Is there a specific reason why the breath is used as the object of anapanasati or to be more precise: Why did the Buddha chose the breath. Does it mean then that in daily life our main object should also be the breath?

I tried meditation literally just now...Monday 24 November 21:00 UK time. This is the second time I have ever tried it... literally twice this evening. I have tried before lying down in bed etc to see if I could get out of body experiences but no luck. So tonight I had nothing to do and tried sitting up (the classic meditation look.) I sat in a dark room with low level background sounds. My mind went blank and concentrated on my breathing which went super super slow. Then my airways opened up...i heard my air passages "click." Then i felt slight tingling. Then the tingling seemed to travel over my whole body then it was REALLY REALLY itchy tingling or "pins and needles" darting over my whole body...I had to stop as it was starting to hurt a little!!!!! After I started itching...mainly my back area and got a bit blotchy. I have just had a hot shower to help with the itching. As I know NOTHING about what Im doing, Is it normal to have that experience? I literally could not carry on. What would happen if you forced yourself to carry on? What should I be looking for when trying to meditate? Any help or information would be greatly appreciated. This isn't my scene really but Im interested in learning more. Thanks for your time. T

Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as > "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, > the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the > stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated > (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the > auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the > amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted, > dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, > the asylum, the refuge, the destination." Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying > "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, > nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the > base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, > nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this > world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say > there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and > no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. > Just this is the end of suffering." The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says > "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be > named is not the eternal Name." while chapter 7 says, > "The Tao is > infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can > never die." And chapter 14 says, > "Look, and it can't be seen. Listen, > and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't > bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the > realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an > image, subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no > beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you > can be it ..." The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2, > "The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.", "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging." And in 12.3, > "... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent. From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent. My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction? Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

This is a follow-on to [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/34694/254) What's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the "bliss" (sukha) and peace (santi) of Nibbana? Is one required to seek joy to attain Nibbana? Why? Should one seek sukha, peace, or Nibbana (to attain Nibbana)? If Nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy is one of the [path factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Awakening) ? It seems to me the meaning of the English words "bliss" or "happiness" is synonymous with "joy" so why does it seem like Nibbana has been described as "bliss" or "happiness"? In my opinion if there is no element of "joy", "pleasure", "delight" etc. to the attainment of Nibbana then it is wrong to refer to it as "happiness" or "bliss". I don't understand how it could be possible for there to be an unconditioned happiness or bliss.

In Buddhism, we can find a name called "Maha Brahma". Is he a GOD (as per Buddha, there are no such people called GOD), or some kind of different bean?

I've heard in several dhamma deshana that discussing the bad practices practiced by monks is a sin. But I feel that if we don't discuss such with our family & just continue giving, we won't have much shradda in our heart & also we won't be able to inform it to the chief monks to be corrected. Is there any suthra that describes about this?

What is the relationship between the definitions of *sampajañña* (clear comprehension) in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35? From SN 47.35 (translated by Bodhi): > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, > bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise, > understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away. > Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain > present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as > they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass > away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear > comprehension. From SN 47.2 (translated by Bodhi): > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, > bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts with clear comprehension when > going forward and returning; when looking ahead and looking aside; > when drawing in and extending the limbs; when wearing his robes and > carrying his outer robe and bowl; when eating, drinking, chewing his > food, and tasting; when defecating and urinating; when walking, > standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, speaking, and keeping > silent. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu exercises clear > comprehension.

There are some phrases in the suttas where it is said "be your own island". The word for "island" is "*dvipa*" in Sanskrit, meanwhile "*dipa*" means "light" or "lamp" in Sanskrit. However, in Pali, "*dipa*" means both "island" and "light" / "lamp". Due to this, it is quite common for the phrase to be mistaken as "be your own light", especially among speakers of Indian languages. Why does the sutta say "be your own island" instead of "be your own light"? What is the significance of "be your own island"? From SN 22.43 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato): > “Mendicants, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other > refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other > refuge. > > *Attadīpā, bhikkhave, viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā > dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.* From this footnote by Maurice O'Connell Walshe: > *Atta-diipaa*. *Diipa* means both "island" (Sanskrit *dviipa*) and "lamp" (Sanskrit *diipa*), but the meaning "island" is > well-established here. The "self" referred to is of course the > unmetaphysical pronoun "oneself"

I have observed that during contemplation, there are periods where attention is on the object, a kind of basic awareness. Then, there are periods where thoughts emerge, based on the object, a kind of cognition of the object. Then, there seems to be periods where cognitions unrelated to an object within experience occur; these would be be as mind-wandering or speculation. My question is: **Are those cognitions and fabrications *unrelated to direct experience* precisely what one tries to counter in Buddhism?** I have the impression that if I cognized only direct experience through awareness, and produced only object-related cognitions, that I would diminish wrongness and inefficiency in the mind greatly. Thank you

