life, that we are in control.
To understand this, we have to realize, that whatever arises in dependence on a combination of conditions, can be controlled by manipulating the conditions. We have leverage over conditional phenomena!
All phenomena, without exception, are conditional. Because all phenomena are conditional, they can all be controlled. This includes the subjective experience of suffering -- the painful feeling of wrongness, frustration, helplessness -- which is a conditional phenomena and therefore can be controlled.
And how is suffering conditional? Suffering depends on conjunction of the following factors: "this", "that" and "attachment". Attachment is an irrational clinging to either "this" or "that".
And how can experience of suffering be controlled? By dropping these very attachments we can stop existing suffering, and prevent new suffering.
This is what Buddhism teaches: suffering and prevention of suffering.

it guarantees us we'll all die, and most of us will suffer from sickness and old age

Although it's true that sickness and old age are included in the list of types of suffering; and (together with poverty and death) might be inevitable, however, people might not have to "suffer" (might control, limit, put away, put an end to their suffering) when they have these experiences.
For example, when the Buddha reached his old age, he isn't reported to have said, "Oh God! Why, why me? Oh please, no!"
Similarly, some people are able to be sick: to have cancer for example; and to behave well, speak well, think well, etc., for as long as they're alive -- which benefits themselves and people who know them.

In this answer I tried to answer that "cessation of suffering during this life" is part of Buddhism (the 3rd noble truth).
In that answer:

I tried to introduce 'no self', because 'no self' (as well as suffering, rebirth, and enlightenment, not to mention a lack of motivation) was the theme of the OP's question.
I tried to illustrate a connection between between 'no self' and 'no suffering', plus that practice is needed in order to realize that ... but, I suspect I did not do that well, so I try again as follows.

Instead of a connection between 'no self' and 'no suffering', perhaps it's truer (i.e. it follows more directly from the 2nd noble truth) to talk about a connection between 'no craving' and 'no suffering'.
But if that were true and all you needed to know, why does the 4th noble truth expand into 'the eightfold way' instead of simply saying, 'the way that leads to the cessation of suffering is the cessation of craving' or 'the way that leads to the cessation of craving is the mindfulness of impermanence and mindfulness of the self's being a compound thing'?
For example, part of 'the eightfold way' is 'Right intention' (a.k.a. 'right aspiration'). Why even have a right aspiration, if the goal is to end craving? Well, it's said that,

Three Kinds of Right Intention
The Buddha taught that there are three kinds of Right Intention, which
  counter three kinds of wrong intention. These are:

The intention of renunciation, which counters the intention of desire.
The intention of good will, which counters the intention of ill will.
The intention of harmlessness, which counters the intention of harmfulness.

In summary I think that:

Buddhism says that 'suffering exists', but also 'no suffering'
Similarly, 'desire' exists but also 'renunciation' exists

Life is not simply nothing and noone (and nobody). Even so, life can be lived well.

"Brief, bikkhus, is the life of men - a matter of flitting hence, having its sequel elsewhere. To be wrought is the good, to be lived is the holy life. To him that is born there is no-dying. He bikkhus, who lives long, lives but a hundred years or a little longer."

I think the term 'Middle Way' originally (in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) had a single, specific meaning: i.e. neither the one extreme of renunciation and starving alone, nor the other extreme of sheer hedonism.
Apparently the term Middle Way now has a more general meaning; it's used not only when referring to the "extremes of austerities and sensual indulgence": it's also used for other extremes.
Perhaps your concept of 'no self' is causing a problem, is becoming 'too extreme'. Practising the eightfold path requires ... something ... some self? In order to have intent, or for even 'right intent' to exist.

That matches my experience:  some kind of self practices. (Maybe how little I've learned?  LOL.)  Perhaps, as Suminda suggests, something lost in translation (or added) has us take no-self too conceptually. In practice, I find embracing "invidual* makes it easier to "live in" connected. Besides: having grown up around New Age Americanized Buddhism, I found drawbacks to literally believing I had no self. I actually put some self in, after reading "The Secret Life Of Kids", (which asserts it's healthy to let kids develop a healthy ego structure, b4 learning ego-transcending meditation).

Wikipedia says western psychology defines Dissociation on a sliding scale or "continuum": in mild cases, a coping mechanism to master or tolerate stress; further along the continuum are "non-pathological altered states of consciousness"; but "More pathological dissociation involves dissociative disorders, including dissociative fugue and depersonalization disorder with or without alterations in personal identity or sense of self". I don't know all this; Google says some people distinguish between disassociation and disidentification.

A worthy question. To me, it's similar to the important difference between non-attachment, and detachment:  for me, detachment has an element of "disconnect", whereas non-attachment can not only be connected, but also can actually facilitate being connected -- just as non-attachment does not cling, it also does not resist -- we can "let life go," and we can "let life in."  (Also similar:  the difference betw peace (hi energy) and apathy (low energy), and how Pema Chodron talks about how, in the practice of Tonglen, which lets it all in, there is an access to a vast amount of energy.)

It's not about whether there is or isn't a self, it's about whether or not there's suffering. If there's no suffering in your life, then Buddhism has nothing to offer you. If there is suffering in your life then Buddhism says it can help.
The reason you should bother is if there's suffering in your life and you're willing to take a chance on Buddhism.

There may also be a notion that Buddhism benefits everyone, and not only "you".

We don't practise to benefit others, we practise to stop creating the division between self and others.


text:
What exactly differentiates Vipassana from Samatha meditation?
What are the key aspects of Vipassana that are not present in Samatha?
What is the main difference in the method from a meditator's perspective?
Labeling emotions and feelings are part of samatha or vipassana? Does Vipassana allows emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?

from a meditator's perspective, the first question might be whether the Buddha taught that there are two meditations to differentiate. In Zen meditation for example, you won't find such labeling.

@avatarKorra Quite so. I'm not even sure such labeling is helpful. Perhaps it is at certain stages.

Culadasa delves into this at the start of his most enlightening "The Mind Illuminated". In brief: vipassanā is a series of insights that challenge your perception of reality.  Insights into impermanence, emptiness, suffering and interdependence can be achieved with effortless stable attention (samādhi) and powerful mindfulness (sati).  The insight into no-Self produces Awakening, and it requires your mind to be in the state of śamatha, which encompasses samādhi, sati, joy, tranquillity, and equanimity.  Awakening is an accident: it can happen at any time.  Practice makes you accident-prone.

Both tradition and translators have made a meaningless mess of words, but Culadasa manages to disentangle most.  Samādhi and sati are confusingly referred as śamatha and vipassanā, even tho they are all interdependent.  Two wings of a bird, needlessly split apart by many: Practising samādhi by itself leads to blissful dullness, and sati to mind-wandering and frustration.

Culadasa says the Buddha described all three śamatha/vipassanā combos.
He favours a "mixed-old-school" śamatha-first approach: first develop a powerful lens of attention, but maintaining peripheral awareness ("mindfulness") all the time (this was a game changer for me).  Later turn it towards vipassanā, and watch the insights rain.
Focusing on insight before tranquillity is recommended only if you already have good focus and can do long retreats.
Working both insight and tranquillity works well if you have good "natural concentration", but requires better guidance.

