text:
Breathing at nostrils
I usually focus on breath at the stomach but recently decided to try at the nostrils as I read it's better and also that's what the Buddha taught. I have no problem feeling the breath going in as it feels cooler but 99% of the time I feel nothing breathing out. So i just try to focus my mind in that area even though there's no sensation bring felt. Is this ok or should I just stick to stomach?

it's actually a step-up that you can feel the temperature of the breath. It indicates that your level of concentration is above-normal. I would suggest that you continue the breath practice consistently for a few weeks to a month (without expecting any results - I've learnt that 'letting things be' is the key when meditating.) You should be able to feel more at your nostrils by then. Hope this helps! :)

Thank you.  One thing I notice is that if I wear earplugs I can concentrate more

That was what I was advised at the meditation retreat I attended as well. No harm in using earplugs to block out noise / distraction, since our goal is to enable a higher level of concentration.

The Buddha never taught about nostrils.
The Anapanasati Sutta instructs to bring mindfulness (recollection of/being established in Dhamma principles) to the fore.
The most important aspect of Anapanasati meditation is the mind is at ease so the mind remains clear & feels the breathing in a natural way.
If the breathing is prematurely & deliberately watched at the nostrils, eventually, the breathing will become undiscernible because the breathing becomes too fine but the ambitious mind remains too coarse. In addition, sleepiness/sloth will likely develop.
Stream-enterers do not attempt to direct the mind upon/towards the breathing. Instead, stream-enters (like silent predators) allow the breathing to come to the mind.


text:
No rapture or joy
I've meditated for over ten years daily more than 2 hours a day plus I've done over a dozen long retreats. On the first couple of retreats I had quite cathartic experiences and felt a lot of joy. Since then I've felt not much at all. I don't feel any joy or rapture in my daily practice. Sometimes I feel calm but that's about it. I wonder if I'm doing something incorrectly? I pay homage to the Buddha and try to feel gratitude and I practice metta to start. I've also given up eating meat and practice self compassion.

Rejoice in your long years of meditation and more than 2 hours of commitment daily! I am a new and enthusiastic meditator myself. May I know what kind of meditation do you engage in for the past ten years?

Hi Samantha, I practice insight in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition and also Shamatha.   I feel better now. I was having a moment earlier. I got swept up in some afflictive emotions craving and clinging.  I just had a nice sit and feel more peaceful.

So glad to hear that Saddha. Keep it up! :) It's really normal to have ebbs and flows in our meditation progress. As long as we are one foot in the material world, it is easy to get our cravings and aversions riled up. I recently tried the Mahasi Sayadaw method and it gave me really quick results. Walking meditation felt very counter-intuitive to calming the mind since it involves lots of movements and sensory inputs but it makes sense as well since a higher level of concentration is attained if one can handle the distractions. I could feel much more sensations while sitting. - With metta.

I think you need a teacher to guide you along the way. Find a teacher who has more experience and get advise from him.

The word "I" appears eleven times in the post. Because of this, two suttas come to mind here...
The first is Ananda proclaiming about half the spiritual life. One might perhaps infer that Ananda might be thinking about "my practice" half the time. But the Buddha disagrees.

SN45.2:1.4: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are half the spiritual life.”
SN45.2:2.1: “Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda!
SN45.2:2.2: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

The second sutta is MN8, where the Buddha teaches self-effacement.

MN8:4.1: It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
MN8:4.2: They might think
MN8:4.3: they’re practicing self-effacement.
MN8:4.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;

Having spent 10 years sitting on Zen cushions myself, I can relate to your original post. I was lucky to have an old friend come by and ask me what the Noble Eightfold Path was. And to my horror, I could not answer. So I started reading the suttas and interacting with people according to what I read. These two suttas above were confounding at first to read, then gradually they made more and more sense. That old friend is now ordained and I now know the Noble Eightfold Path.

The word I appears in your reply 6 times. It's a pointless thing to focus on. We all need to use the English language a certain way to understand each other. I'm well versed in the 8 fold path but you seem to be assuming I'm not. Your reply overall is unhelpful. Sounds arrogant tbh so I down voted it.

Arrogance and resentment should both be discarded indeed. "> AN5.162:3.3: In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of body and focus on their pure behavior by way of speech."

I empathize with your situation. I recalled that it had been mentioned by a monk (was it Ajahn Brahm?) that it is normal for some people when they first started meditation practice to experience sublime attainments. Subsequently, we can spend years or even decades trying to rediscover and relive those attainments.
This situation reminds me of the Asubhasutta. Of particular interest is this paragraph.

Because of this, they only slowly attain the conditions for ending the defilements in the present life. This is called the painful practice with slow insight.

Regardless of which of the 4 categories we fall under, I think, the main thing is the intuition or insights gained. This is the nutrient that sustain our practice as well as guide it.
An analogy would be like studying. The school teachers would always encourage us to try to ignite our interest in the subject we are studying. The rationale being that our interest will spark our curiosity in what we are learning. Ultimately, both interests and curiosity will generate greater motivation and understandings (insights) leading to better mastery of the subjects and eventually better grades. Sadly, being a dense student, I could not understand or accomplish this and my days of study was dry, tedious and monotonous. Insights were far and infrequent, subject understanding was very slow. But those torturous time spent studying did help me to pass the important tests just where it matters (albeit not with flying colours), thanks to a stubborn perseverance.
Therefore, the years of practising dana, keeping the precepts, meditation and being mindful are not without their rewards. There was once I went into a coma. I recalled the time I spent in that coma was one of the best experiences I had in my life. I never felt so at ease, peaceful and joyous. It's like all this time while I was alive, I had never truly relaxed or allowed myself to rest properly; I was constantly chasing and being chased (perhaps by greed, aversion and delusion). But I was finally able to take a good break while in that coma.
Thinking back, I wondered why I had such an extraordinary experience. I realised it is linked to all those years of trying to meditate, keeping the precepts and practising dana. The mind naturally inclined towards contentment, letting go and peace. I believed these factors and a degree of concentration resulted in feelings of joy and bliss when all memories of who I am i.e. sex, age, nationality and so on were forgotten. Incidentally, I also attributed the ability to recollect what happened in the coma to mindfulness. It acts like a silent observer in the background, recording what happened and archiving the information for later recollection. So, here too, our regular mindfulness practice comes handy.
I know from personal experience that those years of meditation are not in vain. It changes the way the mind inclines and in Buddhism this is especially important in our final moments as it has an important effect on rebirth. Lastly, being a vegetarian is admirable. It will be good if it is done with loving-kindness, compassion and for the benefit of all beings including ourselves. In this manner, we too, will experience the Metta, compassion and joy in our lives.