In reference to [this](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/extremist-views-are-banned-on-this-forum/13312) : Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"? Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism? Their usual advertisement: In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma? or the usual approach of them: Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma? Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute? ---- That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma? *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*

I have been going through this dilemma for almost a year now in choosing a meditation object.. I only wish to take one meditation object.The reason being i maintain this object through out the day and i gather momentum with it.I noticed if i practice two meditations even if it's very short i lose momentum with my previous one.I think because i've inclined the mind towards one object so when it switches i am not developing much concentration. The main problem i have is i really love and enjoy anapanasati.Piti and sukha are quite developed so i enjoy it very much and can sit longer. I can gather momentum,its relatively easy to turn my attention to the breath through out the day..now here's the bad part... MY EXTERNAL situations in life just seem bleak,unfriendly,uninspiring,lonely,dull i start getting emptier and emptier like less socialising less entertainments moving towards like a letting go type of life it's freeing and a relief except nobody is friendly around me.Like things are just DRY and uninspiring around me. On the other hand when i practice Brahmaviharas,the result are immediate and everything around me is great,people are friendly,i feel protected from harm,pleasant situations.HOWEVER,i don't really prefer this meditation object because it's tiring and i can't sustain it through out the day repeating phrases.Its tiring basically.Also it's not as still as anapanasati which i prefer but if i don't practice the brahmaviharas life just gets very bleak very fast.When i do practice even for 5 minutes everythings just annoyingly great and sugary sweet.Its really wearing me out trying to choose. Should i just ignore being afraid of unpleasant situations and emptiness/seclusion and incline the mind towards the breath which i know i can make progress or should i just do brahamaviharas and keep everything around me happy? Thanks

I have practiced anapanasati for a while and encountered some difficulties. I can easily find my breath in front of nostril. Then I started to pay attention to the in-and-out of the breath continuously. But after a while, pain raised in my chest around heart. As I tried to focus more on the breath, the pain increased. In addition, if I suddenly stopped paying attention to the breath, I found my neck and shoulder very rigid and uncomfortable. I also felt exhausted after the meditation. I’m wondering if I focus too much. Before I know anapanasati, I used to practice simple meditation like just relaxing and checking any thoughts if they arise. I felt much better by not paying attention to any object. So my question is: what is a good “attention” to breath? Thanks!

*Anapanasati* is usually described as "mindfulness of breathing" but I've seen a member of this site describing it as "mindfulness with breathing". *Sati* or mindfulness (as seen in the parable of the bowl filled to the brim with oil, of SN 47.20 ) is keeping the mind on the task, and not allowing the mind to become distracted. What is the simplest version of *anapanasati*? I found a very simple instruction set in SN 54.3 (quoted below). There may be other suttas too. But I find this description from SN 54.3 insufficient and requires elaboration. While breathing, what is it that one is mindful of? Is one mindful of the breath, or mindful of something else? The sutta states: "They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’" What does "breathe in observing letting go" and "breathe out observing letting go" mean? Letting go of what? Do you let go, or do you observe the letting go? How do you observe the letting go (rather than letting go)? What is the simplest instruction for the practice of *anapanasati*? Especially for people who are not well-versed in the teachings and maybe even non-Buddhist? Such people may not have the patience for lengthy and complicated instructions. From SN 54.3 : > “Mendicants, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated > it’s very fruitful and beneficial. And how is mindfulness of breathing > developed and cultivated to be very fruitful and beneficial? > > It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a > tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body > straight, and establish mindfulness right there. > > Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out. … > > They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They > practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’ > > Mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated in this way, > is very fruitful and beneficial.”

