user199: On YouTube @Yuttadhammo seems to say that tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept and as a result -- i.e. because a concept is not "real" -- that meditation cannot lead to insight. And, by way of contrast, he says that the rise and fall of the abdomen can lead to insight because the abdomen (and its rise and fall) is real.
Is that -- the nature/reality of the meditation object -- the primary difference between meditation intended to achieve tranquility and that intended to achieve insight?
But if so, how does that tally with Y's answer to this question. There, he notes that the Visuddhimagga allows for insight to be achieved by scrutinising “mentality” (nāma). But how is mentality real while a concept is not?

user3551: Tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept 
Tranquility meditation such as Metta or Recollections of the Qualities of the Buddha are based or expanded on concepts.Tranquility meditation using the breath is based on the "real" " physical" " direct" sensation of " **touch ** " in the nostrils.
Is the reality of the meditation object the primary difference between meditation intended for tranquility and intended for insight 
Of course you'd want to choose a meditation object that you can concentrate on. The more  real the better. The more solid (rupa) the better.You need concentration to develop insight.So the 'realness' of the meditation object is not the "difference" between tranquility and insight but is in the best interest of both meditation practices.So my answer is no.Meditation objects are not the primary difference between tranquility and insight its the meditation technique one uses on them that  differentiates the two.
How is mentality real while a concept is not?
Forgive me.I don't know how to explain this but ill give an example: Loving kindness is a concept.Sukha and piti are nama.Nama are like the actual real mental qualities that arises in our mind and concepts is almost like a label we give to the combined mental factors.Since insight deals with seeing things clearly it sees straight through concepts and deals directly with Nama and rupa.Tranquility however doesn't have to break the concepts into nama.it just has to stay with it for however long it lasts.

user18: Here is the difference: a thought itself is real, but the object of the thought is conceptual. Loving-kindness is real, but the object of loving-kindness is conceptual. 
When thinking, one is really thinking. When thinking of a cat, the cat is not really there, but the thought is.
When loving a person, the love is really there, but the person is only a concept. 
Mind refers to the process of thinking, loving, etc., itself, not the object of the mental activity. When the mind focusses on the movements of the body, the movement is real, the focussing is real, but the body part itself (e.g. hand, foot, stomach, breath etc.) is a concept. 
If one focusses on the breath, for example, going in and out of the body, one is focussing on a concept, as it is not directly related to the observation of the sensation. If one focusses on the sensation at the nose or the abdomen, then one is focussing on ultimate reality.

199: <p>On <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;t=2m14s" rel="nofollow noreferrer">YouTube</a> @Yuttadhammo seems to say that tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept and as a result -- i.e. because a concept is not "real" -- that meditation cannot lead to insight. And, by way of contrast, he says that the rise and fall of the abdomen <em>can</em> lead to insight because the abdomen (and its rise and fall) <em>is</em> real.</p>

<p>Is that -- the nature/reality of the meditation object -- the primary difference between meditation intended to achieve tranquility and that intended to achieve insight?</p>

<p>But if so, how does that tally with Y's <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8117/199">answer</a> to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8080/199">this question</a>. There, he notes that the Visuddhimagga allows for insight to be achieved by scrutinising “mentality” (nāma). But how is mentality real while a concept is not?</p>
 3551: <p><strong>Tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept</strong> </p>

<p>Tranquility meditation such as Metta or Recollections of the Qualities of the Buddha are based or expanded on concepts.Tranquility meditation using the breath is based on the "real" " physical" " direct" sensation of " **touch ** " in the nostrils.</p>

<p><strong>Is the reality of the meditation object the primary difference between meditation intended for tranquility and intended for insight</strong> </p>

<p>Of course you'd want to choose a meditation object that you can concentrate on. The more  real the better. The more solid (rupa) the better.You need concentration to develop insight.So the 'realness' of the meditation object is not the "difference" between tranquility and insight but is in the best interest of both meditation practices.So my answer is no.Meditation objects are not the primary difference between tranquility and insight its the meditation technique one uses on them that  differentiates the two.</p>

<p><strong>How is mentality real while a concept is not?</strong></p>

<p>Forgive me.I don't know how to explain this but ill give an example: Loving kindness is a concept.Sukha and piti are nama.Nama are like the actual real mental qualities that arises in our mind and concepts is almost like a label we give to the combined mental factors.Since insight deals with seeing things clearly it sees straight through concepts and deals directly with Nama and rupa.Tranquility however doesn't have to break the concepts into nama.it just has to stay with it for however long it lasts.</p>
 18: <p>Here is the difference: a thought itself is real, but the object of the thought is conceptual. Loving-kindness is real, but the object of loving-kindness is conceptual. </p>

<p>When thinking, one is really thinking. When thinking of a cat, the cat is not really there, but the thought is.</p>

<p>When loving a person, the love is really there, but the person is only a concept. </p>

<p>Mind refers to the process of thinking, loving, etc., itself, not the object of the mental activity. When the mind focusses on the movements of the body, the movement is real, the focussing is real, but the body part itself (e.g. hand, foot, stomach, breath etc.) is a concept. </p>

<p>If one focusses on the breath, for example, going in and out of the body, one is focussing on a concept, as it is not directly related to the observation of the sensation. If one focusses on the sensation at the nose or the abdomen, then one is focussing on ultimate reality.</p>