Through the keeping of precepts, mindfulness and meditation practice, it should be easy to generate insights. Alternatively, keen observations, asking questions and delving deeply into issues too stimulate insights. These insights let us see the difference between ourselves and the people around us like why despite their better endowments, they are more stressed up and constantly unsatisfied. When the insights accumulates and reach a tipping point, they turned into wisdom and naturally leads to peace and less suffering.

AN 11.1 suggests that joy might arise from or be a reward for, "freedom from remorse" -- also translated as, "having no regrets".

Rapture or Joy do not come out of dry concentration, that's a misunderstanding of Buddha's teaching. I'm glad you came to realization that something is amiss in your practice. It takes courage to question oneself.
The practices taught by the Buddha can be broadly classified into external practices and internal practices. External practices are mostly about one's behavior or karma, the objective results of one's behavior. While the internal practices have to do with how one's subjective experience arises  from (is shaped by) one's attention and conceptualization. At some level both of these blend together, e.g. one's external behavior leads to certain subjective experiences but it is convenient to separate them when talking about joy.
Both sadness and joy come from comparison of "this" with "that". Everyone knows this, the "reality and expectation" is a common meme nowadays. Buddha's teaching is a two-fold system that addresses both sides of this equation. The behavioral training takes care of the objective side. You learn to not create objective causes of trouble, pain, conflict, discord and so on. Then, when you sit down and look at your life, you don't have anything obvious to worry about or regret. On the contrary, you have reasons to be glad and that's what the next paragraph is about.
The meditative training takes care of the subjective side. These are the attention and conceptualization aspects of this/that comparison. This is the part many practitioners don't understand, especially when they don't have a live teacher guiding them. What Buddha taught is not just sitting and staring at the wall until you feel joy, not at all. Instead, he taught a deliberately generated ladder of more and more refined subjectively joyful states, building up to complete transcendence of comparison. He actually insisted that the steps of the ladder must not be skipped! (See Gavi Sutta, AN 9.35.) This ladder (in its schematic simplified form) is what we know as the jhanas and it involves controlling one's attention and picking the right object of comparison for generating the joy.
There are many, many references to this spread around the Pali Canon, but basically, you have to learn to focus on the authentically successful aspects of your own spiritual life, and compare yourself favorably with the worldly people. This comparison is practiced earnestly until it generates joy, and this is the only correct explanation of the First Jhana, according to me. (This is when having a solid foundation of external practice provides one with plenty of objects to use as a base of compassion.)
Once you "enter and stay" in this generation practice, meaning, once you internalize it to the level it becomes automatic and almost subconscious, that is when the "directed thought and evaluation" - i.e. finding an area you excel at and executing the evaluation - can be abandoned and you attain the Second Jhana (the afterglow of joy) and the Third Jhana (the internal assurance and integration). Then the Fourth Jhana has to do with transcending the simplistic "better/worse" or "right/wrong" dualities altogether, along with their corollaries of conceit and restlessness. (Once again, the steps of the ladder cannot be skipped!)
I'm glossing over some details and simplifying a bit, because it's difficult to fit all nuances in a single answer like this, but I hope you see the gist of my message. The Buddhist path is a very rational system that utilizes the rational principles applied in a systematic way. Everything, from the Four Noble Truths, to the Noble Eightfold Path, to the Four Jhanas and beyond fit together like the gears of the clock. You have to understand it properly in order to practice it and get the results.

I appreciate your comment but I'm not 100% sure I fully understand. I mean I do try hard to guard the sense doors and not create objective trouble and discord and most the time when I sit I feel calm but still there's this nagging feeling that something is meant to happen. That I should feel something, see something, understand something. But most the time it feels fruitless like I just sit I watch the breath I see the thoughts and return to the breath.  It doesn't feel profound like I'm deeply changing or becoming happier. I rarely get lost in thought now though when I sit. That has changed.

Im not sure I want to sit for another ten years and feel no different to how I feel now

You should have kept your original comment, the one you deleted. I just saw it and it made everything clear. What your teacher is telling you is that your craving for some achievement is exactly what goes contrary to you attaining the peace of no craving. You know this, but knowing is not enough. What I was trying to tell you in my answer is that you can't skip the levels like that cow in Gavi Sutta and get straight to peace. The jhanas are not what you were told they are. The First Jhana is joy that comes from deliberate positive thinking. Please give that a try. With metta

I will try to analyse your question part by part.

I've meditated for over ten years daily more than 2 hours a day plus

Very good. It will help if you can increase this to 3 or 4 hours.

I've done over a dozen long retreats. On the first couple of retreats I had quite cathartic experiences and felt a lot of joy.

Good. You didn't mention what type of meditation you do. But one should combine Samatha with Vipassana to achieve higher.
As I assume, you does not use Samatha to amplify Vipassana. That could be a problem.
I will put it like this.
Samatha means concentration of the mind. One should use Kasina bawana to improve concentration of the mind. (You mentioned Methttha. It's also a Samatha meditation. But I doubt if you have improved your concentration that much using that. One could easily be misguided thinking that thinking Methttha is enough. But not. (Not personal. I just assumed. Bear in mind. Sorry, if I understood it wrongly.)). (it's not necessary to achieve Dhyanas( dhyanas level concentration is not necessary)).
So then, one should use this improved concentration to intensify Vipassana meditation.
One should use both in right balance.
I see only Nirvana that one will achieve by doing so.

Sometimes I feel calm but that's about it. I wonder if I'm doing something incorrectly?

