text:
Meditation technique proposed by the Buddha
What type of meditation is proposed by the Buddha for attaining self realization? Is it Vipassanna medition? Is Mindfulness meditation the same as Vipassanna? Which scripture mentions these techniques?

If we take the Pali Canon as been the closest we have to the word of the Buddha then there isn't a wealth of specific meditation advice in there when compared to other types of advice such as ethical.
However there are two sutras that do give specific advice these being

Anapanasati Sutra (Mindfulness of breathing)
Satipatthana Sutra (The Way of Mindfulness)

Both these sutras encapsulate samatha and vipassana practices. For example the Anapansati Sutra begins with body contemplation but end up in the forth tetrad contemplating the very stuff of existence

Contemplating impermanence
Contemplating fading of lust
Contemplating cessation
Contemplating relinquishment

The Satipatthana sutra also start with calming practices but ultimately the practioner is asked to comtemplate the four noble truths

Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands: 'This is suffering,'
  according to reality; he understands: 'This is the origin of
  suffering,' according to reality; he understands: 'This is the
  cessation of suffering,' according to reality; and he understands:
  'This is the road leading to the cessation of suffering,' according to
  realty.

You can't get much more vipassana than that!
If I can also take the opportunity to recommend the book Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization by Analayo. This is a tremendous book for anyone interested in really drilling into the Satipaṭṭhāna sutra and getting to grips with meditation as the Buddha taught it. It's heavy on the footnotes and is more of a heady read other Dharma books but I've read it once and it's certainly on my list to go through again.

I think this Forum needs to stop (and ban) using phrases like "If we take the Pali Canon as been the closest we have to the word of the Buddha...". If you want to "pick nits", there is no evidence that any written Buddhist teaching has come directly from the Buddha. One thing I like about Hinduism Advaita teachings is that lineage is NOT considered the most important factor in their teachings, but rather the applicability of the teachers' words. This is why Mahayana Buddhism has such popularity. For many people, it simply works for them. That is the purpose of the Dharma.

@PFS32 I would totally ask that question on meta especially as you have a very definite view. It would be interesting to hear other peoples opinions. Happy to be picked up on incorrect usage at any point. Actually this would make a good question for the main site. We are short of people asking questions so if only for that reason it would be good to ask

@CrabBucket it's a question that is great for meta. IMHO not very good on the main site. And just asking questions for the sake of improving the number of questions on the site probably won't lead to a Q&A site with high-quality questions (and answers).

@THelper very fair comment. I think this does bring up  issues for me which I might ask on the main site (but not this exact point). I do agree about the questions though - however I would like to think of possibilities of encouraging more. I think i will ask that on meta too. Cheers

@THelper Just to note I've asked a meta question around the issues that's been raised by my answer. I think the issue is answering from a particularly tradition and not acknowledging this properly http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/242/157

Popular belief is that the Buddha taught two types of meditation; samatha and vipassana. There are several texts that refer to this, but there has been debate whether these references qualify as 'teaching' them or if the Buddha just mentioned that 'tranquility' and 'insight' can be beneficial (e.g. see this article or this discussion)

The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... joyous... rapid... quick... penetrating discernment. For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight[1] into mental qualities one after another.
Notes [1] "Clearly saw insight": In Pali, this is vipassanam vipassi, which could be translated literally as "clearly saw clear seeing" or "insighted insight." source: Anupada Sutta

and

"As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing ('tuning') those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) fermentations. source: Samadhi Sutta

and

"These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
"When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned.
"When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
"Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release." source: Vijja-bhagiya Sutta

A list of other references to vipassana in the scriptures can be found here, and to samatha here

Here is a simple answer.
There is only 2 Main Techniques.

Samatha Meditation Technique
Vipassana Meditation Technique

Samatha Meditation Technique
 This is the base to all meditation. According to buddhas teaching this will make the path for vipassana Meditation Technique.
Vipassana Meditation Technique
 This mainly include Anapanasathi. For Enlightnment and Ultimate truth this is the way.
This is the simplest answer I can give. If you have questions leave a Comment


text:
Is Pratītyasamutpāda just cause and effect?
Considering the formulation of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising)

When this is, that is.
  From the arising of this comes the arising of
  that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes
  the cessation of that.

Is this essentially the same as the mundane understanding of cause and effect e.g. I hit a ball and the ball moves? If it isn't (as I strongly suspect) then what is it about the formulation that makes it more than this. In fact so much more than this, Pratītyasamutpāda being one of the central teachings of Buddhism.

Perhaps a dupe of What exactly is the logical relation between the links in the twelvefold chain of Pratītyasamutpāda?

@AndreiVolkov I think I might disagree. I want someone to contrast the materialist cause and effect with the Buddhist understanding. The two questions are admittedly related but I would still like to see an answer focused on cause and effect

Now I understand your question, thanks. I will leave my answer below for the record and let someone else focus on the cause and effect.

One must be quite careful with this formula. In fact it never mentions causation and in general early Buddhist texts do not. Even if it purported to be a theory of causation, it tells us nothing at all about causation. It simply tells us that one thing arises in the presence of another and ceases in its absence.
Causality is a very tricky subject. As David Hume pointed out in the 1700s one never sees "causation" one only ever sees sequence. We assume that when one event follows another in close proximity in space and time. But the assumption is impossible to prove one way or another, and we a frequently wrong about it. Immanuel Kant argued that the idea of "causation" is something that we humans bring to the interpretation of sense experience, a preconceived notion that we use to make sense of experience. So "causation" is still not something we can observe, but something we assume must be present because we cannot conceive of the world any other way.
The formula of conditionality specifically refers to the arising of the items on the list of twelve nidānas. Although I think we can better understand it as applying to experience arising from the contact between sense-object, sense-faculty, and sense-cognition. One image for understanding it is that it's like relationship between the foundations, walls and roof of a house. The foundations must be in place for the walls to stand, but the foundations certainly don't cause the walls. And similarly for the walls and roof.
So the short answer is that imassmim sati idaṃ hoti formula is emphatically not intended as a theory of cause and effect. The early Buddhists were interested in the conditions that contributed to the arising of experience, which they also called "dukkha".
That said, later Buddhists tried to apply this idea conditionality to many things besides experience, creating huge unresolved philosophical problems. And at the same time it is often presented these days as a theory of causation - even by quite clever people who should know better. So modern Buddhists are often quite confused about what the imassmim sati idaṃ hoti relates to and attempts to describe.

