Did the Buddha teach a single meditation that includes jhāna and insight, or do the scriptures have him separate meditation into different techniques? In what Buddhist traditions is it necessary to qualify meditation as vipāssana or samatha?

I have heard that there is insight meditation (mostly as part of practicing Buddhism) and Samantha (which involves Buddhism, but really just as a tool in the beginning of a meditation). This question springs from a question below and reading this answer about (Samantha) Anapanasati: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9185/8475 Ultimately, I believe that the answers about meditation for this question are inadequate. I may be alone here, but the current answers do not specify a practical technique for meditation (assuming that mindfulness is a subcomponent). Categorizing the different types of meditation may help in for these underlying reasons: - Best type of meditation for attention - Technique for Concentrative Meditation - What exactly differentiates Vipassana from Samatha meditation? Lastly, I intent to make a venn diagram showing the similarities and such... Here are related questions: - Does Zen distinguish between concentration and insight meditation? - Buddha's advice regarding meditation practice

I would like to hear all the ways to strengthen the feeling of the breath so i will know when it enters the body and when it leaves it i tried to put a hand on the stomach and feel the air go out and in of the nose - with limited success would like to hear tips on how to do the standard methods people use above - maybe i can improve them - and also i wonder if there are different ways to know strengthen my ability to know when the breath enters and leaves the body - any interesting way you have i would love to hear about it - it dosnt have to be buddhist in any way it can involve equipment even - whatever can help improve my skill of sensing the breathing I am not looking for different ways to meditate without the breath (only for ways to iprove my breath sensing skill) - thats a different subject and it can be addressed in another thread i created : https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11469/cant-notice-the-breath

Be like water - but what if i fail i really like the quote "be like water" and wanted to live by it - but the problems was what happenes when i fail - when i cant meditate or more truly too lazy to meditate - and always take a few days break no matter what ? because water don't fail - they don't take a break - so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water" theory doesn't work cause water don't stop and get back up can someone here help me find some explanation to make the "be like water" quote reasonable to failing as well This is not a buddhist connected idea directly - but i ask this to help my practice - and its very very important for me if i get a good reply - very wholsome kamma +++ plus its more related to the practice than other questions ive seen here before

As a beginner, I practice two forms of meditation: one focusing on the breath (typically with eyes closed), and one focusing on a colored disc (kasina), obviously with eyes open (unless cultivating the after-image). All descriptions I have seen for the former describe the arising of the counterpart sign when the eyes are closed. However, from what I have read on kasina meditation , the counterpart sign seems to arise with the eyes open. I have not experienced either of these myself (and in fact, this link dismisses its importance altogether), so I would like to ask: is it possible for nimitta to form iin either case?

I found this book in a local bookstore and went online to research it. I could not find much reference to it. The author, George C. Adams Jr., purports to have been given a lost sutra of the Buddha, given on his deathbed, to Ananda. It looks like a work of complete fiction to me but was wondering if anyone has more information on it.

From an article about Heidegger , > The beginning of this story, as told by Heidegger especially in the Nietzsche lectures, is the end, the completion of philosophy by its dissolution into particular sciences and nihilism—questionlessness of being, a dead end into which the West has run. Heidegger argues that the question of being would still provide a stimulus to the research of Plato and Aristotle, but it was precisely with them that the original experience of being of the early Greeks was covered over... For the later Heidegger, “western philosophy,” in which there occurs forgetfulness of being, is synonymous with “the tradition of metaphysics.” Metaphysics inquires about the being of beings, but in such a way that the question of being as such is disregarded, and being itself is obliterated. The Heideggerian “history of being” can thus be seen as the history of metaphysics, which is the history of being’s oblivion. Is this itself reason to suspect that philosophers like Plato, by which I mean contemporary thinkers who are paid to publish philosophy (including I suppose self help authors and some aspects of psychology) are bound to misunderstand the *concept* of emptiness? When the Buddha taught, the history of Being, metaphysics, had not yet, it seems, begun. Are philosophers and people in general misunderstanding the terminology the Buddha used, perhaps because he lived at a time before 'Being' when there was only 'world' -- etc..

Though I've seen dating of mahayana suttas here and there in passing with some analysis, I understand the pali canon has suttas of many ages. For example, one collection I've often heard to contain many old suttas is the *Itivuttaka*. However, I've don't recall seeing any information about dating of specific suttas, or what criteria for estimating the age are used. Is there a set of suttas which has been identified as the possibly oldest texts?

I was reading an article in National Geographic about death, in which there was a brief reference to "thukdam". This was described as a form of meditation that takes place in India, during which monks meditate for a week or more with no biological processes occurring in their bodies (essentially, their bodies are dead), and then come out of the meditation with no apparent consequences. What is this meditation and could someone provide references for further info? Thanks