What are the key aspects of Vipassana that are not present in Samatha?
samatha means tranquility - it is a necessary aspect of any wholesome meditative practice.
vipassana means seeing clearly or in a special way - it is a quality specific to Buddhist meditative practice.
Meditation for the purpose of seeing clearly requires one to focus on ultimate reality; the only way to understand reality is to observe it. Any meditation practice that does not take ultimate reality as an object is called "samatha meditation", because it leads only to tranquility, not insight.
Besides the difference in meditation object, meditation for insight will also obviously have different results; it will be less tranquil on the whole, as one is forced to experience all the inherent problems with ultimate reality, specifically that it is impermanent, unsatisfying, and uncontrollable.
What is the main difference in the method from a meditator's perspective?
There is no difference in the method, necessarily; the only difference is in the object.  As the Visuddhimagga says:

But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements (XI.27ff.).
Vism XVIII.5 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Meaning the methodology is the same, but one's focus shifts to ultimate reality.
Labeling emotions and feelings are part of samatha or vipassana?
Since emotions and feelings are a part of ultimate reality, this would be considered vipassana meditation. Many people say otherwise; I can't help but argue that they are wrong. The difference isn't the technique, it is the object.
Does Vipassana allows emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?
samatha meditation has the potential to lead to avoidance, since it generally seeks out heightened states of concentration that are impossible when the focus is ultimate reality. The point is that one can only understand reality if one takes it as a focus; if you are unable to come to terms with reality, you will instead incline towards avoiding it because it is uncomfortable, preferring a single, stable, satisfying, controllable illusion to the harsh reality of the universe. This is a potential difference between the two types of meditation.
It is not that samatha meditation is bad or useless, just limited and posessing a potential danger, as the Buddha taught:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of feelings? Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
[same with 2nd - 4th jhanas]
“And what, bhikkhus, is the danger in the case of feelings? Feelings are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change. This is the danger in the case of feelings.
-- MN 13 (Bodhi, Trans)

Thank you Bhante, I have read your book and I have seen your 5 videos on meditation, you always point out to the fact that we should see things for what they are, label them if they are calling our attention and return to the rising/falling of the chest, would that be Vipassana for beginners?

I suspect when two of us say "labeling" we mean two different referents.

This answer would improve with an explanation of how focusing on feelings is vipassana only and not samatha. This seems to be at odds with the anapanasati sutta insofar as it says that who practices anapanasati is focused on feelings in and of themselves, as well as combining the perception of impermanence with anapanasati.
MN 13 also seems to imply that without jhana, one cannot fully understand feelings, since one would have to experience jhana to fully understand the gratification of feelings and would have to understand the gratification of feelings in order to fully understand feelings.

(The Four Jhanas) DN2,etc...
"Quite withdrawn from sensuality,  from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal....even so, the monk permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"This is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

You say "as one is forced to experience all the inherent problems with ultimate reality, specifically that it is impermanent, unsatisfying, and uncontrollable." Did you really mean to say this?

This answer should be balanced in my opinion with the many many other phrases in the sutta praising jhana. “There is no wisdom without jhana, there is no jhana without wisdom.”

A simple explanation is, the goal of Shamatha is to calm down, while the goal of Vipassana is to see.
So in Samatha there is more effort, more conflict. Especially in the beginning, you are fighting with yourself, wrestling with your mind, training the monkey, taming the elephant and so on. Those brief intervals when the mind is exhausted from fighting itself and temporarily gives up, so there is a natural unforced pause -- this is the Samatha proper.
While Vipassana, which is done after the mind is somewhat tamed and is now pliable -- is more subtle, more refined. There is still some effort required to keep the lights on, but the way the experience is framed no longer implies a sense of inner conflict.

Labeling emotions and feelings is part of samatha or vipassana?

(EDITED) Labeling thoughts and feelings with hard interruption and forced return to breathing is a part of samatha. Noting them gently, as they come and go, is vipassana.

Thanks, a final one: Does Vipassana allow emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?

Yes, in vipassana you want to see how thoughts and emotions arise, take shape, and how they dissolve. So you allow them to happen, but not to the point of getting carried away.

So can we say that the simple difference is that of labelling vs passive watching?

I second Andrei's Answer, but would like to expand, because the mechanics of both samatha or vipassana seem to differ as well.
With samatha you can use conceptual meditation objects like colours, the amount and length of breaths, the qualities of a Buddha etc. These objects tend to be stable and therefore calm the mind and develop concentration. As I understand, the meditation forms which can lead to jhana are all forms of samatha meditation. Not all samatha meditation objects can lead to jhana though.
With vipassana one can only use meditation objects that occur in that moment. For example the sensation of the breath, rising and falling of emotion, thoughts, pains ect. These objects tent to be subject to change, impermanent and not necessarily calming. This form of meditation shows quit directly impermanence, suffering and non-self. Thus, gaining insight.

Thanks, but thinking about the method of meditation they seem very familiar, right? So what a meditator should do to switch from Samatha to Vipassana is just letting the body and mind produce all sorts of emotions to acknwoledge it? There is no special method for Vipassana?

There are, but as with most things there is no consensus of what they are. Yuttadhammo's booklet: "How to meditate: a beginners guide to peace" introduces a method for Vipassana for example.

Great book, I read it

Samatha is for calm, vipassana is for insight. But please don't get obsessed with separating the two. One is not better than the other. Right Mindfulness (for insight) and Right Concentration (for firmness of mind) both share the same objects and both fall under the path factor of Samadhi. In accordance with the Dhammawheel symbol, both lead to Right View and Right intention. Therefore we shouldn't look down on either.
Jhana meditation is used as a way to guide us out of unwholesome states of mind, so we can see things clearly. In order to reach Jhana, we must abandon the 5 hindrances, which are the "unwholesome qualities" the Buddha refers to when describing one who has entered Jhana: "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana". In one sutta (AN 5.51) the Buddha describes the 5 hindrances as a hindrance to both (calm) awareness and insight: "These five are obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment" So in this way you can see that both Jhana and Insight are tied together. Jhana simply refers to the wholesome state of mind in which we can see things clearly because like previously said, the 5 hindrances are both a hindrance to Jhana and insight — when there are the hindrances, there is no Jhana and also no suitable ground for the development of insight.
However, the only way to uproot the hindrances is to understand them, and the only way to understand them is if they're present in the first place. This is why it is necessary for some to develop insight first. But as one weakens the hindrances, the dividing line between samatha and vipassana fades away and we're left with both insight and serenity at the same time.
So Jhana refers to the concentrated mind free from the coarse unwholesome qualities of the 5 hindrances. Samatha refers to the technique of collecting the mind (as a way to reach Jhana), and Samatha refers to the technique using awareness (collected or not) to understand phenomena. To do so efficiently (and correctly), your mind cannot have the 5 hindrances present, which is why samatha practice is vital. You cannot pick one over the other. When samatha and vipassana are referred to as "paths", this simply refers to the practitioners inclination. Some incline towards samatha, some towards vipassana, but both types of practitioners must use both "paths". And eventually, like previously said, both practitioners will come to use both like you would use your two arms.
It has been said here that samatha and vipassana are not different techniques but differ in their objects. With all due respect to Venerable Yuttadhammo, I'll say on my own accord that is (mostly) false. Please forgive me if this is proven otherwise. Like I said, samatha is used to collect the mind and vipassana is used to develop insight. In samatha, namely anapanasati, we use the breath as our object. We can use the same object in the same way in vipassana. But, like I also said, these 2 things eventually merge. Also, in Jhana, there is the form (breath), the feeling, the perception, the volitional formation, and the consciousness. In Jhana our object is form, in vipassana it can also be form. This is where vipassana differs: the objects of the mind can be vipassana's object, but Jhana we can't (however, the formless states are mental objects). However, without seclusion from the hindrances, using mental dhammas as an object can be very difficult. Any way, any object we choose for our meditation is an object of the 5 aggregates. What does "ultimate reality" refer to? If it refers to things in terms of the elements (which is the form khanda) then that would imply that ultimate reality exists within the khandhas. And like I said, we can use the elements to reach Jhana. If "ultimate reality" refers to nirvana, then in order to practice vipassana we must be enlightened beings who have destroyed ignorance and delusion, which would make vipassana impossible for us to practice as long as we aren't enlightened.
I hope this is helpful to whoever reads it and does not cause harm or confusion.