As per my understanding, Pratityasamutpada is not about simple cause-and-effect chaining.
Starting from a name: pratitya means "based on", "in dependence on", sam- means "co-" or "together" and utpada means "arising" or "coming forth". Together Pratityasamutpada means "arising in dependence on each other" or "dependent co-arising" or "interdependent origination".
Dependent co-arising is closely related with Idaṃpratyayatā (Pali Idappaccayatā) or "this/that conditionality":

                                  AN 10.92

And what is the noble method that is rightly seen and rightly ferreted
  out by discernment? There is the case where a disciple of the noble
  ones notices:
When this is, that is.
  From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
  When this isn't, that isn't.
  From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

As I explained in "What exactly is the logical relation between the links in the twelvefold chain of Pratītyasamutpāda?", the relationship is that of mutual implication.
Mutual implication means one of the categories serves as context for the other and the other way around. When affirmation takes place, the implicitly negated complement simultaneously arises. Top is defined against bottom and vice verse. This (upclose) is defined against That (far). Subjective is defined against Objective. Nirvana is defined against Samsara.
As (Buddha's Chinese near-contemporary) Lao-Tzu beautifully puts it:

                              Tao Te Ching #2

When beauty is recognized as beauty, therein is ugliness.
  When goodness is affirmed as goodness, therein is evil.
  Therefore, being and non-being are mutually posited in their emergence.
  Difficult and easy are mutually posited in their complementariness.
  High and low create each other in their positions.
  Long and short formulate each other in their contradiction.

As Nanavira Thera rightly assumes in his "Notes on Dhamma" and Buddhadasa correctly postulates in his lectures, the twelve nidanas are meant to explain how the problem of Life-and-Death and indeed the very Enlightenment hinges on the notion of Substantial Independent "I", and how this "I" itself comes forth as a result of an atemporal chain of logical implication.
Indeed, if we think about Death not in terms of its natural causes, but in context of its emergence from non-duality, it will become clear that Death and Birth indeed depend on each other in their juxtaposition. In this sense the notion of Birth could be seen as the cause of the notion of Death. Following the same principle, Birth is not just something that happens for natural reasons, it is a phenomena that depends on delineation of a separate living being, etc.
This way, Pratityasamutpada goes on defining Separate Being by implication from clinging/sustaining (basically, acting out of craving), defining the clinging/sustaining by implication from craving etc. all the way until Ignorance (of Pratityasamutpada) as the root.

In short this is the chain of cause and effect which keeps up in misery or Samsara. This is in direct relation to our cognitive process.
The motivation is to understand this and break the chains in the vicious circle of misery, thus coming out of misery.
There may be other cause and effect relationships which do not directly relate to misery (cognitive process) and the way out of it thus not covered in the dependent origination. In the ball analogy there is no misery involved unless you are hitting the ball as part of a sport. In 1st case it is pure physics. If it is as a part of a game the effects of this is our happiness or misery due to our attachment to the outcome as we evaluate it thus effecting our cognitive process. (E.g. the ball go hit into the goal, the goal was missed, a 6 was hit, the ball got hit in the air and was caught, etc. All this relate to the cognitive process which causes misery in Samsara)
Also I think Dependent Origination generalised outside the Cognitive Process (Nama Rupa Process), as the general context of it is in this aspect.

There is different level of depth and scientifical strictness in understanding of even mundane causal relations. One of main differences of pratityasamutpada from causality in general is its phenomenological context. Pratityasamutpada work between the dharmas.
Meaning of teaching of pratitaysamutpada according to Asanga:

"The real meaning of conditioned production is the fact that there is
  no creator (niḥkartṛkārtha), the fact of causality (sahetukārtha), the
  fact that there is no being (niḥsatvārtha), the fact of dependency
  [relativity] (paratantrārtha), the fact that there is no directing
  mover (nirīhakārtha), the fact of impermanence (anityārtha), the fact
  that everything is momentary (kṣaṇikārtha), the fact that there is an
  uninterrupted continuity of causes and effects
  (hetuphalaprabandhānu-pacchedārtha), the fact that there is a
  correspondence between cause and effect (anurūpahetuphalārtha), the
  fact of the variety of causes and effects (vichitrahetuphalārtha) and
  the fact of the regularity of causes and effects
  (pratiniyatahetuphalārtha)." (Abhidharmasamuccaya)

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can Pranayama Be Derived from Anapana?
Pranayama seam to have some similarities with Anapana. What is the relationship between the two. Was this derived from Anapana? What is it's historic development?

Yes it certainly got some similarities. Yeah buddhism originated in India and there were 27 buddhas before the Gauthama Buddha so there are some techniques remianed from others. But it certainly is the same.
In Pranayama there is a rhythm of exhale and inhale. But in Anapansathi. Which is "Ana-(inhale)-pana-(exhale)-sathi(concentration)" This just keep concentrating on the Exhale and inhale in a little while you feel calmness you never felt before and slowing things down.
This is the last meditation technique Buddha has done before the Enlightnement.
There are 4 other meditation techniques to support like Mithree Meditation where we bless ourselves and all animals and everything we can see and cannots including our enimies.
This all comes under Samatha Meditation. So if you want to goto Anapanasathi which is under Vipassana Mediation. You have to follow the Samatha meditation to get a relief for body and mind. I guess you get the answer.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Theravada Buddhism and Art
In Mahayana Buddhism we can see various artistic expressions: Thangka and Songs of Milarepa in Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese and Japanese art also were influenced heavily by Buddhism. Is there any forms of art practiced by Theravada monks? Do you know of any monks who were painters or poets?

