Are we sure that the search for credit and for approval does not infect the ego of the users of this site?

I personally start looking at the speed of the breath and then it slows down. In the Tripitaka are there recommended methods to accomplish this? What do different teachers and commentaries say about it? One meditation teacher I found who emphasizes calming of the bodily is Bhante Vimalaramsi in 6Rs . But exact mechanics is not really covered on how the relaxation happens. Does this also lead to or linked to calming of the bodily fabrications? Are there more explicit instructions, especially those we can source from the Tripitaka?

Would using YouTube or other social media, where one is exposed to music or forced advertising/entertainment, be breaking the rules for monks? > "the watching of entertainments are stumbling blocks" This makes watching any of YouTube (Number 7 of the eight precepts) an area of concern.

One hears of Buddhist monks and of priests. What is the difference?

In the vinaya of the Theravāda, it is an offense for a monk to insult or be abusive to another monk (pacittiya 2). But I don’t see any reference to a prohibition from yelling at a lay person (and I know of some instances when some bhikkhus have behaved disgracefully in this regard). For that matter, there seems to be no prohibition in the vinaya on beating the hell out of a lay person either without the use of a weapon (short of killing them). Is that right or am I just missing the rule where this is prohibited? **Notes**: 1. Please don’t reply with references to what is implied and what is common sense etc. I know that. The question is specific to whether there is a prohibition in the letter of the monastic code. 2. While the 5 lay precepts do guide against harsh speech, no prohibition on a lay person silently beating someone either. This is also not lost on me, so it’s not really useful to point out that “what about the lay precepts?” . The question is regarding the Vinaya in its role as community rules, not as guidelines for wholesome personal behaviour.

I posted the identikit question to Christianity stackexchange, and was met with dumb silence. Which, really, I was shocked by. E.g. the parable of the good samaratin: > Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to > Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat > him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest > was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other > side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and > saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he > travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with > compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and > wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and > took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two > denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of > him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' > Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him > who fell among the robbers?" > > He said, "He who showed mercy on him." > > Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." 'Mercy' can be defined as - compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm. Which is very, very close to exactly what I mean: compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed. Because it seems to me to be *the bedrock* of intelligent ethics, I was very interested in if the Buddha ever discussed this. 1. Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?

If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago today, 21July2015, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? I want to assume that the kindness and generosity perhaps trumped the ignorance about samsara, resulting in a new individual array of aggregates and store consciousness inclined toward learning about Buddhism and Nibana. I wonder this basis Theravada approach to rebirth.

How much discussion of *refuge* is there in the modern vipassanā movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement) ? If there is significant emphasis, what is its character? I am particularly interested in Western vipassanā circles such as IMS and Spirit Rock, but also their Eastern progenitors. I am not speaking here of the formal ceremony or commitment of taking refuge as much as the concept and ongoing practice of refuge.

Not "clinging to rites and rituals" is one of the three requirements to become a Sotapanna. But in creating a Sangha with strict rules (especially given the extensive permutations within the Tripitaka), the recitation of the Patimokkha etc, do followers of the Dhamma and Vinaya inadvertently accept the usefulness of ritual? Was the Buddha's warning more specifically against any practice that is not grounded in empirical experience? And given that the Noble Eightfold Path establishes a concrete method and practice for the attainment of the goal, did the Buddha embrace [Ṛta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9Ata) - the natural order of the Universe or Truth - if only in its most stripped down, empirical form?

What contentment and modesty, what persistence and grasping, toward what, craving, craving holding on what leads to liberation? Doing, acting, content toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit? Doing, acting, persist toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit? *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*

Metta sutra says "May all living beings be happy minded." This seems illogical to me as all living beings cannot be happy minded at a particular moment of time. I also feel that contemplating on anything that is false will not lead me to the ultimate truth. In my view loving kindness should be better cultivated by knowing the true nature of things because if we get insight into real nature of things then we will automatically develop kindness by clearly seeing dukkha and we would be able to understand the suffering of others in a better way. Note: I do not intend to offend great Buddhist scriptures. I asked this question to clear my ignorance.

All the teachers and people I have read, talked with and listened to, emphazises that Buddhism is the Middle Way. Is this the right way to see it? If so, what is the most important or central aspect of The Middle Way?

I've tried a few different Buddhist groups and they are quite prescriptive when it comes to meditation practices. They have their own system and everyone does it. But the Buddha used skillful means when teaching which I understand to be tailoring the teachings to his audience - for instance I've heard that the Kalama Sutta is an example. So did the Buddha teach meditation practices as skillful means? - i.e. give one person one practice and another one a different one. Not so much one person gets the beginner practice and the other one the advanced but people get different practices irrespective of their 'level' i.e. two advanced practitioners get different ones to suit them. It would be great if you could give references to standard texts for this (i.e. Pali Canon, Diamond sutra etc....) Many Thanks as always

> "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to **let go**, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. > > [Indriya-vibhanga Sutta (SN 48.10)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html) What is exactly meant by letting go & how is this exactly done (in daily life & meditation) ? Why is the breath not the 'object', if it's called Mindfulness of Breathing?

There is a lot of talk on breath, now what is breath? What's the meaning? Is it form? What of it? Is it an action? Is it a perception? A feeling? How should it be taken, if to be taken, so that it would be used right, focused on it right? **Addition: It should be seen to be encouraged to give answers after own investigations on field, having investigated breath, in and of itself.** *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*

Is it possible to list out the section of the Tripitaka summarizing what areas they cover.

On Wikipedia [Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha) redirects to [Gautama Buddha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) , but there is also a [List of the twenty-eight Buddhas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_twenty-eight_Buddhas) Was Buddha a single human man? Or is Buddha a concept or maybe a spirit often reborn?

I am reading SN 36.22, which says: > And what, bhikkhus, are the thirty-six kinds of feelings? Six types of > joy based on the household life, six types of joy based on > renunciation; six types of displeasure based on the household life, > six types of displeasure based on renunciation; **six types of > equanimity based on the household life**, six types of equanimity based > on renunciation. These are called the thirty-six kinds of feelings. > “And what, bhikkhus, are the hundred and eight kinds of feelings? The > above thirty-six feelings in the past, the above thirty-six feelings > in the future, the above thirty-six feelings at present. These are > called the hundred and eight kinds of feelings. What are the six types of equanimity based on the household life?

English is my second language. If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then **why should I care** about his life if I will no longer exist? Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel? How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body? Is nirvana an "informational" suicide? In short, please tell me, why should I care about the next "life" or "going to nirvana" if there's no self, no core and "I", "myself" will disappear after death? Maybe I would stop caring about it because "I" will stop being exist and I will stop feel, think, care straight after death? --- PS: And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here. And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless. Thanks.

I have relationship with non Buddhist, and we both thinking seriously about marriage. My family could not accept him because he is not Buddhist. But as I learned so far , Buddhism teach us to love and respect all religion. Can I marry him?