Thanks, good point, most monks give more importance to Vipassana, but I have met a monk that said Samatha was more important, so it is open to debate, others (like you) will say Samatha and Vipassana must merge and work as one... I appreciate the level of details in your answer.

It is true that Samatha and Vipassana are complementary qualities, but it is also true that they are clearly distinct from one another. Although one must join the two together during attainment, it is not true that you need to develop them simultaneously. You can develop one then the other. This is explicitly taught in the AN. 4.170, the Yuganaddha sutta. They also serve different functions. According to AN. 2.30, the Vijja-bhagiya sutta, Samatha destroys passion, and Vipassana destroys ignorance. They fit together, but they are indeed separate.

Also, the term ultimate reality refers to objects of direct experience as opposed to concepts which are formed by abstraction. It's not talking necessarily about Nirvana, because in Classical Theravada, there are four categories of ultimate reality. They are Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana. The first three on this list are ordinary realities, but they are ultimate in the sense that they are known directly by the mind.

Also bear in mind that in the Suttas, the terms Samatha and Vipassana are always used to describe qualities, not practices. Samatha and Vipassana practices aren't given any particular name in the Suttas. Later on, they were called Samatha and Vipassana Bhavana, meaning the developlent of Samatha and Vipassana respectively. When we say Samatha meditation, we don't mean 'a kind of meditation called Samatha' but 'a kind of meditation which develops Samatha'. As qualities, it is necessary to have both, but as methods, it is not necessary. This is clearly shown in AN 4.169

Indeed, they are separate qualities. But that doesn't mean we choose one over the other. It's a mistake to say "I'm going to develop vipassana for a year and then samatha". You use vipassana when you lack understanding, samatha when your mind is under the sway of unwholesome qualities (as you said). If Ultimate Reality refers to direct experience, then samatha meditation and vipassana meditation still share the same objects. You don't reach jhana via abstraction. Your explanation in the last comment confuses me, because samatha aids insight and insight aids samatha. So both develop each other.

i.e. "When I practice vipassana, this is developing both vipassana and samatha". You cannot prevent vipassana from developing samatha. If you do, it means you're still falling under the sway of unwholesome qualities, and that therefore means you're ignorant (so you're failing in both developments).
Perhaps the only difference lies in the practitioners main intention ("I only want to develop insight"), but if that is so then he is misinformed in practice.
(Please forgive me if I seem like I'm in the debating mindset)

Don't mind the issue of a debate mindset. These are subtle and controversial issues, and it is often through vigorous discussion between spiritual friends that these things become clear. I just want clarification on one main point. Are you saying that in correct practice, samatha and vipassana are always conjoined? I take issue with that because AN 4.170 seems to indicate that they can be developed together or seperately, and in either order. You need both in harmony during attainment, but you can cultivate them one at a time and then combine them.

Hey Bakmoon, sorry for a late reply. I don't think AN 4.170 is showing how they are developed separately by using one over the other, but something along the lines of "having grounded myself in samatha, I developed vipassana" or "having grounded myself in vipassana, I developed samatha". The first would be calming the mind down and then investigating phenomena, the latter would be investigating and then developing calm. Both ways show co-dependence, however the 3rd path in the sutta (to my understanding) describes both methods being used at the same time. (cont.)

So the first type of practitioner would collect his mind until it's suitable for insight. If his mind were to regress into an unwholesome state, he would repeat the cycle, using samatha to get out of the unwholesome state. The second kind uses insight to get out of the unwholesome state and thus develop calm. The third, of course, uses both.

"If "ultimate reality" refers to nirvana, then in order to practice vipassana we must be enlightened beings who have destroyed ignorance and delusion, which would make vipassana impossible for us to practice as long as we aren't enlightened." -- This is the Dzogchen view, and the view of a few others.. that in fact, we are already enlightened beings, which is why we can 'become' enlightened.. it is not a matter of transformation, but a matter of awareness.. a shift in perspective and not a fundamental change in our being. How do you feel about that idea?

I would humbly like to mention one thing which we are missing in this discussion - which is eradication of accumulated sanskaras/sankharas. The difference between Samatha and Vipassana is that when we are practicing Samatha meditation, we are concentrating/balancing our mind, and the main effort is not on eradication of accumulated sanskaras (even though it stops formation of new sanskaras). But when we are doing Vipassana, we are actively eradicating sanskaras, as well as preventing new ones to form. So, both are essential in reaching the ultimate goal of eradicating sanskaras to witness the ultimate truth or the true nature of everything.
An analogy would be Samatha is like the sharpness of an axe, while Vipassana is like cutting the wood with that axe, and wood is like the accumulated sanskaras ... both have significance in cutting all the wood (i.e. attaining Nirvana) ... both have to be done turn by turn, depending on the hardness/softness of the wood and the required sharpness to cut through the woods ...
Actually the sanskaras are accumulated in layers - deep deep layers - so, the process of sharpening and cutting has to be done repeatedly several times to get through these layers of sanskaras/ignorance/moha ...
Please feel free to add anything that I may have missed ....

The Origins of Insights written by someone whom professor Richard Gombrich once described as the leading authority in the West in the field of abhidhamma, has pointed out through his extensive research of the whole tipitaka that the Buddha only teaches insight after the jhana.
So samatha is required first before vipassana and not samatha or vipassana. I won't go into the differences as they have already been pointed in several posts.
I quote a tiny excerpt from the paper:

In  the  Canon  the  development  of  insight  after  the
  jhānas is  certainly  the  normative pattern, where  a  full  process  is  described  at  all.  I  exclude  from  consideration  those  cases where  the dhamma eye,  etc.  are  said  to  arise  at  the  end  of  a  discourse,  apparently spontaneously.   There   is   no   indication,   or   at   least   not   much   indication,   of   the   prior background in most such cases and hence no way of telling if it is envisaged that jhāna had already been developed.