What do you mean calm? When one get closer to Nirvana one should feel calm(not by outside calmness) , happy (not by outside objects, senses), free all the time. This happiness, calm, freedom should generate internally. Automatically. Nit by force.
I assume (again, sorry if I miss assume here), you are in some kind of loop of thinking.

I pay homage to the Buddha and try to feel gratitude and I practice metta to start.

Good. But I can't accurately understand your mental state with given info. It looks like (again sorry), you are stuck in the idea of mindfulness.

I've also given up eating meat and practice self compassion.

Good.
Final note.

combine both Samatha and Vipassana.
get direct guidance form some monk or someone who has more experience
don't be afraid to speak about true nature / thinking about you inner self with the instructor.

Thanks .☸.
Questions are welcome.

It is not normal for some people when they first started meditation practice to experience sublime attainments. If Ajahn Brahm said otherwise, it sounds like Ajahn Brahm is wrong.
Cathartic experiences that feel a lot of joy are not "sublime attainments". They are simply coarse cathartic experiences & occur often on retreats when people are forced to undergo an emotional cold turkey.
To feel calm from meditation is a worthwhile result. To reach a sublime attainment of rapture requires a very pure moral life, no sex, no masturbation and a capacity to selflessly let go of craving (for attainments) and attachment so the mind dwells silently and perfectly in the present moment.
As for the term "rapture", it is used in various ways in the suttas, such as:

rapture arising from discovering/hearing the teachings leading to liberation.

rapture arising from non-remorse

rapture as a factor of enlightenment due to seeing the Dhamma

rapture as a result of calming breathing but still not jhana (MN 118)

rapture as a factor of jhana

The later two of the above are sublime attainments.

Read this 1st hand account of a sublime experience and the struggle to relive the experience. But Ajahn Brahm also gave a warning which I didn’t understand, but now do. He commented that “don’t want the jhanas, but want the causes that lead to the jhanas”. I didn’t heed that advice, and have been wanting to relive the experience for the past decade. Some people get sublime experiences when first meditating because there's no expectations. Once they tasted those experiences, the subsequent desires/expectations get in the way.

As per my above comment, the claim that Ajahn Brahm sounds wrong is not merited. I am downvoting this answer.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Ceremony of the air and it's translation?
When did the words "ceremony of the air" first come into Buddhism or/and translation? What are the various interpretations of these words?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is this the nimitta?
During my sit today I remembered that on my last retreat two weeks ago I kept seeing this wooden box. It was like I was breathing into it. I wasnt sure at the time what it was. I asked the teacher but they didn't mention anything about nimitta but I just realised during my sit today that this was probably what it was.

Based on the way the question is phrased, I expect that the answers would be pretty much opinion-based. One person may have the opinion that the wooden box is a nimitta. Another person may have the opinion that it's your imagination. How could any of those two answers be judged as the right one? They would only each present a valid opinion. Please see "What types of questions should I avoid asking?". After you have updated the question, we may reopen it.

Ok. I would say to describe about this nimitta with more information, that way one can decide if it was actual nimitta or your imagination. That's because actual nimitta has some special properties. Update your question with this information.

Actual nimitta has some special properties. If it was actual nimitta, mind should just see only that. No arguments, divinations, but just stillness. Like one's mind become stoned.


text:
Examples where inference is used in the suttas
Pramana refers to sources of knowledge in Indian epistemology.
The wikipedia article on Pramana states:

Buddhism holds two (perception, inference) are valid means ... to knowledge.

This sutta supports Pratyakṣa or perception:

“And what, bhikkhus, is The All? The eye and forms, the ear and
sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and
tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called The
All.
“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I
shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his
part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and,
further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because,
bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”
SN 35.23

Are there examples in the suttas where the Buddha, or his Arahant teacher disciples like Sariputta, used Anumāna or inference? Please provide them.
Let's say, when you wake up from sleep and go outside your house to observe the ground to be wet everywhere, but it's currently not raining. So based on this observation, you can infer that it must have very recently rained. Is there any truth of the suttas that is not observed directly by perception but rather inferred from indirect evidence?
Another example is evolution. We cannot observe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. However, we can infer that indirectly from fossil evidence. This is obtaining knowledge from inference.
There can be other examples, like how the ancients inferred that Earth must be spherical from the way shadows fell on the ground differently in different cities at the same time.

This question requires more precision with terminology.

I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center.

I'm not sure what "Anumāna or inference" mean.
One English dictionary defines it as follows:

inference

something that is inferred
especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
the act or process of inferring (see INFER): such as

the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former
the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty

I guess that one of these forms is logically dubious, or not always theoretically sound -- for example, "I cannot see my mother, therefore she must be hiding in the closet", might not be a true/valid inference ... and might be a reason for advice like, don't trust flights of logic, only what you can actually perceive.
But the other form, i.e. generalizations -- I think that the Dhamma does a lot of that ... for example "(these) perceptions are impermanent, apparently all perceptions are impermanent".
I think that's part of the genius of the Buddha as a teacher -- i.e. to infer useful generalizations and "universal truths".
Also I'm not sure whether SN 35.23 excludes inference to only include perception -- because if the Dhamma is inferred, isn't it also a "mind object" or perceived by the mind.

Let's say, when you wake up from sleep and go outside your house to observe the ground to be wet everywhere, but it's currently not raining. So based on this observation, you can infer that it must have very recently rained. Is there any truth of the suttas that is not observed directly by perception but rather inferred from indirect evidence?

Another example is evolution. We cannot observe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. However, we can infer that indirectly from fossil evidence. This is obtaining knowledge from inference.

There can be other examples, like how the ancients inferred that Earth must be spherical from the way shadows fell on the ground differently in different cities at the same time.

Any "generalization from specific experience" seems to me a form of "inference" -- also, part of the Scientific Method -- for example, the 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths.

There are other reasons though why the ground might be wet -- dew -- that's a form of "leaping o a conclusion" ... that's also called "inference" in English but I'm not sure it's quite the same thing. The "generalization" might be more closely allied to (only) what's actually observed.

