I am practicing Vipassana meditation and I want to know is it possible to practice samadhi/anapana and pragya/Vipassana without following Sila.

I am going for minor operation. Should I ask for anesthesia or do without it(seeing the unpleasant sensation equanimously) ? And when I have orgasm or very tasty food it's very difficult to see the sensation equanimously. What to do? Any tips to remain in equanimity in orgasm ?(too difficult!) Isn't anesthesia same as alcohol ? (numb your consciousness )

I can devote 7 hours to ( meditation + sleep ) per day . Should I do 5 hour sleep and 2 hour mediation(1 hour twice) **or** 6 hours of sleep and 1 hour of meditation ?please give reason . will 2 hours increase my productivity (please tell from your own experience, not any bookish knowledge ) Will meditating twice will give me **twice** more benefit than meditating once ?

When we study with concentration and our mind gets distracted we bring back to the very subject we study. The same thing we do it in meditation,when mind gets distracted we bring it back to breath . So isn't Studying is also meditation

In his book Breath by Breath Larry Rosenberg writes about meditating on the three kleshas directly i.e. meditating on craving, aversion and delusion. He is talking in the context of the Anapanasati Sutta . I can understand how one could recognise aspects their own hatred or craving. But how could someone recognise their own delusion in that moment of meditation? Specifically, I can see that anger would be very obvious and one would become very familiar with the burning, energetic, dominating quality of this. In the same way, one's own craving and desire could become recognisable - we are familiar with what wanting actually feels like. However what does delusion actually feel like. What bodily sensations are associated with it. What does the mental quality actually feel like. I can imagine looking back and with hindsight been able to see that at that point in time I was very deluded and thinking some very strange things. But how can the deluded mind see itself as deluded in that moment? How can we meditate on this? What does delusion feel like and how can we learn to recognise it?

When I am very angry or very fearful my efficiency of work increases I can concentrate more .but now when I am practicing Vipassana for a couple of years my fear and anger is diminishing. I am worried whether my work will get hamper/bad or not. Please guide me

Is doing 10 min meditation 6 times same as doing 1 hour meditation? Or is doing 30 mins 4 times same as 2 hour meditation ? Thanks for answer can i go more than 1 hr say 90 mins?

studying the two, and reading the list of the 4 tetrads, in the Anapanasati - first breathe and body, second studying the two, and reading the list of the 4 tetrads, in the Anapanasati - first breathe and body, second feelings. third mind, fourth dhammas. in the Satipatthana it is the same. I have read Analayo's book on Sati a number of times as well as many other books - sat contemplating both practices, is it the fact that in the Ana they suggest which dhammas to sit with? where in Sati it is much greater? 4nt 8fp, awakening factors....

I have been following Goenka tradition of vipassana for a few months now(one 10 day retreat and 5 months of daily practice). We are instructed to keep our attention below the nostrils and observe the flow of breath (i.e., just know that you are inhaling or exhaling). My problem with the instructions is that I can feel the sensations under my nostrils, but I don’t understand what that sensation means i.e., if it is inhalation or exhalation. For the longest time, in an attempt to figure/know what the sensation corresponded to, I think I was controlling my breath, which proved to be counterproductive as I was having trouble breathing normally. Even extending to normal day-to-day affairs. I tried using harder breaths, longer breaths, but I never could go beyond understanding that there is sensation under my nostrils. I understand that it is for building shamata, and the knowing of if the sensation corresponds to inhalation or exhalation doesn’t matter that much. But I am assuming there is a reason the instruction is a certain way. Am I doing something wrong. Any help is appreciated. I read that the Mahasi tradition emphasises keeping the attention on the rising and falling of the belly, but I don’t think I am ready to mix traditions yet. Does anyone know what might be happening here or have any suggestions on what can be done to help better my practice.

I have started facing a weird problem which I wouldn't earlier. While meditating during daytime, I sometimes doubt whether I am actually experiencing *nimitta* or my *vittaka* has waned and, instead of making way for *ekaggata*, my closed eyes are in fact picking up ambient light. This inevitably keeps me from attaining stable *anapana-nimitta* in that session and the progression plateaus, irrespective of how effortless maintaining concentration has become. That leads to restlessness and I either don't feel like keeping my *aditthana*, or if I can nullify that I emerge from the session somewhat disappointed that I didn't utilize the session well. I'd like to clarify that I not seeking any *jhanic* factor or for *anapana-nimitta* to emerge, and I can attain *anapana-nimitta* and subsequently absorption for desired time period before progressing to the higher *jhanas* during night-time because I know I can't be confounded by ambient light... So, other than only sitting at nighttime, which isn't really a solution, what do I do? Any pointers?

Can anyone post a video of what a "bhamakāro" from ancient India would be doing? If not, can anyone explain very clearly what we are talking about in terms of the tool that would have been used, the process, and what the person would have been doing? Pali: > Seyyathāpi bhikkhave dakkho **bhamakāro** vā bhamakārantevāsī vā dīghaṃ vā > añchanto dīghaṃ añchāmīti pajānāti, rassaṃ vā añchanto rassaṃ > añchāmīti pajānāti, evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu dīghaṃ vā assasanto > dīghaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti. Dīghaṃ vā passasanto dīghaṃ passasāmīti > pajānāti. Translation of MN 10 from Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > Just as a skilled **turner** or his apprentice, when making a long turn, > discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn > discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when > breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing > out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' Translation of MN 10 from Sujato: > It’s like a deft **carpenter** or carpenter’s apprentice. When making a > deep cut they know: ‘I’m making a deep cut,’ and when making a shallow > cut they know: ‘I’m making a shallow cut.’ ...

What is the interpretation of parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation? This seems to have different interpretation and translations? What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to different line of practice? How is the particular interpretation rationalised?

About 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination as found in SN 12.2 of the Pali suttas, Bhikkhu Analayo said the following: Bhikkhu Thanissaro said the following: Which is right and why? Bhikkhu Analayo or Bhikkhu Thanissaro?

So correct me if im wrong samatha and vipassna are the goals of all forms of meditation. Anapanasati can be either for the goal of samatha or vipassana (or both). Vipassana is very cognitive, contemplative, and samatha is often the exact opposite, one pointed focus? Im curious how it works. How does it connect to doctrines of tanha and clinging? Is the samatha concentration lead to deep state of non-reactivity? Like this is how it leads to tremendous results (samatha anapanasati is the meditation used in psychotherapy as just pure stress reduction) . But despite it's results it's not sufficient for the Buddhist path because serious stages of enlightenment require real understanding and insight. And vipassana on the other hand from what i understand is for insight. it doesnt mean tranqulity and mental strenght cant come from it, in fact the true peace and strength does come from understanding eventually, but thats not the point. vipassana on death is generally not that happy go lucky an experience... So while insufficent samatha is a good powerful tool for overcoming barriers? If someone is consumed by hatred or anger or anxiety or impatience and they are too frenzied to really practice so it would be good to tranquilize them first? If I'm dealing with a lot of stress samatha would be the place to go? Tell me if everything I've described is correct. :) thanks

When I talk of sankharas, I mean the pattern of the mind and the way in which the sanna recognizes an object. After prolonged Vipassana and remaining equanimous to the body sensations, Many of my thought patterns have changed and I can practically see a link there. But theoretically I am still unaware as to how remaining equanimous to body sensations has anything to do with the deepest habit patterns of the mind. Now my question is if one stops Vipassana meditation for a sufficient period of time. Is there a way for these sankharas to develop again?

Here is a general meditation technique of Anapanasati where one concentrates on the breath. My question is during this meditation where should the eye turned. Should they look up , or straight normally or on nose tip ? Is there any recommendation in the tradition as to what should the eyes do?

As far as I am aware, in Zazen the hands are folded in a mudra, a larger emphasis is placed on holding the specific posture, the eyes are held open, and attention is placed underneath the navel. But other than this the basic instructions seem to remain the same: concentrate on your breath, and when other thoughts arise direct attention back to the breath. In Theravada Buddhism a large emphasis is placed on the *jhanas*. Is Zazen also supposed to lead to states of absorption? What are the differences between the practices?

Anapanasati is a meditation technique attributed to Buddha himself and it is from Tripitaka. What other meditation techniques are present in Tripitaka and are attribited authoritatively to Buddha himself other than Anapanasati?

Meditation and cultivating awareness is the heart of Buddhism. You need meditation for attaining jhanas and also for doing Vipassana, metta bhavana... So as far as I've discovered, the only meditation that Lord Buddha taught was sitting and watching the breath. But nowadays many masters and mystic have very different techniques for different kind of people. Because not all people has the same temperament and cannot go into trance by just one single method. And as tathagata also had so many different disciples, did anapana worked for all of them and all of them attained jhanas, stillness of mind, etc. by practicing anapana alone or there was other meditation techniques, if so what are these techniques? P.s. I know about walking meditation, loving-kindness and other awareness meditations explained in satipatthana but they are not specifically techniques. What I'm looking for is the sitting meditation techniques when anapana does not work.

In MN 44 is found an explanation of the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' (which are terms also found in Anapanasati steps 4, 7 & 8 and in the 2nd nidana of Dependent Origination). Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is: > *Now, lady, what are fabrications (sankhara)?* > >*These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications (kaya sankhara), verbal fabrications (vaci sankhara) & mental > fabrications (citta sankhara).* > >*But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal > fabrications? What are mental fabrications?* > >*In-&-out breaths are > bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.* > >*But > why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought > & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings > mental fabrications?* > >*In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things > tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily > fabrications.* > >***Having first directed one's thoughts and made an > evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed > thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.*** > >*Perceptions & feelings > are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why > perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.* The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the **cause** of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech? Similarly, in MN 10, contemplating the 'citta' means observing to see whether the citta ('the mind-heart') has greed or not, hatred or not, delusion or not, etc. Therefore, how can perception & feeling be the "mental (citta) fabrication" when many suttas state it is feelings & perceptions that are the **cause** of mental states of greed, hatred & delusion (as shown below)? > *If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes > it or remains fastened to it, then one's lust-obsession gets > obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, > & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's > hatred-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of > neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is > present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback or escape > from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. MN > 148* In the English language, the term "fabrication" refers to something that is 'fabricated' (such as a 'building'). Therefore, should not the translation here of 'sankhara' mean something that fabricates (such as a 'builder')?