LATER EDIT:~~ And finally I quote from the paper:

Most recently, both Johannes Bronkhorst and Tilman Vetter have for different reasons taken up the view that the jhānas are likely to be the original core of Buddhist meditative practice.
  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  contrast  here  with  the  view  of  many  modern  interpreters  of Buddhism, for whom it is precisely the insight approach which is the innovative creation of
  Buddhism — the  thing  the  Buddha added  to  what  was  known  before.  Of  course,  it  does  not
  necessarily follow that adding a rung or two to the top of the ladder means you can dispense with the ladder!

Samantha is more externally or conceptually focused with some level of active though or involvement process or practice, done with a view to develop the Jhanas only; while Vipassana is more internally and reality focused with no active though or involvement in the process or practice, done with a view to get the right kind of concentration and right type of awareness.
E.g. if you are doing the breath meditation as Samatha, you most likely look at the body of air going in and out and perhaps also conceptual process of it. In vipassana you look at the actual process, actual touch of air and sensation due to breathing.
Also any labeling or verbalisation is not pure Vipassana as you are introducing something conceptual. As your mind get more penetrating and starts understanding subtler truths, this will be a hindrance to see things as they are since you are introducing something conceptual or active though. This might help as a very early beginner but if you choose of do it but should be abandoned later on.

To me, it seems a bit odd to separate the two. Samatha already includes Vipassana. When an object arises, we analyze it, understand it and settle it, to remove an obstacle. Emotions and feelings should also be understood in Samatha, since they can be large hindrances for progress.
When I mention "anger" at Vipassana retreats, I have not heard anything else than "put it aside" after describing the anger. The third basic desire is Vibhava Tanha, which is basically the desire to get rid of things we don't like. If something exists, then there is a reason for it to exist - this includes "bad" emotions such as anger and hatred. What we should do is find out the role they have, since they exist. My take on anger is that it is a natural self-defense mechanism as a response to a hostile (or potentially hostile) environment or object. Anger can save our life in some situations. That turns anger into a constructive tool in certain situations. Then it is just a matter of being able to apply it, when it is needed in the right situation. Suppressing anger leads to suffering too...
It is much about understanding and learning to control the emotions we have available and turn them into constructive tools, instead of "getting rid of them".
When Samatha is started, analysis, acceptance, acknowledgement, etc. is automatically implied to be able to progress. I believe the Buddha said "Go Jhana" - not "Go vipassana"...

The Vissuddhimagga provides the most precise explanation of the difference between Vipassana and Samadhi (Samatha):

Vipassana is practiced in a state of upacara-samadhi or neighborhood-samadhi or neighborhood-jhana.
Samadhi is practiced in a state of full samadhi or jhana.

The key difference is that jhana has “one-pointedness of mind” or citt’ekaggata, while upacara-samadhi does not. The difference is profound and essential to the purpose of each practice. One-pointedness of mind has a very specific meaning in the Vissuddhimagga. As strange as it may sound, one-pointedness of mind consists of having only one object of awareness, such as a kasina. This makes full samadhi a very unusual and very rare state of mind. As explained in the Vissuddhimagga, this fact renders full samadhi incapable of supporting knowledge of any kind because knowledge requires putting an object in a context (which is what a concept does, for example). The healing value of full samadhi is the fact that its bliss can calm the agitated mind. But full samadhi cannot be a source of psychological insight that is so essential for substantial progress on the path to Enlightenment. Without psychological insight (panna, vipassana) into one’s own unwholesome karma (sankhara), one cannot undo, unlearn, or be liberated from that karma.

Question #1: What are the key aspects of Vipassana that are not present in Samatha?
Answer #1: Vipassana (upacara-samadhi, mindfulness meditation) can generate wisdom, while full samadhi cannot.

Question #2: What is the main difference in the method from a meditator's perspective?
Answer #2: The method of Vipassana is the Satipatthana Sutta, which requires an objective and alert state of mind. Samadhi practice generally involves focusing on an object of awareness conducive to full samadhi, such as the Earth Kasina. Just for the record, whether or not the meditator enters into upacara-samadhi or full samadhi depends upon the deepest needs of the individual. One cannot choose between the two.

Question #3: Labeling emotions and feelings are part of samatha or vipassana?
Answer #3: Labeling emotions and feelings is part of vipassana. The purpose of labeling is to maintain an objective state of mind as well as maintaining a focus on causality. This is important for dealing with unwholesome sankhara because insight into an arising unwholesome thought, emotion, or feeling is the key to liberation from the sankhara that causes it.

Question #4: Does Vipassana allows emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?
Answer #4: Yes. But “checking it” is not enough. The key to liberation from a sankhara (karmic-formation) is the recollection (sati) of the psychological history of the sankhara. Unlike a functional (kiriya) sankhara or a wholesome (kusala) sankhara, an unwholesome (akusala) sankhara is generally caused by an error in judgment (mental action or karma) made in response to a difficult situation that was not understood at the time. This judgment cannot be revised or corrected unless the original situation is recalled in sufficient detail to recognize the nature of the error.

See the Origins of Insight meditation written by one of the best academic on abhidhamma where vipassana meditation originates.
Link to Origins of Insight

Welcome to the site. The name of the author you were referring to is Lance Cousins.

This isn't really an answer to the question... please read Robin's post for helpful tips for new members.

In direct simplicity, respectfully, all meditation is either concentrative or contemplative.  Shamatha is concentrative.  Vipashyana is contemplative.

He asked "key aspects", don't answer him too much.

What are the key aspects of Vipassana that are not present in Samatha?

Comprehending 3 characteristics of whole clinging-aggregates.

What is the main difference in the method from a meditator's
  perspective?

Comprehending 3 characteristics of whole clinging-aggregates.

Labeling emotions and feelings are part of samatha or vipassana?

It is suttamayañāṇa. So, when you labeling emotions and feelings for samatha, it is samatha, such as in visuddhimagga kammaṭṭhānaggahananiddesa. But when you labeling emotions and feelings for vipassanā, it is vipassanā, such as in visuddhimagga khandhaniddesa.

Does Vipassana allows emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?

No any meditation allows unwholesome arise. Because buddha taught samatha to the practitioner to  clear unwholesome of the practitioner, before he wil meditate vipassanā:

You should develop concentration, bhikkhus. Concentrated, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands as it actually is.