The arts—be it painting, sculpture, architecture, calligraphy, etc.—have certainly flourished in the Theravada communities of the Southern Buddhist countries (Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia). See, for example, this section of the Wikipedia article on Buddhist art or this chapter of the book Enlightened Ways: The Many Streams of Buddhist Art in Thailand. And here is a gallery of pictures that might be of interest. With regard to poetry, be sure to check out the Theragata and the Therigata.

These are pictures I took at the Laotian temple (in the US) I've been attending. I'm told the monks make the decorative parts of the buildings and the statues. I thought this was very interesting so I looked it up and apparently these traditional artistic skills are passed down among the Theravada monks in Laos.
 more information

Householder,
Is there any forms of art practiced by Theravada monks?
Yes, the art of taming ones own mind. What ever art aside of this will for the most cases not be conform to Vinaya, not to speak of Dhamma-practice, and is for the most not allowed, not to speak of teaching such, trade or make favors with such.
Monks may paint demons, corpse, things which increase samvega in their Uposatha Hall. Nice looking things, if receiving, need to be "destroyed" of their shine and color.
Most decorations, if not simple done by lay people without involving of Bhikkhus, are actually not really allowed by the Buddha.
There might be cases where monks "teach by pictures", being assisted by artists. They may get engaged in erecting Chetis (relict buildings, graves of the Buddhas relics and those of his monks) to increase faith.
What ever else, even if broad usual to give favors for a live or trade..., one does well not to regard it as proper and allowed. Also sightseen and attending galleries, parks, guiding for such... is not proper for monastics, even formulated as rule for nuns.
Additions and discussion on it can be found here: [Q&A] Buddha-images are allowed by the Buddha (at least by monks)?
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

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


text:
Are any of the three poisons considered stronger or more difficult to break than the others?
Are any of the three poisons (unwholesome roots) of greed, hatred and delusion considered stronger or more difficult to break than the others. Or are they all seen as equally difficult to break, perhaps only differing in strength depending on the individual.
I'm interested in teachings from any of the schools of Buddhism about this. I'm not really asking for personal perspectives but rather specific advice from established teachers of the Buddhist schools.

Usually in Tibetan Buddhism, in the centre of the wheel of life, they teach that ignorance creates attachment that creates anger, that is why they put so much effort in realizing emptiness, because emptiness can put an end to ignorance and break the cycle, so ignorance would probably be the worst poison, the one that requires more effort.
I follow Theravada tradition, but spent sometime with Tibetan Monks, so they are the source of this answer!

The illustration of the wheel of life shows them chasing each other in a circle: so I imagined that, further, anger or aversion creates ignorance (which perpetuates the cycle).

As per Buddha of Pali Canon (AN 3.68, thanks to @Unrul3r for the reference):

Aversion (aka anger, aka hatred) has much blame, but is quick to fade away;
Obsessive desire (aka greed, aka lust) has little blame, but is slow to fade away;
Confusion (aka delusion) both has much blame, and is slow to fade away.

As explained in commentary on dharmafarer.org:

The Anguttara Commentary to AN 3.68 explains that “has little blame” means “both by way of worldly blame and by way of its (karmic) results”, that is, both in the worldly and the spiritual senses. It goes on to show that lust (lobha) “has little blame”by the fact that there is no social stigma to marriage, although it is rooted in sexual desire (that is, if lust remains within the moral limits). Such lust would not in itself lead to a painful rebirth in lower states. As such, it is less blameworthy in regard to karmic consequences.
This statement may appear strange in
  view of the fact that greed (lobha) is one of the roots of the unwholesome or evil and that it also falls under the wider-ranging term of Craving, the fundamental cause of suffering. Yet greed is “less blameworthy” than hate in all those instances where the gratification
  of lust does not violate basic morality and is not harmful to others, as, for instance, the enjoyment
  of delicious food, sex gratification within the bounds of the Third Precept, and so forth.
Lust, however, is “hard to remove” as it has deep roots in human nature, and is “as hard to remove as oily soot, and a particular attachment might follow a person even through two or three lives”. In a single moment the roots of lust can sink deeply into man’s heart; its fine hair roots of
  subtle attachments are as difficult to remove as the great passions, or even more so.
The Anguttara Commentary similarly says that “much blame” means “both by way of worldly blame and by way of its (karmic) results,” that is, both in the worldly and the spiritual senses.
Hate (dosa) is more blameworthy than lust and delusions because the results of a hateful act are often
  immediate apparently, widespread and protracted. Hate is almost always behind killing, acts of violence
  and life-threatening deeds. As such, hate is greatly blameworthy. However, people often quickly forget
  such violent acts when they are distracted by other pursuits, especially those concerning living needs,
  comfort and pleasure: in other words, they are more easily distracted by the drive of lust.
Delusion (moha) is both greatly blameworthy and hard to abandon. It is always at the root of the
  motivation in the breaking of the precepts, indeed in any evil unskillful act.
Both hate and delusion are regarded as blameworthy in society and have negative karmic results, as both may lead one to rebirth in painful states. Hate, however, is an unpleasant state of mind, and as beings naturally desire happiness, they will generally wish to abandon it. Moreover, by asking for forgiveness from those one has wronged through anger, it is easier to nullify the negative effects of anger in oneself and in others. Delusion, however, is usually deeply rooted in craving, wrong view and conceit, and as such will be as hard to remove as lust.