Answers to this question suggest that the 16 are steps or stages of *anapanasati*, which implies that they are a progressive sequence of steps or stages. They are also related to the four foundations of mindfulness or the *satipatthana*. On the other hand, the booklet "How To Meditate " (quoted below) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, seems to suggest that one should not use it as progressive steps. Instead, it recommends that if feelings arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. Or if thoughts arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. That does not sound like a progressive sequence of steps. That seems to be more "go with the flow" or feel free to move from any of the 16 to any other, depending on what arises. So, which is right approach to *anapanasati*? Are the 16 progressive sequence of steps approach right? Or is the approach of the "How To Meditate" booklet right? Or are they two different techniques? From "Chapter Two: Sitting Meditation " of the booklet "How To Meditate ": > Regarding the body, watching the rising and the falling is sufficient > for a beginner meditator. At times, one might wish to also acknowledge > the position of the body as “sitting, sitting”, or “lying, lying” if > it is more found to be more conducive for clear observation. > > In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the body, one > should fix one’s attention on it, discarding the abdomen and focusing > on the sensation. If a feeling of pain should arise, for example, one > should take the pain itself as a meditation object. > > Any one of the four foundations may serve as a meditation object, as > all four are aspects of reality. It isn’t necessary to stay with the > rising and falling of the abdomen at all times. Instead, when pain > arises, one should observe the new object, the pain, in order to > clearly understand it for what it is, rather than judging or > identifying with it. As explained earlier, the meditator should simply > focus on the pain and create the clear thought, “pain, pain, pain, > pain…” until it goes away. Instead of getting upset about the pain, > one will see it for what it is and let it go. > > When happiness arises, one should create the clear thought, “happy.” > When one feels peaceful or calm, one should create the clear thought, > “peaceful,” or “calm” until that feeling goes away. Here, the object > is to avoid clinging to the feeling, which would create a dependency > on it. When one clings to positive feelings, one will be inevitably > dissatisfied when they are gone. > > Once the sensation disappears, one should return to the rising and > falling of the abdomen and continue observing it as “rising” and > “falling”. > > In regards to the mind, if thoughts arise during meditation, one > should acknowledge them as “thinking”. It doesn’t matter whether one > is thinking about the past or future or whether one’s thoughts are > good or bad; instead of letting the mind wander and lose track of > reality, bring the mind back to the reality of the thought with, > “thinking”. Then return to the rising and falling and continue > practice as normal. > > In regards to dhammas, when the mind gives rise to liking, pleased by > a certain experience, create the clear thought, “liking, liking”. When > disliking arises – anger, boredom, frustration, etc. – create the > clear thought, “disliking, disliking”, “angry, angry”, “bored, bored”, > or “frustrated, frustrated”. When laziness or drowsiness comes up, > create the clear thought, “lazy, lazy”, or “drowsy, drowsy”. When > distraction or worry arise, “distracted, distracted” or “worried, > worried”. When doubt or confusion arise, “doubting, doubting” or > “confused, confused” and so on. > > Once the above hindrances subside, bring the mind back again to a > clear awareness of the present moment by focusing on the rise and fall > of the abdomen. The 16 steps or stages of *anapanasati*:

I've read about the jhānas which one can experience from concentration (samatha) meditation. I have been practicing some form of mindfulness, breathing meditation, but have not experienced a state of absorption that is characteristic of the jhānas. I know that the jhānas cannot be experienced only by reading about them, however, the insight from my meditation practice alone has not brought me to them. From my perspective as a novice practitioner, it makes sense to look to the Zen (derived from the word dhyāna ) branch of Buddhism for guidance on the subject of meditation : > In the process of deepening meditation, one can roughly identify three > distinct stages: the stage of concentration, the stage of meditation, > and the stage of absorption. > > This dualistic relationship is broken gradually as the practitioner > moves into the stage of meditation. The ego-conscious activity is > gradually lessened, and the barriers it set up for itself will > gradually be removed. When the practitioner enters the stage of > absorption, the dualistic framing of the mind will be removed such > that the mind starts structuring itself non-dualistically. There will > be no separation or distancing between an object of the mind and the > activity of the mind itself. I don't have the budget for every book on Zen Buddhism, but I have read all the Zen books on Kindle Unlimited (the content is mostly history, terminology, and sitting accessories). What books are there that go into depth on Zen/samatha meditation practice?

Greedy, hating, deluded, faithful, intelligent, speculative I know they may seem self exploratory on the surface, but I'm looking for an understanding to more properly determine how one is to know which one he/she is someone else is.

I vacuum away cobwebs, ants & any other small insects I find while cleaning the house. My intention is to clean the house but I still feel bad about those insects. And most of the time I don't clean the vacuum cleaner bag on the same day & even if I do so some insects are already dead. I'm unable to use brooms or anything to clean the cobwebs due to medical conditions. Is it a sin to do so?

It it well known that Tientai teaches the identity of the mundane and real truths. - In its complete teaching, what is being equated? Is it equating the **real truth** of the *separate teaching* with the complete teaching's **mundane truth**? The so called "separate teaching" is what Yogacara and Hua-yen Buddhists claim, and Zhiyi says (translated by Swanson) says that therein:

I noticed some buddhist monks spend a lot of their time teaching and giving dhamma talks, while other monks spend minimal time on these things. I was wondering if there are any rules in the monastic code for monks regarding how much time a monk should spent on teaching?

What are the components, the categories (the dhammas)that have to be observed in dhammanupassana (the 4th field of satipatthana)?