The footnote to p.175 of the 'Fundamentals of Tibetan Mysticism' by Lama Govinda(pdf), refers to an Inner Relationship of Heaven, Earth and Man, to the I Ching and the Upanishads.              The Gospel of Thomas verse 106, The Yin and Yang, the Hindu and Buddhist Kundalini Shakthi, the Star of David also appear to refer to this same relationship.  which according to the Mundaka Upanishad has the potential, when properly developed, to 'Give up all other talk, this is the bridge to Immortality.'
The Visuddhimagga (pdf) XXII.46 refers to the "Coupling of Powers" in the context of Serenity and Insight as Powers.
Lama Govinda's book brings out the unique Vajrayana method of Coupling i.e. The polarity of the male principle (macro cosmos) with the female principle (micro cosmos) in the symbolic language of Vajrayana (p.99).                          The Moment of Enlightenment of the Buddha, is said to have generated Energy that shook the Universe. Developing sufficient Energy to break free from bondage is therefore a key factor in Enlightenment. If samatha is the basis for harnessing atomic energy and vipassana for harnessing cosmic energy  and the yogi masters the art of coupling these two (yuganaddha), where neither power exceeds the other, as explained in the Visuddhimagga and in Vajrayana, it is not difficult to understand why it is necessary to Couple/Merge/Unite these Powerful Energies to attain Perfect Buddhahood.
It may be prudent to undergo proper guidance in this area of Vajrayana study to reach that illusive goal that has bedeviled many a good yogi, for decades on end.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there any buddhist explanation for deja vu?
I'm not sure we will find that in the pali canon (per haps in Abidhamma?), but is there any thera/senior bikkhu that wrote about it? Is it related to past lifes or any special power of the mind?

Can you give more explanation on that this is?

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena It's a feeling that you recognize this scene or situation although rationally you know you haven't seen this (here and now) before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu

The psychology of C. G. Jung who wrote a preface to Bardo Thodol (The Tibetan Buddhist Book of the Dead) may explain the deja vu experience as restimulation of experiences of the collective unconscious in the bardo interval between death and the next rebirth, that he called "archetypes" or universal prototypes for ideas. However before drawing such a conclusion, know that the Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2) warns against questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self. They include: Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?

If you have psychic abilities then you might have foreseen or sensed the event before happening.
Also remember we are a bundle of feeling (one of the 5 aggregates) too. Hence we tend to react to these feelings in different ways. Sometimes this notion of deja vu can just be a conditioned response of your mind, than it having any significance. Certain type of feeling trigger certain memories and which in tern trigger more feelings. Your perception forming part of you mind may identify some similarities and cooks up a concept. (This cooking up is what is called delusion.)

In my experience, it seems to be caused by a precognitive experience--one has a precognitive experience at a previous time and when the event actually comes to pass in the present, the meeting of the two is experienced as deja vu. Many times, I think that people have precognitions in dreams and forget them at the conscious level; in this case deja vu is experienced but without an understanding of its cause.
The idea that the future can be seen is present in the Buddhist tradition. As Suminda mentioned, there is probably a psychic power that allows one to see the future. There is also discussion of seeing the future (incuding future births) through a vipassana power (which is distinct from psychic power) in Pa Auk Sayadaw's Knowing and Seeing (188-196).

The funny part about Buddhism is that teachers in it don't exist. So as soon as I answer this question, I take in the role of the teacher and I guess thus makes anybody my student. However, because I do not know and the great masters have nothing to teach, I suppose cuddly is right. I don't think Buddhist masters would stress much about this question. Instead they would point you out to where the answer isn't, and that's HERE. The Guru is trying to get you to come off it, and if he sees that you don't come off it, he puts you through a series of tests to simply get you to suffer, and frustrate you. This way you simply get yourself right off it and realize that you had it all along from the beginning. So deja vu is a simple experience, just like nothing else.

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


text:
In the wheel of life, how can death be a condition for ignorance?
Considering the 12 nidanas as represented on the Tibetan wheel of life.
I can understand how the previous links cause (or condition) the subsequent ones for instance sensation is a condition for craving. However as the wheel turns it does
birth -> conditions -> death -> conditions -> ignorance

In what way is death a condition for ignorance? I can't see a casual link there.

Why do you say death is a condition for ignorance? I would say rebirth is a consequence of ignorance which is different. Death is nothing but a transition on Buddhism as samsara goes on and on...

Why did you use the term Tibetan wheel of life? Is it different from others?

@konrad01 in the wheel of life death directly preceded ignorance in the outer rim hence I assume it is the condition of ignorance in some way

So it claims on Wikipedia: When the cessation of the continuity of experience occurs, we speak of death. It is the total breakdown and dissolution of experience and experiencer. The process of disintegration, destructuring, and entropic scattering yields a nexus of vibratory murkiness which is the condition of avidyā, the first motif. Thus the entire structure of patterning feeds back on itself, and is often pictured as a circle of twelve sections, called the Wheel of Life (bhavacakra, srid-pa'i-'khor-lo)

@crab death is nothing but an ageing process, ignorance will keep us coming back, not the other way around

@Dhammadhatu Can I ask you to repost your comment as an answer, instead of as a comment? Comments are mostly only for asking questions about (or discussing) the question; if you're posting an answer to the question then it's better to post that as an answer.

Bhava-chakra, the wheel of life, or, as I would translate it, "the wheel of individuation" is a relatively late depiction of the 12 Nidanas. In the suttas of Pali Canon, the nidanas are usually presented as a list, that is reviewed both in forward as well as in reverse direction -- but never (to my knowledge!) as an infinite loop.
If you read the wheel clock-wise, the 12 nidanas are:
avidya -> samskara -> vijnana -> nama-rupa -> six ayatana -> phassa -> vedana -> tanha -> upadana -> bhava -> jati -> jaramarana & dukkha
Although the interpretation of the wheel as depicting the cycle of death-and-rebirth is accepted by most schools, according to Triyana framework it represents the basic/literal ("hinayana") level of understanding.
Instead, some instructors, including Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, taught twelve nidanas as a process of gradual individuation, or emerging and hardening of the illusory ego.
In this line of thinking, avidya is the innate ignorance, samskaras are the arbitrary imprints of sensory stimulation, vijnana is inductive intelligence born from the imprints, nama-rupa are inductively postulated external objects, six ayatanas are the implied "windows" onto the world, phassa is a subjective experience of contact with the postulated objects, vedana is a sensation attributed to the contact, tanha is an obsessive replay of the contact and sensation, upadana is feeding the obsession by making its object one's goal, bhava is becoming the "this" of here-and-now, dependently-co-arisen with the twofold "that" of space-and-time, jati is identifying with a living organism, and jaramarana is experiencing the organism's perspective culminating in death.
(Because the list shows subjective experience, not an objective physical process, the physical birth is not shown, but if it were, it would fit right before Ignorance. The Birth that is shown, is not a physical birth, but conceptual (subjective) assumption that one is an individual living organism.)
Although 12 nidanas explained this way describe subjective experience of one sentient being, which begins with physical birth and ends with death, we could say that after death the cycle logically "restarts" from scratch, again starting from ignorance, progressing through individuation, and culminating in death of another "being" and so forth indefinitely.
To be sure, objectively there is no cycle, beings arise and cease asynchronously, but in some sense we could say that death of a (unenlightened) being is a return to innate ignorance.
@ChrisW found a tremendously elegant quote in Wikipedia:

When the cessation of the continuity of experience occurs, we speak of death. It is the total breakdown and dissolution of experience and experiencer. The process of disintegration, destructuring, and entropic scattering yields a nexus of vibratory murkiness which is the condition of avidyā, the first motif. Thus the entire structure of patterning feeds back on itself.