Here is what you are looking for: "Now what is the difference, what the distinction, what the distinguishing factor among these three qualities?' — when thus asked, you should answer those wanderers of other sects in this way, 'Friends, passion carries little blame and is slow to fade. Aversion carries great blame and is quick to fade. Delusion carries great blame and is slow to fade." -AN 3.68

Yup, that sounds about right.

For accuracy, it would be good to modify the answer by swapping 'strong' for 'blame-worthy' or something with similar meaning.

You sir are right. Updated the answer, thanks a ton! :)

The other two arrise and exist due to Moha or lack of Panna. Hence this is the the hardest. You break this and the other two will break away. You cannot break any or both of the other two while you have Moha.

Yes there are difficulty levels in that. In one occassion Buddha him self said that if any one can give up greed he is one step behind the Nirvana. Most of the steps in buddhism is about greed your right without the right vision we can't see greed. Pain is a form of greed. We try to satisfy our selves with many thing may be massage or sex what ever thing is a form of greed. If you think that this body we have can we do what ever we like with it. Can we stop growing old or stop growing nails. Yeah we can't so this don't belong to us. So we have to see  this is as a pain or a greed. We apply many things eat what ever we like this all is greed. The english term greed doesn't give the whole meaning out here. Falling in love with family, wife this is also going under greed. If there is no greed or a task there is no reason for you to exist. If you wish your beloved wife or mom in next birth there you have a reason to exist.
So the exact term for this is A CONNECTION. We have to break all connections.
In Hinduism or Yoga there is something called Kundalini in there to complete all levels we have to open a chakra in middle of the head. So the step to do that is to remove all you love from mind. After you do that there is no concern for anything anymore.
If you get psychic powers from the Kundalini you don't have a reason to use it. You don;t like showing off and you don't want any connection in the 1st place. So you will stay calm.

In one occassion Buddha him self said that if any one can give up greed he is one step behind the Nirvana. -- If you're thinking of Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones, the Buddha also said that about aversion, delusion, anger, etc., as well as about greed. I am not sure about saying, "remove all you love from mind": because the four immeasurables include equanimity but also include various types of love.

That loves doesn't mean that. You have to love everything equally. If you love you child but not others. That means a weakness, at some stage Buddha saw many children as his in before lives. If you love everything equally there is nothing that can hold you on the path of nirvana. If you miss your wife when you think that you will never be born. That is the kind of love you have to terminate.


text:
What is the best translation of Anatta into English?
Is the best translation of Anatta "non-self" or "there is nothing that you can take as me, mine, self or non-changing everlasting controllable part which can be identified as me, mine or everlasting core" or something else based on the interpretation of different lineages?

possible duplicate of What is the precise meaning of anatta?

This is about the rendering of the word in English as it is generally translated as non self which I feel is imperfect.

I voted to code but i think with this additional information i would retract that vote (i don't think i can though). I'd like it to stay open now. Actually I can retract which I've done

a choice of translation is closely related to word's meaning, so the two questions are very much connected...

also, as there is no such thing as "exact" translation, I edited the question accordingly

There are lots of formulations of the basic question of Buddhism. No hindu-type soul works for me. Also used to mean "permanent parts", and even oddities like "arrogance." In philosophical jargon "essence." In Christian terms, "no soul". Mathematically, "no constants"

Based on the question title, I think it's a reasonable additional question. I asked the possible duplicate but I was talking specifically about the meaning (of the concept), whereas he's asking about translation (of the word), so I think it's a reasonable additional question. For example, the question as to the meaning of the French "désir" is different from the question as to its best English translation. HOWEVER, based on the question content it definitely is a duplicate and is a candidate for closure. (In other words, the title doesn't match the content.)

CORELESSNESS
Before we can pick a translation we must understand what it is that we are translating.

Prefix an- is a simple negation.
Hindu concept of Atman should not be confused with Aham (the simple reflexive "I", "ego" or "self") nor with Jiva (the vitality that makes an animate being an animate being). Atman means "inner spirit" or "core" and refers to what is supposedly the unchanging subject of experience, also known as "The Knower of the Field" (Purusha), and the source of its own activity. Basically, Atman is that fictitious little boss that sits in our head, looks through our eyes and decides what to do.
Pali ending of -tta often corresponds to English -ness:

-tta: expresses the state, nature or quality of being that which is denoted by the adj. or noun: puthujjana, a common man +tta=puthujjanattaṃ, the state of being a common man; buddha, a buddha +tta=buddhattaṃ, Buddhahood; atthi he is +tta=atthittaṃ the state of "he is", existence.

From these three, the word can be translated as no-spirit-ness, or in proper English spirit-less-ness -- but such rendering is misleading. First, because in English "spiritless" has connotations of weak, demotivated and barely alive. And second, because Buddhism does not exactly deny "spirit" as an abstract aspect of relationships and interactions.
Another option is to take Atman as "subject" and render anatta as subjectlessness. This choice sounds true to the original meaning, but directly contradicts the western understanding of experience as comprised of subject and object.
A philosophically more correct option IMO would be core-less-ness. This matches both a simple understanding of anatta as an absence of substantial independent self in sentient beings, but also the wider Madhyamika philosophy which postulates that all entities are contextually defined imputations lacking any kind of self-identical ontologically existing core.
P.S. In western philosophy the notion of corelessness is sometimes identified with Bundle Theory of David Hume. Also, the relationship between observation and delineation of entities is one of the major topics of Hierarchy Theory.


text:
What is the next meditation type after Mindfulness of Breathing meditation?
I have been meditation using Mindfulness of Breathing mediation. I will continue for a while, while increasing the duration.
When can I say that I "master" a type of meditation?
Are there a natural next type of meditation after Mindfulness of Breathing?