Roughly, the difference between "induction" and "deduction". Induction can be wrong too -- e.g. "all squirrels are red" -- but he guards against that in the same way that science does i.e. by continuing experimental observation e.g.,"If you know of anything that's worth calling "self/soul" then ... but etc."

Looks like, at least for Theravada, perception is the only acceptable source of knowledge. Inference is prone to mistakes, and therefore unreliable. Almost all the answers seem to point to this.

Also I'm not sure whether SN 35.23 excludes inference to only include perception -- because if the Dhamma is inferred, isn't it also a "mind object" or perceived by the mind. Exactly. How oneself/Buddha be sure if something is true, if it perceived through perceptions and inferred? It can't. That's the specialty about Buddha. He can filter true from everything with his special wisdoms. Not just claver arguments and calculated thoughts. Look my answer.

SN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta:

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not
lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be
thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it
leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be
thus, let my form be not thus.'

This passage is an example of inference. The self is exalted so we must infer that form, feeling, perception, consciousness, determinations are limited and thus not myself.

What do you mean by exalted?

The self is exalted so we must infer that form, feeling it's you that infer. Not Buddha or Sariputta.

Part 1
Anumāna or inference
Anumāna or inference meaning,

An inference is an idea or conclusion that's drawn from evidence and reasoning. (according to the web).

Buddha doesn't conclude, doesn't use reasoning. Buddha only use reasoning to explain Damma to us. Not to understand himself. Buddha see all as is. No reasoning, no concludes.

Part 2
Answer :-

Are there examples in the suttas where the Buddha, or his Arahant teacher disciples like Sariputta, used Anumāna or inference? Please provide them.

I don't think anyone will be able to find anything from actual Damma where Buddha, or his Arahant teacher disciples like Sariputta, used Anumāna or inference .
That's because Buddha doesn't speak of inference, but only facts he himself understood. There's no secret in the universe that Buddha doesn't know. He has ultimate knowledge.
As for Sariputta, he doesn't have ultimate knowledge, but his knowledge is only second to Buddha. So, they both doesn't speak using any inferences. They only speak 100% facts.

Part 3

Another example is evolution. We cannot observe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. However, we can infer that indirectly from fossil evidence. This is obtaining knowledge from inference.

Buddha or Sariputta does not use inferences.
But why?
As for Buddha, nothing can hide from his view(past, present, future, small, big, near, far and including everything) . So he does not have to use inferences. It's not he doesn't use inferences, he doesn't have to.

Examples :-

Let's say you see an apple on the table. Now, how many inferences did you use to understand that it's a apple. Obviously none. (some may say they inferred that it's an apple by comparing it with memory).

See, if oneself see something 100%, he/she doesn't have to use inferences.

Another example is evolution. We cannot observe that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. However, we can infer that indirectly from fossil evidence. This is obtaining knowledge from inference.

Obviously, Buddha can observe evolution/animal formation on earth with his Dhayana. So, doesn't have to use inferences and guess stuff.
Thanks . ☸.
Questions are welcome.

I decided not to add on to the comments below in case it gets moved. The qn asked for examples, you give none and proceed to expound your position. Answers that give the questioner what they wanted annoyed you. But isn't it more important for you to wonder why this qn was posted in the first place?

Ok. I am not annoyed. I am just learning here. But how could someone to hope to find something, if it's not there. Then there wouldn't be any answers to this question. That's why my answer doesn't have examples of references.

I am just learning here. So am I. That's why I am curious why aren't you puzzled as to why a qn is posted which, in your mind, has no answer? Is the OP merely trying to confirm this fact?

Is the OP merely trying to confirm this fact?  I mean, I don't know what he was trying to do? Do you know? But, if something has no solution, we(I) shouldn't pretend and not tell him. Should only speak from heart /truth. I mean, one can ask 1000s of questions that will not have meaningful answers. That's okay.

I am assuming by inference we are talking about deduction, induction and abduction. Ven. Ananda was once praised by the Buddha for correctly deducing the identity of a deva who visited the Buddha at the Jeta’s Grove.

“Very good, Ānanda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anāthapiṇḍika the deva’s son, and no one else.”

I suspect you are looking for more concrete examples. Sorry if it is too superficial, it just pops up in my head.

Addendum – March 29, 2024
The Sāvaka sutta (SN15.7) might be seen as the Buddha inferring about the outcome of a fruitless attempt to uncover how many aeons had passed since the beginning of the universe.
Firstly, it is important that we remember a Buddha does not say something without any basis like ordinary folks. So, the following is my interpretation and understanding of this sutra:

Our Buddha does not know how many aeons had passed since the beginning of the universe.
A thought experiment was postulated that even if four Arahant disciples who can recall their past lives, attempted to recollect 100,000 aeons per day for 100 years of their lifespan, they would still not discover the answer.
Naturally, the hypothesis in (2) was not tested, validated or verified and the outcome is, therefore, inferred (that they would fail).

(Incidentally, I believe why four disciples instead of one is so that they can cross reference each other. It is not a 1+1+1+1 = 4 but whether the recollection of a particular aeon of one matches the other three. Like all experiments, results should be cross-examined for validity, accuracy and reliability).
It is very rare that the Buddha has no knowledge in any area. Thus, it is equally rare to find any sutra where the Buddha relied on inference. I believe the above is one such instance. My initial answer would have indicated that the Buddha (in praising Ven. Ananda) does not disdain or disapprove of logical deduction (and by association inference).
This additional section further highlights our Buddha’s pragmatism. He is not afraid and does not see it as being beneath a Buddha’s station to rely on inference, when necessary, in order to better inform his decision. In this case, a decision not to expend any further efforts into uncovering the origin of the universe (it would have been a futile endeavour).

At the time Ānanda wasn't an Arahant, but a normal monk. It's not Buddha that used deduction. But he used that to speak to normal mind that way, because that's what normal mind understands.

@Pycm I have added additional material to my answer. My initial answer was meant to show that the Buddha does not disdain or disapprove of logical deduction. I don't think an Enlightened being discriminate between normal or enlightened mind. They merely see and say things as they truly are or if revealing certain information is not helpful or maybe harmful; simply remain silent.