I am answering from the Theravada standpoint. (hoping this also will add some value)
Death is:

breaking of the aggregates due to decay or some accident, end of sustainable life span

Rebirth:

reformation of the aggregates

As long as the wheel of dhamma is turning, each time the aggregates breakup in one body it forms in another and rebirth. Even in this life the argeragers are arising and passing away. At death the aggregates pass away in this body but arises again in another body.
Eliminating ignorance causes the links in this cycle to break.You are not adding fuel to the fabrication process. Once this life ends there is no power for the aggregates to form in another body. So there are no more rebirths. If there is no rebirth there is not death or any of the calamities that follow birth.

It is taught by some teachers (if not many) the chain of dependent origination is divided into 3 lifetimes: past, present, and future. However, because each part describes a single lifetime, I think each part is simply one of 3 ways we can look at our present experience.
We can see our present experience in the sense that our ignorance gives rise to karmically potent volitional formations. Or, we can go deeper and see the conditioned nature of our experience in terms of the aggregates and how ignorance leads to craving (and eventually becoming) after feeling. Or, we can look at our present experience in terms of birth, aging, sickness, and death (as suffering). I think the Buddha wanted us to use all 3 ways as different tools for investigation of ignorance.
This would mean that the dependent chain of origination taught by the Buddha refers to the conditioning process of a being fettered by ignorance. In that case, it would also be justified to say that the chain refers to 3 different life times because the "present" life time contains the teaching of the aggregates, which are present (to my understanding) for all beings, enlightened and unenlightened, whereas the "past" and "future" lifetimes concern the unenlightened being (since enlightened beings aren't ignorant, they don't create karma; birth, aging, sickness, and death refer to dukkha and future rebirth which is not applicable present for the enlightened being).

In the original Pali scriptures, death is a condition for suffering (rather than for ignorance). For example, ordinarily, when a person you love dies, you suffer. This is why death is a condition for suffering. Such 'death' only causes suffering when you are attached to the object & have established (by becoming) a sense of personal identity ('birth') with the deceased object.
If you do not learn from that experience of suffering then ignorance will continue. If you do not learn, you will keep attaching to impermanent objects with some ignorant expectation those objects have permanence.
But if you learn, as stated in the Upanisa Sutta: "suffering is the supporting condition for faith", which then leads to enlightenment.

Ignorance is the supporting condition for formations, formations are
  the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the
  supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality
  is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold
  sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the
  supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition
  for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging,
  clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the
  supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition
  for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith,
  faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting
  condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for
  tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness,
  happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration
  is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as
  they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are
  is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the
  supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting
  condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting
  condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers).
Upanisa
  Sutta

The scriptures describe 'death' as the death of 'beings' ('satta'). 'Beings' is a mental state or idea.

Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying,
  death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of
  the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in
  this or that group of beings, that is called death.
SN
  12.2

~~~~

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form,
  feeling...consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up
  there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Satta
  Sutta

~~~

Mara, why now do you assume 'a being'? Have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN
  5.10


text:
What is the sutra where the Buddha emits fire and water from his body?
I've seen pictures that depict the Buddha floating in the air and emitting fire from this torso and water from his legs. The fire and the water might be the other way around. I think the picture illustrates a sutra or other text. Does anyone know what the original text might be?

I'd like to know this too. As far as I can tell, the closest this story gets to the suttas is the Jataka. Mainly its told in several Theravada commentaries, and is therefore non-canonical.

It's called the "twin miracle": The DPPN entry under Yamaka pātihāriya says,

The Twin Miracle is described at DA.i.57, and in very great detail at DhA.iii.204; see also J.iv.263ff. etc.

DA is the traditional Pali Commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya which has not be translated except in small bits. The DhA is the traditional Pāḷi commentary on the Dhammapada (I think) which has been translated into English by Eugene Burlingham as "Buddhist Legends".  J is the Jātakas which are also available in English translation.

DA is not sutra/sutta.

After the Buddha returned to his father's kingdom, uncertainty still existed about whether Gautama Buddha was really enlightened or not. In response, the Buddha allegedly displayed the Yamaka-pātihāriya or the "Twin Miracle", called so because of its simultaneous production of apparently contradictory phenomena; in this case, fire and water.
The twin miracle entailed Gautama Buddha producing flames from the upper part of his body and streams of water from the lower part of his body, alternating this, and doing similarly between the left and right sides of his body.
Afterwards, the Buddha took three giant steps, arriving in Tavatimsa. There, he preached the Abhidharma to his mother who had been reborn there as a Deva named Santussita.

You didn't answer the question.

"This I have heard...", is actually an answer, Bhante.

The earliest source seems to be Paṭisambhidāmagga. See here
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/sutta-searching-water-fire-miracle-in-pali-canon/5088/2
It appears to be elaborating a mere reference to something called “Twin Miracle” in Cūḷaniddesa, which in itself is a commentary on parts of the Suttanipata.

The fact that the Buddha could perform these miracles should be taken in the light to strengthen your devotion to the Buddha. If this is for pure delight or intellectual stimulations in miracles like watching or reading about magic or watching a magic show, this is the wrong motivation to investigate about it.
Having said the there is a Wikipedia page on miracles the Buddha performed including the twin miracle.
I am not exactly answering your question here but I hope this adds value.


text:
Is it useful to practice intoxicated?
I am aware that drinking is against the fifth precept, but there are certain occasions where I can enjoy a few drinks (few times a month). I read a lot that it is not recommended to meditate purposely on any drug - but what if I did take a few drinks, should I still meditate (e.g. Vipassana) or should I skip it?

I would skip it, allow me to explain why.
Just a little bit of context:
Your question touches on a very important point about meditation currently many people see meditation as a simple tool for relaxation, some mix meditation with music, some use it for healthy benefits only, stress reduction etc... there is nothing wrong with that, however in Buddhism meditation is seen as something very different from that, much more powerful.
Meditation is something sacred, special, divine, that is why we prostate, that is why we are thankful for the opportunity to meditate, it is something that we should pay respect to, Buddha attained enlightenment meditating.
In a Nutshell, as a way of showing respect for the meditation process you should never do it after drinking, keep it as something pure, something special in your mind and in your routine.
PS: This is my approach, I understand people from other traditions may think differently

explaining downvote: I don't drink personally, though I'd say that whatever state of mind you are in, it is useful to be mindful (practice formally or informally). You are unlikely to get some deep insight drunk, but you may have insight about how miserable it feels to be drunk in the mind, which definitely counts.