Very interesting question. However IMHO i don't think one would ever master mindfulness of breathing. Well after 7 years I certainly am nowhere near it and i don't think ever will be really.

Meditation should be perceived as a tool to achieve some goal. We don't meditate to be good at meditation, rather, we use it because we want some results.
Buddhist practice is based on three pillars - Right View, Meditation and Action. We need to know some Buddha's teachings, we need to meditate and finally, we need to apply the results of the practice into our daily life. What is the point of meditating for hours if straight after the session we harm our friends by our inconsiderate behaviour?
It is always good to ask or remind ourselves why we meditate. If we want peace of mind, we keep checking whether we are able to remain calm in stressful situations. If we want to get rid of our ego - we check how we react when people offend or criticize us.
Personally, I never did a regular breathing practice on its own. I met Mahayana/Vajrayana masters and got attracted to the possibility of realising our Buddha Nature by applying certain methods. So I use those methods to realise my full potential in order to help other beings (Bodhisattva vow). In everyday life I keep checking (among others) whether I remain stable and joyful in difficult situations and whether I can feel compassion to all the beings no matter what they do.
Some may say that the next stage after Breathing meditation is insight meditation (Vipassana). However, before starting a new practice, you should very honestly check your motivation and goals - what exactly do you want to realise? Also make sure the new practice can indeed bring you closer to your goals. In general, keep checking whether your current meditation practice brings some positive changes into your everyday life and if you feel that there is something more you want to realise - try to find a new practice that will help you achieve that.

I practice with the Triratna Buddhist Community. Alongside Mindfulness of Breathing practice we also do a Metta Bhavana practice (kindly awareness practice). In this we bring to mind ourselves, a good friend, a neutral person and a person we are finding difficult and wish them well. It's not easy.
I have had periods of solely doing mindfulness of breathing meditation in order to become 'better' at it. Honestly, for me, that was counterproductive and it the end my meditations become pretty arid. I personally need a compassion based practice to run alongside whatever practice I'm doing just to keep me emotionally connected. I don't find it obvious where compassion comes out of the mindfulness of breathing (it's my own personal koan) so an explicit compassion type visualisation fits well.
As far as vipassana goes then perhaps a just sitting style practice (zazen) might be useful. Again it's what I do (if that is any recommendation at all). However I really think the Mindfulness of Breathing and Metta Bhavana practices can be a rich field for insight. Generally I wouldn't be too quick to declare any practice mastered. I've alway been a believer of pick one (or a small number) of practices and stick to them. If you get bored of them - great that probably shows that something is happening. Stick with it and see what it is.

I agree with @Rabbit -- what to do next depends on what you are trying to achieve (and what you already have achieved). For example, while doing mindfulness of breathing, how well developed has your concentration become? Have you attained the state known as access concentration, or even the first of the four samatha jhanas?
Assuming you have attained at least access concentration, what do you want to happen next? More tranquility, tighter focus, more one-pointedness? Or something else? If you're specifically pursuing a Buddhist approach then I'm guessing you're looking for something more than just tranquility/samadhi.
In that case, I'd suggest, if you haven't already done so, to at least have a look at the instructional writings of Mahasi Sayadaw for guidance on next steps. For example:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mahasit1.pdf
Also, look at Yuttadhammo's book (AFAIK he's from the Mahasi "lineage"): http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/how-to-meditate/
Of course your answer to the "what do you want" question may be "I dunno yet", in which case I'd suggest you keep your meditation simple (e.g. just stick with breathing) for a bit longer, and while you're doing that broaden your reading so you can see where Buddhist practice can take you and thereby what your options are.

According to the Anapanasati Sutta, mindfulness of breath alone leads to full liberation.

Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

It depends on individual temperament and circumstances. If it is working for you then there is no need to look for another as this will take you to the final goal but generally if you are a lay person with a lot of responsibilities or not reaching concentration through Anapana it is best to which to Satipatthana meditation.
A good read on who you use Breath Meditation to reach the final goal, go through: Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Author), Santikaro Bhikkhu (Translator)


text:
Is moderate drinking acceptable in Buddhism?
I have heard a certain interpretation of the 5th precept and I'm curious about it, the person said that for lay people the 5th precept means "not drinking alcohol to the point you get intoxicated or lose control of your actions", therefore it would be ok to drink a glass of wine having dinner for instance. On the other hand, once you start drinking it becomes very hard to know your limits, most of the people don't have this ability.
Is there a limit or something regarding drinking alcohol according to Buddhism?

Similar (not exactly the same) question at http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1344/do-all-buddhists-abstain-from-alcohol. See for additional viewpoints on this issue. :)

Drinking alcohol, (or more precisely the ethanol,) has been linked to an increased risk of mouth, throat, larynx and tongue cancer. 4.5% to be precise. Thinking about limits that may be applied by Buddhism is one thing, but please do think of your health!

The application of the fifth precept is a matter of controversy even within specific traditions, so there is no simple yes/no answer to this question.
The Tibetan tradition famously incorporates alcohol in the bi-monthly ceremony known as tsog (see Lama Thubten Yeshe's "What is Tsog?"). Lama Palden Drolma's opinion on the matter seems to summarize well the thinking in the Tibetan tradition:

To refrain from taking intoxicants is one of the primary vows that
  laypeople may take and that monastics have to uphold. One of the main
  reasons for not becoming intoxicated is that this can—and often does—
  lead to breaking other vows or straying from one’s integrity. Another
  reason for not becoming intoxicated is that for many, intoxication
  obscures the clarity of mind— the clarity to understand and rest in
  one’s true nature moment to moment. If one’s mind has stabilized in
  true nature to the extent that its clarity is never obscured, then it
  makes no difference whether one takes in substances or not.
From the point of view of the dharma training I was given, it is
  permissible, even having taken this vow, as a layperson, to enjoy a
  glass of wine occasionally. A distinction is made between
  intoxication, where one’s clarity is compromised, and simply enjoying
  partaking of a substance. I also do not feel that occasionally
  utilizing a substance for transformational work is an obstacle to
  awakening. It may be helpful—but honest discernment and consultation
  is needed if one engages in this way, so that one does not fool
  oneself and go astray. [Source]