I'm sorry. But I have to say this. He is not afraid and does not see it as being beneath a Buddha’s station to rely on inference I disagree. Buddha doesn't use inferences. Use only to explain things to us. Because we rely on language, reasoning to believe, understand something.

I feel like, your interpretation is that, Buddha created all the Damma just by thought experiments, dedication, inferences as normal intelligent person would do. Don't you believe Dhayana, special abilities, special wisdoms of Buddha? Also how many aeons had passed since the beginning of the universe  it's not our universe Buddha talking about. But the time itself. Not as big bang universe. Obviously there can't be a beginning. So can't see.

The Dhamma Refuge in the Suttas literally says the Dhamma is to be directly verified. I cannot recall anywhere where this is more explicitly stated than in MN 38, which says:

"Now, monks, knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the
past, thinking, 'Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What
were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what
were we in the past'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the future,
thinking, 'Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future?
What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having
been what, what shall we be in the future'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you be inwardly perplexed about
the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I?
Where has this being come from? Where is it bound'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Teacher is our
respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says
this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you dedicate yourselves to
another teacher?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you return to the observances,
grand ceremonies, & auspicious rites of common contemplatives &
brahmans as having any essence?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have
known, seen, & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be
seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This
Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification,
pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in
reference to this that it was said.

As for the English word "inference", which Pali word does this correspond to ???
As examples:

AN 2.25 uses the term "neyyattha", which Sujato translates as "in need of interpretation". This does not appear to imply "inference", per Thanissaro's questionable translation. For example, the term neyya is found in Snp 1.3, in the following translational context: "I’ve given rise to knowledge and need no-one to guide me: uppannañāṇomhi anaññaneyyo"; which appears to show the term "neyyattha" means "in need of guidance". This notion of "in need of guidance" is found throughout the Suttas, such as when the teachings in brief of the Buddha are later explained in detail by the Buddha or by an Arahant disciple.

The seemingly fake MN 143 (seeming to be about a singular consciousness not dependent upon any sense base and heretically about a same self returning to earth after death plus the SN reports Anāthapiṇḍika was already a stream-enterer and already knew the Supramundane Dhamma) uses the term "takka" or "logic". AN 3.65 says to not rely on logic/takka.

The term anumāna appears only found in the belated Milinda Pañha, therefore also appears fake. In his MN 15, Sujato notes:

“Should measure against” is anuminitabba, which in its noun form
anumāna lends the sutta its title. The normal sense in later
literature is “inference” (eg. Mil 6.4.1). Anumāna occurs in the early
texts only here and in the passive form anumīyati at SN 22.36:1.4,
where the sense must be to “measure against”. This passage also
discusses how to measure oneself in relation to another, an external
standard, whereas the next section on reflection applies an inner
standard. Hence the commentary glosses with: “should compare, should
judge” (tuletabbo tīretabbo).

Based on the above very limited & brief research, it appears "inference" has no place in the Buddha-Dhamma; that inference is contrary to the Triple Gem Refuge. AN 8.67 says saying you’ve seen, heard, thought or known something but you haven’t is ignoble. SN 56.102 & 103 appears to say what is ignoble leads to hell or an animal state.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

@Desmon Stack Exchange assumes that people don't want to read a lot of comments. When a moderator does "move comments to chat" you shouldn't post another comment after that. As for "comment as a reason for downvoting": maybe not. If it's a friendly or inquisitive comment then it may be welcome. If it's a less-than-friendly comment, then maybe -- but be sure it's about the answer (not about the downvote, nor about the user) -- and maybe no more than one comment, occasionally, or it can get to be too much.

If you want to question or comment on site-specific policy e.g. about moderation and comments etc., please post on Meta instead.


text:
Why would form not lead to affliction, if it were self?
From the sutta below, why would form (and the other aggregates) not lead to affliction, if it were self?
Why would it be the case that form (and the other aggregates) could be compelled to change according to will, if it were to be self?

“Mendicants, form is not-self.
“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā.
For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could
compel form:
Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ
ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe:
‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.
But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t
compel form:
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ
ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:
‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.
Feeling is not-self …
Perception is not-self …
Choices are not-self …
Consciousness is not-self. For if consciousness were self, it wouldn’t
lead to affliction. And you could compel consciousness: ‘May my
consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because
consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t
compel consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not
be like that!’
Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59)

Look at it in below order.
1) Level 1 (form)
Self: here self mean, you.
You can control you, like if you want to raise your hands, you can do it. It means if something is you, you can control it.( only an example for explaining, body, hand is not self).
So if form(physical body) is you, you should be able to control it. Stop pain, stop ageing, stop illness and control as you see fit.
But you can not do that. That means it's not you. Even though people / you see it as.
Form is also not static ; it's dynamic. Means form/physical body is made by Rupakalapa. Which get born/popup , stay, die/destroy at high speed and they repeat this cycle all the time. We only perceive them as static because of this high speed and slow perception rate.
So how come someone say this collection of disappearing and popping up objects me. It's an illusion.
2) Level 2 (feeling)

Feeling is not-self …

So are feelings is you? No. If feelings are you you should be able to control you/your feelings and make yourself happy for all eternity. That is not possible. That means feelings are not you.
3) Level 3 (perception)

Perception is not-self …

Some may say/imagine perception as self/me/you. Is that true? No. Perception is just an illusion created by 5 senses and conciseness.
It's what oneself sense of what around self.
4) Level 4 (choice)

Choices are not-self …

Some may say/imagine choice as self/me/you. As one's choice make himself/ define oneself. Is that true? No. Choices are just a illusion of fake free will, which is determined by precent perceptions (just an illusion created by 5 senses and conciseness.) and past perceptions (Karma and memories).
So choices are not actually the self.
5) Level 5 (consciousness)
Someone hearing above statements may think, ok; then Consciousness is the self.
Is it true?
No.
If consciousness is self, one could control the behaviour of conciseness and stop, start, change,concentrate, and feel itself as  happy and be happy all the time. Which is not possible.
So conciseness is not self.
And also, conciseness is not static. It's dynamic and get born, live, and die; and with every thought this cycle repeats.(at very high speed).
So, when someone go through above levels they understand that there's no actual self. It's an illusion created by combination of form(body), perception(senses), choice(free will), conciseness(mind).
So, this is the basic of Buddhism ; that removing self leads to Nirvana. That's because without self, greed, craving (Thanha) cannot exist. Because there's no self to greed for.
Thanks . ☸.