In Soto-Zen Buddhism there is a sitting meditation known as Shikantaza which is the art of just-sitting. My question, what techniques are given to Soto-Zen practitioners to prevent the mind from being "sticky" or "stuck" during Shikantaza. For example, 1. I have been told by some practitioners that they would call sight, sound, taste, touch, smell and mind as objects. By referring to the six sense organs as objects they disconnect themselves from the object to prevent the formation of subject. Although it sounds interesting that doesn't sound like, at least by what I've read, as Shikantaza. 2. Another practitioner told me they simply listened to silence or emptiness. This reminded me of Eckhart Tolle's meditation instructions especially given in his book "Stillness Speaks". The problem I find through this method is the practitioner is focusing on an object, as Lao tzu mentioned in his book the "Tao Te Ching"; the form which is formless. Also, Dogen encouraged the sitter to just sit with no attention to a single object. Concentration on emptiness is neglecting sitting and the original face. 3. Finally, another practitioner explained he would simply try to keep his attention centered as if he were sitting inside of a dome. That is, trying to be aware of the world and his thoughts while building a kind of cushion between himself and object. Almost but not exactly a combination of the first two. Therefore, what are the steps Soto-Zen practitioners are encouraged to take in order to practice Shikantaza. To clarify, I'm not interested in physical postures such as sitting, hand positions, the position of the tongue, etc... but rather, what is the sitter doing with his/her mind and the steps they are taking to separate subject from object.

I'm not particularly into Buddhist style meditation but wasn't sure where else to ask. I tend to accumulate a lot of random ideas that filter in and after my session I jot them down - is this counter productive to an effect meditation? I use the Muse brain sensing headband and still stay in a fairly calm state of mind.

Some of the reading that I have been doing recently makes me wonder what is the place of mindfulness in the Buddhist path. My previous (current?) view is that mindfulness is central and is in some way the goal of the Buddhist path. As one progresses one gets more and more mindful until at the end you are mindful all the time in a absolutely complete way. Mindfulness becomes almost synonymous with Nirvana (almost). However I'm starting to think that mindfulness is just one tool among many and it may have a greater or lesser role as time goes on. It is just a way of seeing or helping us see more clearly and it is the clear seeing that is important. So which view if any is closer to how things are? Is mindfulness a tool on the path or is its continuing refinement the entire point? Is it the path or the goal?

How to develop Chanda? Anything you have to add on this subject is welcomed and appreciated.

I am a student and follow Buddhist ideas. Can Buddhist practices increase my capabilities to be a better student? More discipline? Clearer mind? What practices would be of the most benefit to achieve my academic goals? --- Related questions (involve increasing focus/ attention, productivity/ efficiency/ time management) - What meditation practice will allow me to sleep less and focus more? - Best type of meditation for attention - Does meditation increase productivity for software developers and related professions? Additionally, what studies have been done for the more general "spillover" type benefits such as greater well being and confidence?

This question came up in my book club. Chanting is a central practice in Nichiren Buddhism. How does it work, what effects or benefits come from it? Has this changed much between from historical and modern times?

I have been doing meditation for long time and have felt a change in me. I have started developing strong compassion, and due to this I am speaking very politely to everyone and always agreeing with the views of others. In fact, I am helping others in their work. However, now people have started taking me for granted. As I speak kindly with my subordinates, they are taking advantage of me by commanding me to do their work and are trying to dominate. They have started speaking in rude ways to me as they have started feeling that I am not harmful for them and cannot do anything. I am now becoming a victim of their politics. How to overcome this problem? I cannot leave my post as this is the only way of earning my bread and butter. Being on the path of Buddhism, how to maintain relations with your colleagues?

This fascinating article describes the Buddha as data driven ascetic . > Buddha took a different approach: His rules were grounded in his own > experience. Like a lot of us, he tried some crazy diets. But what > worked for him was very simple. He gave little advice about what his > monks should eat, but he was very particular about when they should > eat it. His followers were basically free to eat anything they were > given — even meat — but only between the hours of dawn and noon. > > Like any good data scientist, Buddha learned to ignore the outliers. > Buddha didn’t give a mystical or supernatural explanation for this odd > time restriction. But he was pretty sure it would improve their > health. He had tested it on himself. “Because I avoid eating in the > evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably,” > he explained. “You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you > will have good health.” The article goes on to discuss the empirical results of calorie restriction diets with mice. Now, what I'd like to know, is there any grounds to believe that the Buddha had health in mind when he suggested not eating dinner? I've read that many vinaya rules were based on how the laity would see the Sangha- eat lots would make the sangha look like gluttons, so they only took two meals. Also, Nikaya Buddhism's central problem to be solved was desire & aversion, so it was the fixation on hunger that was the problem, not that dinner was making one fat, unhealthy or short-lived.

In [SN 35.72](https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.72) , the buddha had an exchange which goes like this: > “What do you think, bhikkhu, do you regard the eye thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’?” > > “Yes, venerable sir.” > > “Good, bhikkhu! And here, bhikkhu, you should clearly see the eye as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Thus this first base for contact will be abandoned by you for no future renewed existence. > > (Repeats for the remaining 5 sense bases, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind...) When the buddha said, this base for contact will be abandoned by you for no future renewed existence, does he mean that your future existence will be devoid of that sense base i.e. being born without sight?

The Buddhist scholar Sallile King has the following interpretation made from the [Mahayana Maha PariNirvana Sutra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na_Mah%C4%81parinirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a_S%C5%ABtra) : > [I]t is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, and indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so. What I basically want to know is in the context of mindfulness meditation (*anapanasati*): Is it okay to have the usual hindu belief in eternal aatman for the practice of *anapanasati*, or is it *necessary* to have the buddhist belief in *non-existence of aatman* in order to practice *anapanasati*?

Are the positive qualities of enlightenment ultimate or conventional realities? These are > permanence, bliss, personality, purity. If they are ultimately the case, can they be directly seen?