Good point, there is this old joke about a monk that is forced to decide by a lady, he has to pick one: Drink a bottle of wine, sleep with her or kill her goat for dinner, he decides to drink the wine because it would be the less "offensive", next day he wakes up naked with her, the bottle is empty and the goat became dinner. It is an old joke but it shows the risks of being intoxicated. I tend to agree that if you have control over what you are doing, like a glass of wine, it should be ok, but this is based only in my commom sense

That's a great anecdote! By the way, I think you might enjoy this article, titled "Mindful drinking?" http://www.elephantjournal.com/2009/03/mindful-drinking-vajrayana-tradition-alcohol-and-buddhism/

P.S. See also this answer to a related question http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1344/do-all-buddhists-abstain-from-alcohol/1390#1390

Indeed ^_^ I have found rakija to be a wonderful releaser of subtle egos of spiritual people

There are many different views on the 5th precept. I'll sum up the 3 main views that I've encountered most:
1. Theravada
In this article Bikkhu Bodhi explains that

The taking of intoxicants is defined as the volition leading to the bodily act of ingesting distilled or fermented intoxicants.[10] It can be committed only by one's own person (not by command to others) and only occurs through the bodily door. For the precept to be violated four factors are required: (1) the intoxicant; (2) the intention of taking it; (3) the activity of ingesting it; and (4) the actual ingestion of the intoxicant. The motivating factor of the violation is greed coupled with delusion. No gradations of moral weight are given. In taking medicines containing alcohol or intoxicating drugs for medical reasons no breach of the precept is committed. There is also no violation in taking food containing a negligible amount of alcohol added as a flavoring.

In short, no alcohol. The only exceptions are when the alcohol is part of medication, or if one was drinking it unknowingly.
2. Mahayana
Trading or selling alcohol goes against the 5th Boddhisattva precept so that is a major offence.
Drinking alcohol still is an offence, but a minor one.
3. Less strict views
The less strict views on alcohol usually follow the reasoning that rules themselves do not lead to enlightenment and/or that the Buddha meant that for the 5th precept one should look at the intention of the person that is drinking. If the intent is to dull the mind or become drunk then it is an offence, otherwise it's ok.
There are 2 less strict views I'd like to mention explicitly here because I find them interesting.
- Mindful drinking
In the Tibetan Shambhala tradition apparently there is something called "mindful drinking":

once a meditator has developed basic Buddhist discipline ... the practitioner is ready to incorporate Vajrayana teachings, where the simple prohibitions outlined in the Sutras are re-evaluated. When a meditator reaches this point, which often takes a number years in the Shambhala tradition, a dangerous substance like alcohol is viewed as a potential aide for the practitioner. Within the context of strong discipline and clear intention, alcohol holds the possibility of no longer acting as a conventional escape, but instead being a tool for loosening the subtle clinging of ego.

- Strict rule only for monks
Some people have suggested that the "no alcohol"-rule only applies to monks, and for lay people it's more of a guideline or warning.

These are the six dangers inherent in heedlessness caused by intoxication: loss of immediate wealth, increased quarreling, susceptibility to illness, disrepute, indecent exposure, and weakened insight.
  (source Digha Nikaya III, 182)

This can be seen as "nothing more than a warning". Also in the story of Svagata in the Divyavadana the Buddha said:

Monks, there are these and other transgressions involved in drinking alchol. That is why monks should not drink or distribute alcohol." (source).

This was after the monk Svagata appeared before the Buddha intoxicated, before that all monks were allowed to drink. The author of this article suggests that via interpretations of this story and the Buddha's teachings, later this monastic rule was changed into the 5th precept for lay people.

Drinking alcohol (whisky) and eating meat was a part of Tantric empowerments that I was lucky to attend.
Teachings on emptiness tell us that on the absolute level all things have no intrinsic existence, everything is perfect and pure as it is and has nothing to do with good or bad. Perceiving alcohol as poison is definitely useful but ultimately we should know that it is only a concept which one day we will have to abandon.
It is of course wrong to use the above explanations to justify our excessive drinking. Such teachings are really advanced and for most of us it is better to still perceive alcohol as something to be careful with.
I practise Vajrayana and my masters (who drink some alcohol themselves) taught me that one should not lose face or behave in a bad style because of alcohol and that life is too short for a hangover. If you can have a bottle of whisky and at the same time behave nicely and in the morning you still can do a meditation session before work, do it. I know myself well enough and I stop drinking after a pint. In that way I still behave in a civilized way and my non-Buddhist friends don't get offended because I refused a drink from them.

I wanted to include an addendum on to this part of kukkuripa's answer:

A distinction is made between intoxication, where one’s clarity is compromised, and simply enjoying partaking of a substance.

Alcohol is banned in Olympic shooting events as a performance enhancing drug. Alcohol in small doses helps the shooter remain calm under pressure, focused and even slows their heart rate.
Obviously, if competitors consume too much alcohol their balance, steadiness, reaction time and motor skills become impaired.
It all comes down to dosage. Being sober or drunk is not a binary relationship. There are degrees and a continuum to everything.

Being sober or drunk is not a binary relationship. Nice.