As a means to realize Nirvana, it is best to not meditate on drugs or use drugs as a crutch for meditation. By first-hand experience I'll say the drugs can be useful to an extent. If you've read "Be Here Now", the author describes how experiences with drugs led to a sort of heightened awareness, and I have had similar experiences. HOWEVER, the author clearly demonstrates the danger of using drugs as an aid to meditation, and I also have experienced those drawbacks. Basically, what happened was he would reach those blissful states of mind but he would go to great lengths to get them back. He would often experience depression when those states have ceased. This is the same thing that happened with me, and ultimately it is something that happens due to a lack of understanding towards our experience (i.e. that it is conditioned). He was shot straight into these blissful experiences, lacking in wisdom and exceeding in defilement. This is very dangerous.
But, like all things, benefit can be found here. We can learn to understand that all states of mind, or rather all experiences, are impermanent. Such an understanding will be conducive to dispassion.
So if you choose to drink, please be mindful of its conditioned nature. If passion (enjoyment) arises, set your mind on contemplating the conditioned nature of your experience. It is useful to have a basic understanding of the aggregates for this. For me, marijuana led me to be able to easily expand my awareness to my whole body and my environment. I stopped using it simply because it is not necessary to use drugs to experience such a state of mind, and also because the drugs can easily cloud the mind if you're not careful (and willing to sacrifice the pleasant experience).
Do not use this as an excuse to drink. Sometimes people on drugs say that they're high to understand their experience, but if they are passionate towards such experiences then they simply are not getting anywhere and are lying to themselves. This is why it is best to not use drugs.
I hope this helps you. Please understand that I am not encouraging drug use, only showing its (limited) usefulness. It is ultimately safest to not use drugs, and also it is more respectful to the Buddha. Metta to you.

Thank you. "the author clearly demonstrates the danger of using drugs as an aid to meditation" - I think you misunderstood my question a bit. I do not mean to use it to enhance my practice, but what if you are "inevitably" already intoxicated, should  you still make the effort to meditate or rather skip it at that time.

As a general rule of thumb I agree that one should not imbibe before practice.
However, it is useful to observe the mind in that condition. What is that like?
And again we have such chaotic schedules, you may find that you are free to practice after you have been at an event or out with friends, so why not practice then?
I don't see how it could harm you...
You may struggle to keep awake, which will be easier if you happen to follow a practice with the eyes open.
In addition to causing questionable judgement, it's clear that Alcohol dulls the wakeful quality of mind. It limits stamina for long practices, as well as our ability to serve others. These are the main reasons that I limit my consumption. (But I need to make a stronger effort myself.)
If we are learning to awaken to the natural mind, then it seems counterproductive to intentionally dull the mind. It's like dulling your knife before chopping your vegetables.

I would meditate first the same way you would not drink and drive because you lose awareness of the surroundings when you drink and lose the ability to concentrate.
Of course if you can become intoxicated on fruit juice, it is a sign of increasing sensitivity. If you must drink alcohol, make sure it is separated from time and place of your practice. Keep counting breaths while you drink. See if it is the drink you wish for or the thought of having the drink in your hand and feeling in control by being intoxicated.
Another herbal alternative is peppermint tea made very strong. You can drink hot or cold. Some say it has quite a kick. It is mellow and natural tea.

Drinking / drugs reduces your awareness and consciousness. You cannot effectively practice awareness after drinking. Think you are baseball or cricket player. Will you get drunk before you go to bat. You need some awareness to bat though not the right awareness as in Vipassana.
Also Vipassana is not something you just do on a cushion. This is just practice which should continue during the day. So if you are practicing Vipassana seriously then best is you do not drink at all.
Having said all this, for some reason or the other you end up drinking, keep looking at the sensation and your alertness of your body and mind. Look at how the intoxicant is effecting your body and mind. Some point you might see there is not enjoyment in drinking and also sets you back in your practice, through this might be very had as intoxicants reduce your awareness. Don't take intoxicants with a view to try to get such insights, as each time you do take an intoxicant, you take a step back and more steps in that direction lesses you will be able to get any insights into this.

i apologise but i dont think comparing playing baseball and soccer under the influence to meditating under the influence will produce right view.

What's the best way to communicate this?

honestly, im not sure... but i can vouch for it making focus and attention difficult so you are not entirely inaccurate. I simply told him Alcohol is known to cause a lack of heedfulness.

Also there are instances where drunkeds got enlightened. I cannot locate the references. This should not be take as a licence to drink though as it will bring down the probability of realising down to next to nothing at higher levels. If you can remember please share the links.

yeah, thats very interesting actually, if you locate them i coukd greatly benefit from studying them i think. Please share the links if you do. can you send messages on here?... if so feel free to send.

The Sarakani Sutta is what you be looking for.

According to my Zen Master, you must never meditate under influence of any drug. We even had a little sign at the entrance of zendo, that warned about this.
The same rule applies to alcohol, and if Master caught you drunk, or even in hangover, he would kick you out right away. Although unlike the drug rule, the alcohol rule is more of a disciplinary thing. They don't want people to lose their sense of boundaries.
These were the rules for lay people, who did not take the five precepts. I don't see why these would not extend to home.

there's that word again... "should".   :0/
No skipping meditation is not what you "should" do. But alcohol will actually bring out things that are not usually evident in the mind. The same way an angry person that starts drinking may get furious, so too will it exaggerate certain aspects of the mind, which theoreticslly makes them unavoidable, or at least they will be noticed if you truly are putting effort toward being mindful of the present moment as fully as possible.
But, as alcohol is very likely to cause a lack of heedfulness if taken in excess... you may not get much out if it.
Excuse opinion, but im a lay renunciate so i share my views on occaision and in this case i think it could be helpful...
so here it is, If you meditate under the influence of a conciousness altering thing, the first thing to do is focus on its effect, maybe in contrast to sobriety, on the four foundations of mindfulness.
 If drinking is a thing you might have trouble letting go of you certainly "Should" not let it be a hindrance to your practice by avoiding meditation simply because you drank a little.
Im not saying or assuming this applies to you necessarily... but may help if said... if it is a pretty serious problem (alcoholism) i woukd say it could help to MAKE SURE you meditate every time you drink... as you may come to understand it better that way. And to practice "live mindfulness" of the time in which you consume it... like why am i here REALLY?... be aware of what your body is literally doing... you know like when you grab the glass and pick it up, and tasting, etc... what do you do in between drinks, what thoughts and feeling arise.
im not sure why some people are telling you to skip being aware of a recurring phenominon that you are partial to but...
i say take four precepts and meditate!!!

I try to be mindful all the time, as much as I can. Therefore I would try to be mindful of what caused the desire to drink in the first place, then certainly I would try to be mindful while in the process of drinking and then I would try to keep being mindful while drunk. I would see how difficult it would be to concentrate and   experience the more subtle meditation objects. I would see how much more difficult it would be to remember and remember to be mindful as well. I might see how poor my judgment was while drunk. Hopefully I would realize how dangerous any amount of drinking would be and let it go.

yes, but you will find that it has a limit to that and you will eventually drop that and go sober. But i encourage to try with drugs, it opens new perspectives!
try by error baby!


text:
Realigning your priorities after realizing death and impermanence
It is very common to see people realigning their priorities after a near death experience or surviving a cancer. Things like money, career, fear of the future or anxiety don't bother them as much as before.
In Buddhism how can one try to develop the same kind of behave? Only through meditation? Any specific meditation method to do it? (I thought about something related to death and impermanence, but it has to be something really powerful to achieve similar results)

The ancient extinct Kadampa school of Tibetan Buddhism (not the NKT, New Kadampa Tradition, which is an unsanctioned "breakaway" school) practiced mindfulness of death. Their motto was:

Base your mind on the Dharma
  Base your Dharma on a humble life
Base your humble life on the thought of death
Base your death on an empty, barren hollow.