My understanding is that formal logic is based on definitions or Axioms.

All Athenians are liars
Mike is an Athenian
Therefore Mike is a liar

Whether the axioms are wisely-chosen is a different topic.
IMO this sutta has the format of a proof-by-contradiction:

The self does not lead to affliction
Form leads to affliction
Therefore form is not self

So the question is, "Why take The self does not lead to affliction as an axiom?"

I guess it may be based on some universal assumption, e.g. if everyone believes, "I would not lead to affliction".
Or perhaps it's based on some (unknown to me) contemporary definition, or understanding of the term, or topic of debate

The statement might work "by observation" instead of "by logical inference", perhaps if you don't ask "why?" -- for example:

We observe that form leads to affliction and is not controllable (self-controlled)
Therefore don't view it as if it were self (e.g. dear, worth clinging to, etc.)

The episode reminds me slightly of the story of King Canute: "if you were all-powerful then the tide would obey you, but etc.".

The second form still uses inference, and answers why -- it includes the word "therefore" in the second phrase, and it makes a generalization-from-observations in the first phrase -- but the inference there is less overt, and doesn't have the classic form of formal logic i.e. syllogism.

The second form also depends on hidden -- unstated or common-sense -- assumptions, e.g. "don't cling to afflictive things".

Self is the sense of "I am". SN 22.59 defines self as: "This is mine, I am this, this is my self". These assumptions of self imply a permanence or definitiveness.
Since anything subject to "ābādha" (sickness, disease; "affliction" is a poor translation) displays impermanence, what is impermanent cannot be an "I am" or a "mine" because what is temporary cannot be a "mine" or "I am this".
For example, if i say "I am blonde & beautiful", how can this be true if later the body becomes bald-headed & wrinkly?
Therefore, it is not possible to compel the aggregates to be like this & that because impermanence governs the aggregates because the aggregates display "ābādha" (sickness, disease, affliction).

You say if it were self. If body were self then what would happen? If body were self then I would hold on to it because my body does not go against me. I want to stand and my body stands. But the Truth is , you would want to stand up but you won’t be able to. You would want to sit , you won’t be able to sit. You would want to lie in the bed , but you won’t be able to. You would want to eat but you would not be able to. You would want to walk but you will not be able to. You would catch diseases like coronavirus ,dengue, malaria , cancer , rabies , plague , cholera , DNA diseases etc… your body is subject to unwanted situations. Therefore because unwanted things happen to body the body can not be called self. Unless you give up calling body as Self there is no end to suffering. Body does unwanted things , body goes through unwanted circumstances. That which forces you go through unwanted situation, can be called me , mine or myself ? No.


text:
How does one reconcile anatta with locus-of-control?
Specifically, I mean this meaning of locus-of-control
The way I see it, if one doesn't have a strong internal locus of control, it becomes very hard to go through daily life, since you keep considering the outcomes of your actions to be driven by external forces outside of your control.
On the other hand, it makes sense to me that the self is an illusion (anatta), that it is in constant flux, and impermanent. From this logic, it seems like an internal locus of control also means buying into an illusion. How does one not have a strong internal locus of control, and still deal with the myriad challenges in daily life?

internal locus of control is the right thinking. Not relying on outer forces.

My understanding is that internal locus of control in psychology (see link) or in terms of the studies by Julian Rotter about locus-of-control and motivation to work - are always dependent an existence of stable self. You can consider this self as being in flux when it comes to failures (e.g. "I failed but I am capable of change because everything changes") but stable when it comes to successes (e.g. "I succeeded because of my hardwork and this is unchanging, so that I can keep working hard"). This acknowledgement of a stable 'self' that is in control, doesn't seem to align with anatta.

It's true self and internal locus are illusions. But one should walk through this illusion to find the truth. One can't avoid this illusion. One must find the way through illusion using illusion. That's why this is hard. This is my view. I am open to discussion.

Anatta=no self but at the beginning, one should think, I am suffering, I should work hard, learn. It's okay to think like that. But when one walk through the path, oneself understand the truth, that self is illusion. After oneself go to Nirvana / remove self, there's no learning, working hard. All is completed. No purpose anymore for oneself.

I appreciate your comment. But respectfully, I am asking not for faith (i.e. "one 'must' walk through the illusion using illusion). I'm asking philosophically/logically, how does one 'walk through the illusion' (i.e. maintain internal locus of control) while acknowledging the illusion (i.e. there is no self, no internal locus of control), seeing both of them as logically consistent with each other

The Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path comprises of Three Trainings:

Ethical Conduct

Concentration

Wisdom that ends suffering, which includes the realisation of Anatta.

In respect to ordinary daily/worldly life, the development of Ethical Conduct and Concentration (and also Wisdom) will develop a person's Internal Locus Of Control as best as possible. For example, the Dhammapada says:

160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that
is hard to gain.
165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity
depend on oneself; no one can purify another.
166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be
intent upon the good.
Attavagga: The Self

The doctrine of Anatta first explained in SN 22.59 (about how the five aggregates cannot be prevented/controlled from sickness/affliction) is "Supramundane/Transcendent" (SN 20.7), meaning, its sole purpose is to end suffering. Its purpose is to overcome the suffering that ignorantly/ordinarily occurs about uncontrollable inevitable events, such as sickness, aging & death.
In other words, the realisation of Anatta is the foremost in Internal Locus Of Control because, even though the five aggregates cannot be controlled, peace of mind can be controlled, established & maintained. Keep in mind, about its ultimate purpose, SN 22.59 says:

O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing [Anatta] thus, gets wearied
of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets
wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being
wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is
emancipated.

Also, the purpose of Anatta is not to encourage carelessness/negligence and is not to dominantly believe in an External Locus of Control. In relation to this question, in its doctrines of Ethical Conduct, Kamma & Development (Bhavana), Buddhism is reputed for asserting an Internal Locus Of Control.

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life are primarily a result of their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the difficulty of the exam.

For a layperson to deal with the myriad challenges in daily life, Buddhism has scriptures about Ethical Conduct such as DN 31 and many other teachings summarised in a book called Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life by Thai monk P.A. Payutto.
In conclusion, the Doctrine of Anatta is the foremost in Internal Locus of Control because the doctrine of anatta controls the mind so the mind has no suffering at all.

Okay I can agree with you that in Buddhism, at least based on the Dhammapada, it is encouraged to rely on cultivating an internal locus of control. I can also agree that perhaps anatta according to the scriptures doesn't encourage carelessness/negligence. This however, doesn't answer my question from a logical POV. It just makes the Dhammapada inconsistent with the Three Marks of Existence!

The doctrine of anatta in SN 22.59 says the realisation of anatta allows the mind to 100% control suffering so suffering never arises. Therefore anatta results in the highest internal locus of control. I will amend my answer to reflect this. This said, the doctrine of Julian B. Rotter was obviously not about the end of suffering.

In general, comparative philosophy is not the most productive way to engage with Buddhism. I like how Chogyam Trungpa explained it: when you come to another country, if you really want to understand them you should learn their language and customs on their own terms. Then again, I suppose as a mere tourist to the land of Buddhism you expect the tour guide to explain local phenomena within the framework of your preexisting concepts.
In Buddhist view, the inner/outer separation is a simplification, or to put it in stronger terms, a childish illusion. In mature Buddhist perspective, there's no inner and outer, making the locust-of-control definition utterly non-applicable. Indeed, how can you believe that your life is controlled by external forces if you have no concept of "external"! How can you place the locus internally if you have no concept of the "internal"!
Once you make this first step into our land, it shouldn't be difficult to understand that the normal duality of free will vs fatalism does not apply either. Instead, the will of the universe (so to speak, if we can be as bold as to simplify it down to a singular noun) and the will exerted by the individual is the very same will.
For an enlightened individual, the main driving force is Knowledge or Wisdom (Prajna). His or her acts are determined and directed by the understanding of how things work and what therefore is the best course of action (or inaction which is also a kind of action).
For a student of Buddhism the main driving force is inspiration by the words of wisdom coming from The Teacher. This inspiration takes form of conviction and motivation to practice with perseverance.
As you can see, there's indeed no boundary between external and internal. The actual way the universe works, the knowledge of how it works, the explanation, the inspiration, the conviction, the motivation, and the resulting action are all parts of a continuum.
Say, something draws you to Buddhism, you catch the Dharma bug and earnestly engage in Buddhist studies. Where's the locus of control in that case?

The locus of control looses its ability to control. Therefore is not worth calling self, therefore locus of control is Anatta.
However if the locus of control is found or experienced then it should be used to get rid of suffering. It should not be understood as self.

I think you and I are talking about different things with the term 'locus of control'. Please read the link in the original post, to the Wikipedia article.

@blehblehblecksheep I read that. I did this , I did that has a locus of control as internal. Both internal or external locus of control are not Self.

Let's look at "locus of control" in the context of "giving". The Buddha said this about giving in his definition of one kind of right view:

MN117:7.1: And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:7.2: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. ...

I think we can agree that people who do not give have wrong view and no locus of control.
But let's discuss people who give with right view and some locus of control. Let's discuss people who think that there is meaning in giving. In that context, we note that the Buddha gave us the Dhamma thousands of years ago. The Teaching is a gift that affects us here and now.
Are we in the Buddha's locus of control? I don't think so. The Buddha does not make our legs move when we walk. Yet here we are benefiting from the gift of the Dhamma. Are we in the Buddha's locus? I don't think so. We are thousands of years away from that "locus", that particular point, place and time.
What about our own "locus of control" and "anatta"? Well if we believe in giving, we can act on that belief and give for the benefit of ourselves and others wherever and whenever they may be. People with attachments can give. And so can people without attachments. The Buddha (anatta) gave--and so can we.
But what about that locus of control? Well there is one thing that each of us with the even the tiniest, smallest locus of control can do. We can listen to the words of the Buddha and act on them:

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.
AN2.126:1.2: What two?
AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and rational application of mind.

An internal or external locus of control, I think, are adaptation mechanisms. They evolved to help us adapt to our environment. As mentioned, a strong internal locus would motivate a person to put in more efforts, time and energy into a task thereby increasing the chances of success. However, the success of any task is not solely the result of individual efforts. It relies on many factors; some are internal, some are external and others are intertwined. If the difficulty level of a task exceeded a threshold, the success probability diminishes exponentially.
A strong external locus may help a person to realize the futility of pursuing a task due to extremely unfavourable external factors. This may actually prevent needless wastage of time, effort and energy which could then be channelled into other more productive labour (an example would be a person of short stature trying very hard to be a great basketball or tennis player).
I think from a Buddhist perspective both internal or external locus of control are merely tools, arising from self-identity and co-evolving with our self-identity. Some tends to rely more on a certain tool while others on another. Occasionally, there are some who are equally comfortable with both (e.g. the bi-locals as mentioned in the wiki).
As a Buddhist, I believe we should utilize the right tool for the right situation/time/context/people. This would require us to get familiarized with various tools and their usage, something that maybe a challenge. Ultimately, the goal is to attain a better future and long-lasting well-being for ourselves and our loved ones. So, this is something worth pursuing even if difficult and challenging.
In order to achieve the above, I believe we first need to raise our awareness level. Only with a heightened awareness of our inner strength and weakness, of the external environment and the changes taking place; can we wisely use whatever is at our disposal to better ourselves and our conditions in life. And, to me, awareness is the greatest advantage of being a Buddhist.
Surprisingly, the perception of anatta (not self) can make it easier to achieve the above. It reminds us of the constant changes taking place within and without. It encourages us not to be too attached to any particular tool, use it as necessary and then to move on. Lastly, it gives us an inner strength to bear with the changes, discomfort and unfamiliarity that comes with learning different ways (and tools) to cope, adapt and flourish.


text:
I heard in a DhammaTalk, "You enjoy more, you finish your blessings quickly. "
It is like if you leave a normal life and don't do evil. But still may end up in lower 3 realms if keep enjoying and finish your blessing.
What does this mean? Does a layperson have to not enjoy at all in terms of 5 Sensual Pleasures like travelling, music, movies, food ?
We don't know how much blessing we have and where we might be reborn. So please help out with this taking scenarios of a layperson and a monk in same situation.


text:
Is mediating and thus becoming "awake" right before sleeping good?
Pretty much as the title suggests: does it harm to meditate before sleeping? For me if I meditate seriously my mind is swept over with awakeness. as a consequence when I go to sleep I remain awake for sometime and keep thinking useless thoughts. so it kind of hinders my sleep. Is there a good practice or should meditation before sleep be avoided?

Awakeness in meditation and normal awakeness (not sleeping) are two different things.

The Buddha meditated before sleep however laying down on his right side. For example, two suttas say:

"That is credible for the Master Gotama, as would be the case for one
who is worthy & rightly self-awakened. But does the Master Gotama
recall sleeping during the day?"
"I recall, Aggivessana, in the last month of the hot season, after the
meal, returning from my almsround, setting out my outer robe folded in
four, lying down on my right side, and falling asleep while mindful &
alert."
MN 36

“I’m not feeble that I lie down, nor am I drunk on poetry. Having
reached the goal, I’m rid of sorrow. Alone in a secluded lodging, I
lie down full of compassion for all living creatures.
Even those with a dart stuck in the breast, piercing the heart again
and again, are able to get some sleep. So why not I, whose dart is
drawn out?
I don’t lie awake tense, nor do I fear to sleep. The days and nights
don’t disturb me, as I see no decline for myself in the world. That’s
why I lie down full of compassion for all living creatures.”
SN 4.13

Did he sleep though? I am told by a teacher that he merely lied down but was completely awake during his "sleep". That made sense to be given Buddha was fully awakened

Answer can be different according to the meditation type you do.
Part 1) : general answer

Is mediating and thus becoming "awake" right before sleeping good?

Yes.
But only if one do actual meditation. Like Samatha(Kasina, Maithree), Vipassana.
It will not disturb your sleeping. But solidify the sleeping.
What does that mean?
When someone sleeps. His/her mind will do all sorts of stuff. Like dreaming the future, remembering past, dreaming imaginary situations. Which uses your energy (brain and other active parts). So body and mind doesn't get the full rest/relaxation of sleeping.
But if someone do meditation before sleep, his sleep will be more stable and more solid. (even you spend little time without reaching the sleep at the beginning).
Less dreams (fake). Less brain activity (my interpretation / could be incorrect) and less energy use.
So sleep will be just sleep. With less dreams, and you will feel very fresh when wake up.

as a consequence when I go to sleep I remain awake for sometime and keep thinking useless thoughts.

This could happen if you do Kasina Bawana. I suggest you to do

Maithree Bawana after doing your normal meditation procedure

Or

Maithree Bawana after went to the bed (you can do while laying on the bed)
.

Part 2) : references
In Damma books / Pali canon it's clearly pointed out that good sleeping / sleep is a main direct result of Maithree Bawana.
(There are 11 direct results you get when you do Maithree Bawana).

Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness
Reference 1 / The Amaravati Sangha

As you can see in above reference, Buddha has clearly advices on doing Maithree meditation even when laying down on the bed. Buddha is saying, Maithree meditation is suitable for any human situation like, sitting, laying, while working.
Reference 2 / Piyadassi Thera

He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be reborn in the brahma-world.

Reference 3 / Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Reference 4 / www.dhammatalks.org

Part 3) : extra insight
Info :-
One can be awake in many ways. One can be normally awake, drunken awake(he/she is awake but has no real awareness, anesthesia, drug) , awake but without any awareness(like using high dose of anesthesia or drug).
In above situations, oneself is clearly awake(not sleeping, not in coma, not dead).
But when oneself do meditation, it's not the awakeness he/she get, but awareness. (some may call it awakeness).
Meditation brings awakeness and awareness together and making mind more concentrated. (mostly Samatha meditation).
Thanks . ☸.
Questions are welcome.


text:
What should I do next
After I sit for about 45 minutes my mind becomes very a lot more still and there is barely any wondering thought. If there is thought I notice it very quickly and it disappears. It feels like awareness becomes wider and I'm aware of everything at once without losing mindfulness of the breath. I then begin to wonder what to do next. I usually just enjoy the calm and serenity but after a while I open my eyes and get on with the day.  Sometimes I feel bored which I note.
Is there something else I can do next?

After I sit for about 45 minutes my mind becomes very a lot more still and How long have you had this experience(45 min sit and stillness)?

What was reached after 45 minutes is ideally the starting point of every meditation session rather than the end. What is done next is to maintain equanimity towards the calm and serenity and to develop/deepen this calm and serenity via equanimity & non-attachment.
Wandering thoughts are called "distracting thoughts" in the sutta teachings (MN 20). Contemplation of mind (cittanupassana) in the sutta teachings is not related to thoughts. If boredom arises, this should be experienced with equanimity until the boredom dissolves into a buoyant clarity.
The specific sutta teachings (MN 10; MN 118) say the ultimate goal of meditation is to be free from greed & dejection towards the world of experience. Therefore, when calm and serenity occur, prevent/abandon greed arising towards it. When boredom occurs, prevent/abandon dejection arising towards it.

Thanks. Will try this


text:
How is koan study going to change, if at all, from LLM?
How is koan study going to change, if at all, from LLM? I am aware that koan answer books do exist, though I wouldn't where to find them. Will someone train LLM on them, making both koan study and new recorded sayings readily available to all, similar to the democratisation of art that we are promised?

what is LLM?...

@DhammaDhatu Large Language Model (LLM) - the AI technology behind ChatGPT

I'm inclined to close this question as opinion-based.