There are many interpretations of that precept. It makes sense to try to understand the spirit of the precepts, rather then the letter only. The precepts are not the arbitrary will of Buddha.
They have a function. They protect us from  bad karma.
The point is to not get intoxicated. Intoxication leads to heedlessness. When we're intoxicated, we do not think clearly and our moral judgments are hampered.
What's the harm of sipping a little sparkling wine when celebrating? I don't see any harm if it doesn't result in intoxication.
However, I avoid even that celebratory sip. The reason is that I know myself and I noticed that if I drink even just a little, it creates a desire in me to want to drink more. I don't know why I am that way.
Therefore I avoid it altogether. But I acknowledge there are different, more disciplined people, in whom the desire to get drunk doesn't arise. For those people I would say, there's no need to obsess over that precept. When I reflect upon it, I think the precepts were made exactly for weak people like me who are unable to control themselves and be disciplined. I find that for such people, it is best to follow the precepts á la lettre. Not because they're commandments, but because I see they are protecting me with motherly kindness, protecting me from myself, from my blind passions.

This is an excellent and balanced thought that I will refer to in my answer.

You may think that the point is to not get intoxicated, but the Buddha was quite clear:  a practitioner of his teachings does not drink alcohol.

Any alcohol is an intoxication of the mind. So no, you can't even drink one drop of alcohol.
There is no reason at all to drink alcohol, unless you desire it. When you want just one drink, ask yourself: why do you want to drink the alcohol and not a glass of water? ( i'm thinking it's because you like it, you desire the effects of the alcohol)
In Buddhism you are trying to develop Mindfulness every minute of every day. If you consume any alcohol you will impair, even slightly, your mindfulness. And this is why alcohol is unwholesome, it effects the minds ability to function rationally.
There is plenty of science fact that shows the prefrontal cortex (rational thinking) is more and more bypassed the more intoxicated one becomes, and the amygdala( emotion response) becomes more active.
Alcohol is completely contradictory to the practice of mindfulness, even one drop!!!
What do you want more, freedom from suffering? or a poisonous beverage?
Metta

Consuming alcohol or any kind of drug for pleasure and with the intention of being intoxicated will break the 5th precept.

The problem with most answers to this question is that they render Buddhism worthless to many people.
None of us here know exactly what the Fifth Precept means.  It is quite possible that what it means is to abstain completely from drug and alcohol usage; but it is equally possible that there is something else behind it.  In Christianity, literal interpretations of the Bible have lead to hatred, violence, and stupidity.  The examples abound.
Imagine someone who is suffering from some sort of chemical dependency - call it psychological.  Hypothetically; this person only knows how to feel confident meeting new people when they are drinking.  For this person, believing that they can only practice Buddhism by abstaining completely from intoxicants, will be completely dis-empowering.
Using the 'realms of existence' metaphor - we could say that this person is in a certain level of 'Hell'.  Since one can't attain liberation while in 'Hell', they should do nothing, right?
But of course this is not the case.  Inaction is mostly less useful than incomplete action.
Wittgenstein, a German philosopher once famously said,

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following sense: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them.
(He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

When one is undertaking Buddhist practices, one is already doing something that will further their growth.  If one reaches the point where what is between him and the next level of awakening is to discontinue intoxicants, he will know that before he could learn it from a precept.
But if one must first eradicate all desires and sensory pleasures before undertaking the journey, the journey will be a short one indeed - the journey before the journey will be the journey.
Buddhism is both dogmatic and non-dogmatic.  It's dogmatic nature can give rise to deep spiritual discipline when practiced with rigor at a very high level - but as with any dogma - it can strangle practitioners - confuse them into clinging to their own understanding of an interpretation rather than opening themselves to a larger context.
It is easy to see the non-dogmatic aspects in Buddhism - as stated here by Venerable Sumedho:

Suttas are not meant to be 'sacred scriptures' that tell us what to believe. One should read them, listen to them, think about them, contemplate them, and investigate the present reality, the present experience with them. Then, and only then, can one insightfully know the truth beyond words.

And two other quotes that seem to fit the context that I am creating:

When I do not know who I am, I serve you.
  When I know who I am, I am you
Indian Proverb

...  and perhaps my all time favorite

The genuine path of unminding is not a religion for the immature.
Fen-Yang

Note: I am aware that this response jumps around.  I was looking to capture the space of several points rather than promoting a well-founded point of view.

Interestingly when looking up another quote for my response, I found the following quote:

The true meaning of the precepts is not just that one should refrain from drinking alcohol, but also from getting drunk on nirvana.
attributed to Bassui

And another cool one from The Alchemist by Paulo Coehlo. ( quoting Jesus I've learned)

It's not what enters men's mouth that is evil," said the alchemist. "It's what comes out of their mouths that is".

This is a extremely interesting answer - especially this statement - 'The problem with most answers to this question is that they render Buddhism worthless to many people'. Thank you. It's a shame it's a late answer to a popular question so will be marooned at the bottom of this question. It's a limitation of the system - but hopefully you will pick up a few more positive votes if people scroll down this far

I think I remember somewhere saying that if what you can practice is four precepts, then try to practice four precepts.

@ChrisW.  I like that.  You could also say ... 3 and ... 2, because it would also apply.  Better to practice two than one and better one than none.

Thanks. That last quote is quoting Jesus, by the way: Matthew 15:11

There have been many Christians in the world - whether a literal interpretation of the bible has led them to "hatred, violence, and stupidity" (which you, of course, are free of) more than people not having a literal interpretation of it, I don't know.  But I do know that if you actually read the Buddha's teachings you would be in a better position to speak about them accurately.

@Tharpa - kind of a nasty response.  You have no knowledge of what I have or haven’t read. In addition you cherry picked a quote with no context in order to call me a hypocrite.  You also fail to make a point apart from a personal attack.  Do you have a criticism with what I said, or do you just want to sow discord?