"The Words of my Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche explain this practice in the following way:

While standing up, sitting or lying down, tell yourself: “This is my last act in this world”, and meditate on it with utter conviction. On your way to wherever you might be going, say to yourself: “Maybe I will die there. There is no certainty that I will ever come back.” When you set out on a journey or pause to rest, ask yourself: “Will I die here?” Wherever you are, you should wonder if this might be where you die. At night, when you lie down, ask yourself whether you might die in bed during the night or whether you can be sure that you are going to get up in the morning. When you rise, ask yourself whether you might die sometime during the day, and reflect that there is no certainty at all that you will be going to bed in the evening.

One Kadampa would always turn his bowl upside down when going to bed, and would not cover the hot ashes to last until morning. When asked why, he answered: "I really cannot say if I will wake up tomorrow".
Besides the ongoing mindfulness of death, there is also a formal meditation on death, which involves contemplating three points:

that we are sure to die,
that we can not predict time and circumstances of our death,
that when we die, there is nothing that can help us.

Very good answer, thanks! I have read a similar teaching from Dhammavvuddho Thero, a theravada monk that also teaches we should always go to bed thinking that we may not wake up tomorrow. I have also seen pictures of monks meditating on an open cemetery close to bones and skulls, it all may seen "exagerated", but I think such teaching cannot be taught easily.

Under the 10 recollections there is a Kammaṭṭhāna which is recollection or death. This is can be used to develop spiritual urgency. This is similar to the near death experience, which changes the priories in a person. Upajjhatthana Sutta and related Suttas discuss in more detail.
In my opinion, you should place the attention on the spot (between your nose and upper lip) and start the breath meditation upto the 1st 3 steps in the 1st tetrad. Then with each in and out breath contemplate you might not live to have the next breaths. You are growing older with each breath passing away. You do not know what calamity (death, illness, accident, death or parting of a loved one, etc.) might befall you in the next moment. This fuels some level or urgency either spiritual or in other activities in life.

You are welcome. Any improvements?


text:
How to wake up properly after a nights sleep?
My mind tends to be more unbalanced after waking up than before going to bed. I try to observe breath and sensations but the mind is pretty muddled. This raises the question if the mind is making sankharas in deep sleep too? How is that possible when I don't have a choice in the matter?
What are the best practices after waking up?

Choice has nothing to do with sankharas, that is why we are trying to get in charge of our experience. "Life is not fair."

Meditate before going to bed, it always helps me wake up in a pleasant mood even if I sleep only for two hours.

One simple way to setup your mind in the morning is to re-take the refuge vow and/or the five precepts. Or, if you are a Mahayana practitioner, recite the Bodhisattva vow.
Here is another consideration though: as one of my teachers said, "the morning begins in the evening". Your morning mind is continuation of the tendencies you have setup in the evening. So if you go to bed with a clear mind and pure heart of simplicity, chances are, you will wake up clean and bright. The state of mind during the day matters too. If we argue, or get obsessed, or blame ourselves during the day, these thoughts and moods tend to come back during the night.
In the evening, there is a number of ways to prepare your mind for a good night. In my opinion, meditation should be done earlier in the evening, before the sunset. After sunset, having a silent walk helps. What I personally do after that, is read a Buddhist book in bed. This only works if your practice is going well though, otherwise you may get a sense of guilt when comparing the high ideals with your actual state.

That is some really good advice about how the morning begins in the evening. Thank you for sharing that.

The reason why the mind is like this is because, in order to sleep, we must give ourselves into drowsiness. Those with untrained minds (if not everyone) thus plunge themselves into delusion. That's why in dreams, everything's all loopy and oftentimes you don't realize that you're dreaming. When you wake up, your mind is just emerging from that state.
I think what happens with most is that they get worked up over the drowsiness they experience when they wake up, so they assume their mind has gone down the rabbit hole. But it hasn't, unless you're getting worked up about the drowsiness! It's simply another experience of the aggregates.
So when I wake up, what I do is remember the conditioned nature of experience in terms of the aggregates, particularly the part which deals with contact and the sense-bases. Whatever you see is an eye-object accompanied by feeling, perception, and volition. The same applies to the other sense bases. This gets my mind back in the grove because our practice involves great use of the 6-sense bases, until you get to the formless states of samatha meditation. How could you investigate the elements without the sense bases? What is their to develop dispassion towards if it isn't the senses?
In your waking life, using the aggregates as your work station, investigate drowsiness so you can understand it more and not become worried because of it. There's the feeling in the body, the passion towards the feeling (a volitional formation which manifests as laziness and leads us to taking a nice, comfy rest on our bed... or desk)... just try to understand it more.
I hope this solves your problem.

Very good answer. Hoping to see more of your questions and answers on the site. May be you can have a look at some of the old questions as well. Also welcome and good to see someone with your understanding. +1

This is my personal opinion. Process of fabrication goes on which you are asleep. My rationalising ia as follows

People who sleep a lot may be more peaceful than others if there is not fabrication during sleep.
Advanced yogis are supposed to keep awareness during sleep also. This implies this is what slows / stops the fabrication process
Also perhaps the reason you should practice for 1 hour in the morning as per instructions of certain meditation masters, thus cleansing the fabrications during the night. Similarly 1 hour in the evening / night to cleanse fabrication during the day.1

Your mind is muddled since your sleepiness and perhaps the fabrication during the night. So when you do wake up start getting aware of your body part by part initially take large parts. Then do a little bit or breath meditation focussing more on the sensation on the spot (Philtrum / Columella). This will charge you up to overcome lethargy.

1

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

We don't actually know in full detail why we sleep yet, be we do know that it seems to be because our mind needs to recuperate from being used all day. Even dolphins, who you'd think cannot really sleep because they'd drown have found a way: their left and right hemispheres sleep alternately. Given that nature is willing to jump through such loops, I think it's safe to say that sleep is pretty necessary.
In order to be able to recuperate, it makes sense that it must be to some extent turned off. People aren't machines however; there's no single switch that can be flicked to activate us. So it takes a while. You aren't bothered by sankharas, you're just not really quite there yet when you wake up.
I've also read recently that some biologists noted that in mice extra fluid enters their little brains, apparently to sort of wash them. I think this must surely interfere with normal awareness, otherwise the extra fluid would be there all the time. Maybe draining it away takes time.
But whatever the case may be, what you're experiencing is perfectly natural and nothing to worry about. Maybe you could try starting to wake up earlier, but doing it more gently?

This answer does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice.