> “Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, and established mindfulness in front of him, ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out. > > “Breathing in long, he understands: ‘I breathe in long’; or breathing out long, he understands: ‘I breathe out long.’ Breathing in short, he understands: ‘I breathe in short’; or breathing out short, he understands: ‘I breathe out short.’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body of breath’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body of breath.’ He trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in tranquillising the bodily formation’; he trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out tranquillising the bodily formation.’ This passage is translated with the same words in my native language, but I don't understand what does it mean. The other English translation translates this as "stilling the body’s motion". Does "tranquillising the bodily formation" means the same as "stilling the body’s motion"?

[This answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9318/254) was thought to be Zen-inspired: > Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books. Zen has a reputation for being a bit [iconoclastic](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11510/254) . But perhaps it is somehow based on dharma or suttas (see e.g. [Publishing the sutras](http://tuvienquangduc.com.au/English/story/01zenstory21-40.html#37.%20Publishing%20the%20Sutras) , and Korea has a [Tripitaka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripitaka_Koreana)) ? On the other hand I think I remember one user of this site writing that they had a Zen teacher initially, but didn't understand it so well until later, after they studied the Pali suttas a bit on their own -- as if the Zen were maybe not clear about explaining theory? Some of the famous recorded dialogs (e.g. "Nothing Exists", or the poem contest which Huineng won) seem to be dhamma discussion -- as if they have learned some dhamma to discuss! But the few popular modern English introductions to Zen that I might have read don't seem to mention dhamma much -- they talk about Zen customs or methods, like sitting and giving students a koan -- not the four noble truths, not the gradual or the threefold training, not the hindrances nor fetters nor the factors of enlightenment, perhaps not even the traditional story of the Buddha (i.e. the four messengers and his living home). I think that Thich Nhat Hanh probably talked about the three or four characteristics of existence, at least -- I expect that, impermanence, is maybe a famous item of doctrine in the culture (of traditional Zen countries) at large. What is Zen doctrine, what might be taught to a novice? Does it depend entirely on what the student might have learned already, no fixed curriculum, based on an interview between the student and the teacher? Is the elementary dhamma -- e.g. as outlined in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1487/254 -- instead a body of knowledge which most laypeople would have learned at home or perhaps in elementary school, in countries where Zen is traditional, therefore something which doesn't need to be taught to adult students?

And even more, that we should embrace it and accept it (while at the same time avoiding the sufferings) ?

I focus now on bigger area from top of the nose to upper lip.When I watch breath my focus goes from upper lip to nasal passage but could not return to upper lip that is my tiny spot of focus .It gets stucked up to nostril or base of nose.So what should I do to focus continuously upper lip to top of nose and return back from top of nose to upper lip.

What could be the purpose of the Buddha teaching AN 2.61 below? Why is this relevant? How is this useful? AN 2.61 states: > “Mendicants, females die without getting enough of two things. > *“Dvinnaṃ dhammānaṃ, bhikkhave, atitto appaṭivāno mātugāmo kālaṃ > karoti.* > > What two? > *Katamesaṃ dvinnaṃ?* > > Sexual intercourse and giving birth. > *Methunasamāpattiyā ca vijāyanassa ca.* > > Females die without getting enough of these two things.” > *Imesaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ dhammānaṃ atitto appaṭivāno mātugāmo kālaṃ > karotī”ti.*

According to Buddhist teachings, is it possible to continue to reborn and suffer for all eternity? Suppose if a being never attained any merit, never was able to work through its old karma. Would it be possible for that being to never escape suffering? I have heard some people say: > No, nobody can be reborn and suffer forever. For an extremely long time, maybe, but not *forever.* I mean, *forever* is really an astounding concept. Even if you take billions of trillions of gazillions of births it's still *nothing* compared to *forever*. If it's *not* possible to be reborn forever, then it implies that all beings are eventually destined for Enlightenment. Some may have an insanely long way to go, but if they're not gonna be reborn forever, then they have to *eventually* attain Enlightenment? **Do some beings continue to be reborn and suffer forever, or are all beings destined to attain Enlightenment *eventually*?** I prefer answers that give sources and all that. But some nice reasoning is also welcome.

Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent (and I believe it is called this) does it have substance? I'm just asking due to some completely trivial insights: it seems that a quality of my experience of time doesn't change, perhaps even arise or end. And I'm wondering what that permanent quality is, or might be.

I'm reading Thich Nhat Hanh's "The heart of the Buddhist teaching". When discussing the three dharma seals he talks about misconceptions of suffering. He says that teachings where suffering is considered a basic element of reality are wrong: > But sometimes only Two Dharma Seals are taught - suffering and > nirvana. .... But suffering is not a basic element of existence. It is > a feeling. When we insist on something that is impermanent and without > self being permanent and having a self, we suffer. The Buddha taught > that when suffering is present, we have to identify it and take the > necessary steps to transform it. He did not teach that suffering is > always present. This makes sense to me intuitively How do the different schools, i.e. TNH as well as those opposing, justify their position? What do they use as their reference? I have read this Q/A here however I am more interested in the references and how the different ideas are defended. The Q/A linked seems to be more opinion based, which is fine of course.

I've been a Buddhist since I was 13 years old, ever since my confirmation and studying the bible following that, realizing that I didn't believe in the scriptures which I was raised on then I started searching for some sort of a philosophical structure and knowing that without religion I'd have a void within me. To make long story short, I studied the tenets of Buddhism and the eight fold path and I started living like that at the best of time however strafing away from it at the worst of times. However I would like to add some depth to my understanding of Buddhism and it's teachings, however the local temples are either Thai Buddhists with the golden statues which I find revolting or the Zen which I'm not quite sure of.

Is it a scientific error of the Buddha? > Sāriputta, there are these four kinds of reproduction. What four? Reproduction for creatures born from an egg, from a womb, **from moisture**, or spontaneously. > > And what is reproduction from an egg? There are beings who are born by breaking out of an eggshell. This is called reproduction from an egg. And what is reproduction from a womb? There are beings who are born by breaking out of the amniotic sac. This is called reproduction from a womb. **And what is reproduction from moisture? There are beings who are born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspool or a sump.** This is called reproduction from moisture. And what is spontaneous reproduction? Gods, hell-beings, certain humans, and certain beings in the lower realms. This is called spontaneous reproduction. These are the four kinds of reproduction > > * MN 12 This idea was common in ancient times and was understandable because they had no way of understanding how maggots "appeared" on decomposing bodies, but we now know that it is false. If it is a scientific error of the Buddha, then how can we understand his omniscience? Couldn't he see with his supernatural eye that maggots weren't really born from the decomposition of bodies? His knowledge is supposed to encompass the whole cycle of rebirths, I find it hard to see how he could be wrong about the birth of a whole part of these animal beings.

A Buddhist, when dead, is most of the time cremated and not buried. Does this have to do with anything in the teachings of the Buddha? As far as I know, burying a body is more Eco-friendly than cremation. I share with you one of the best answers given by the legendary Neil deGrasse Tyson :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU

Buddha said about meditation on death : "Even if a person aware about his death can be happen within that day is late. If someone thinks, his death can be happen within current breath is not late". According to that, Can we think about future at all? How can we manage neccessery things without thinking about future ? (I know that, for a buddhist, there can only be one dream or goal. But what about food, money for living ?) Why meditation on death is a good karma ? Isn't it a good karma to meditate on other things ? (thinking about failure of an ongoing project, end of a relationship etc.) (However thinking on death covers all) Sorry for bad english. King regards.

Did Lord Buddha tell something about this ? (Relationship between sati and memory) There was a monk in Buddha's time who is enlightened but didn't have a strong memory. To be enlightened, some has to have a strong sati.

The last few days I've been struggling with the fear of death. I really love life and I fear the unknown. I know it's inevitable but for some reason I can't accept it. I find it beautiful how in buddhism people actually want to achieve nirvana. I mean I know there's no suffering but also there is no happiness etc. I would love to hear some tips on how to accept the inevitable and enjoy the here and now more. Mindfulness helps a lot but sometimes the thought still jumps into my mind.

In the Pāli Theravāda tradition, are there any specific guṇas that a sammāsambuddha has that an arhat has not?

q: > Why is it some monks (Yuttadhammo specifically) walks barefoot in his > alms rounds as well as while doing walking meditation? Is there a purpose to it?

Why there are only one Buddha per universe? And why there are not more or less at any time?

I'm thinking a lot about the animal issue right now, and a question came to me. Are the five precepts universal? If so, are animals required to respect them? If not, what morals must animals follow? There is obviously a form of morality involved because, if I understand correctly, an animal can generate bad kamma and be reborn in an inferior realm . Even if, according to this site , animals cannot generate good kamma? > (...) Animal behavior is also run by instinct, which means that animals cannot generate good karma, they are simply working off the bad. (...) On Wikipedia , I read that : > (...) The Buddha expounded that sentient beings currently living in the animal realm have been our mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, children, friends in past rebirths. One could not, therefore, make a hard distinction between moral rules applicable to animals and those applicable to humans; ultimately humans and animals were part of a single family. They are all interconnected. (...) So, how to understand the first precept? Does an animal like a lion, which kills another animal for food, generate bad kamma? I don't think so, because his intention is not bad. Does that mean that the first precept would only concern torture? For example, a dolphin that tortures his prey before eating it would generate bad kamma? But isn't it in the instinct of animals to do such things? A cat almost always tortures his prey before killing it. In short, many questions, but I wondered if there were any Buddhist texts or philosophers who had spoken about the question of morality in other realms of existence, the animal realm in particular. I read in "*An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics *" of Peter Harvey , chap. *Attitude to and treatment of the natural world*, that : > (...) Buddhist Jataka stories often attribute noble actions to such animals as monkeys and elephants, and there is also a reference to some animals keeping the five precepts (Vin. II.162). (...) Would this mean that being a herbivore is a better rebirth, because it is easier to keep the precepts, where a carnivore is almost doomed to produce bad kamma and be reborn in an inferior realm? > (...) in one Jataka story, (...) the Buddha in a past life is said to have been a crane who only ate fish when he found them already dead (J. I.206–8). (...)

According to Wikipedia, “Extant vinaya texts include those of the Theravada (the only one in Pali), the Kāśyapīya, the Mahāsāṃghika, the Mahīśāsaka, the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda.” Does anyone know which of these Vinayas has the least number of rules? According to Peter Harvey (*Introduction to Buddhism,* p. 290), the Theravadin Vinaya has 227 rules for male monastics, the Mula-Sarvastivadin has 258, and the Dharmaguptaka has 250, making the Theravadin the one with the least number of rules. The Wikipedia article on Vinaya substantially agrees with this, but has 253 for the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya. However, the Wikipedia articles for Mahasamghika and Sthavira (and elsewhere) also state that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has the least number of rules, citing Andrew Skilton, *A Concise History of Buddhism,* stating that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has 67 rules in the *śaikṣa-dharma* section, compared to 75 for the Theravadin (apparently referring to the 75 *sekhiyavatta*), which appears to contradict Harvey’s statement that the Theravadin Vinaya has the least number of rules. Does anyone (1) have any insights concerning the relative number of rules in the Vinayas that can reconcile this apparent contradiction or (2) know where English translations of the n*on-Theravadin* Vinayas may be found? I am still researching this question online so may end up answering my own question, but would like to hear any relevant information from others.

Dearest friends, seeking to clarify my fragmentary understanding of these matters, I would very much appreciate your comments on the distinction between **Sati** *Mindfulness* and **Yonisomanasikara** *Attention by way of the Matrix*. Warmhearted, grateful thanks for you taking the time to offer some help.