A very late comment, but - I think this is a very deep, beautiful answer and it resonates with my experience, particularly: "If one reaches the point where what is between him and the next level of awakening is to discontinue intoxicants, he will know that before he could learn it from a precept." This happened to me - I gave up trying to be a "Buddhist" 10 years ago and just started meditating with no goal. On my own I decided to stop drinking because I felt it was hindering me. I had actually forgotten the precepts until I looked them up today.

No drinking alcohol at all.
If I am given two glass of water; one with poison and one without, I will avoid drinking of both. In other words, I will not take that action. Similarly, If I am in doubt about certain action might or might not break a precept, I will avoid doing that action. In the end, I gain nothing from it.
In general; As seen in Karaṇīyamettā Sutta, (Karaṇīyam, "(This is what) should be done).")

Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure

@Suminda Sirinath Salpitiko also pointed out that
"As for the use in some buddhist traditions Second Buddhist council since some monks started drinking beverages which were in the process of fermenting. This has been rejected by the Theravada branch of monks in the 2nd council though the other sect also did have their Council. So not drinking at all is the best interpretation."

If I can just answer from the perspective of my experience practicing with the Triratna Buddhist Community. We are quite fond of reframing the 5 precepts as their positive counterparts. So the fifth precept of

I undertake to abstain from taking intoxicants that dull the mind.

viewed positively becomes

With mindfulness clear and radiant, I purify my mind.

We are not hugely keen on beating ourselves up about not sticking to the negative precepts. If we fail in them then pick yourself up and try it again. However we are very very keen indeed in living the positive precepts.
I've never heard of anyone being berated for having a glass of wine. I've even been in study groups where highly committed dharma practitioners speak of occasionally having too much to drink with friends (admittedly not common but again no-one berates them - they know what they are doing and it's up to them). But I have been in many many groups and ceremonies where the ideal of clear and radiant mindfulness is spoken of again and again and again. The positive ideal is preferred and spoken about.

No need to beat yourself for not practicing them - just practice them.  If you aren't ready to practice them, don't beat yourself up, just say, "I am not ready to practice them.  Myself and others will experience the natural consequences of that."  And in time, you may reach the stage where you are ready to practice them.  The important point is not to reframe them.  Instead of calling them the Negative Precepts, just call them The Five Noble Precepts.  Euphemisms are the enabler of many harmful actions.

The final goal of any Buddhist is to live every moment in Mindfulness.i.e. to live fully aware of every single thought  & deed. That and only that stage can prevent the accumulation of defilements which will bind you to the Samsara, the cycle of rebirth.
Alcohol can only cause to deteriorate one's awareness. Therefore, although it is not a Sin, it causes Delay.

Lifelong mental rigidity and dogmatism is much more an obstacle to any Buddhist concept of liberation, than a single drop of alcohol.
Methexis's answer seems very thoughtful and balanced to me. Methexis understands the limits of dogmatism, and also understands her/his own self well enough to choose intelligently to take on a strict abstinence from alcohol.
On the other hand, those answers who simply state "all alcohol is bad" seem to be missing the point. One drop of alcohol does not impair your clarity of mind more than, say, working a regular job past 2 in the afternoon. For that matter, one whole beer impairs your mind a lot less than many people's average work schedule and sleep deprivation. Does it really make sense to say "ABSOLUTELY NO ALCOHOL!!!" but not even consider other things that could be far worse impairments?
And as for the argument that any consumption of alcohol is driven by craving, I think that also completely misses the point.  The whole point of the 12 links of dependent origination is that ALL ordinary actions are driven by craving. We eat food because we crave it. We eat good food instead of the barest survival essentials because we crave it. We go to our job because we crave more than what we would have as beggars. The Buddha and all his early disciples didn't work day jobs, that's for sure! They were all beggars! So are we going to say that Buddhists can't have jobs?
There are many things that can be the object of excessive and destructive craving, but obviously the ancient Buddhist precepts don't list them all.  Any Buddhist who is proud to be abstinent from everything listed by name in the old rules, while still engaging in (for example) compulsive and addictive Facebooking and video game playing, is completely missing the point of Buddhism in general, as well as the precepts themselves.
It is true, of course, that alcohol and other intoxicating substances are unusually likely to lead to excessive indulgence and loss of clarity. For this reason, a rule of thumb that says "no intoxicating substances" is pretty good, as rules go. But anyone who is more interested in following rules to the letter, than they are in truly understanding how their own mind works and how it actually relates to experience, is not going to get very far in Buddhist practice.

Also sparked another thought:  Given a rigid observation of a Dogma, one is more likely to be dishonest with themselves about their own violations.  Thus dishonesty at the level of Self - probably more detrimental than a Guinness.

Nothing dispels the wrong view that the Buddha was against rules more than reading the Vinaya, the collection of rules for monks and nuns, of which is the Five Precepts (for householders) is a small part.

A person who is seriously doing insight meditation/mindfulness will immediately drop the addiction of drinking alcohol. The value of the Buddhist principles like not drinking alcohol, not using intoxicants exc.. can be easily understood by a person who starts to understand the reality through insight meditation/mindfulness and it will no longer be just faith and trust to the conceptual teaching. That is why Buddhism is wonderful and life-changing religion, it's practical and leads people to understand the reality theirselves through direct experience.

You are enquiring about the thing that is going to satisfy your desire.Everyone can live without alcohol.Buddha says"Desire is the root cause of misery".so the answer is simply no.

"Intoxicated", i.e. 'affected by toxic/poison', seems to me to denote a medical state and amenable to a medical/social/scientific definition (doesn't need a specifically Buddhist definition); for example:

There's a legal limit to much you are allowed to drink before you drive a car: i.e. one or two standard drinks, and in some countries no alcohol at all if you're a young/new driver.
Similarly there are recommended maximum weekly limits above which you should fear long-term health ill-effects.

Allowing yourself one drink, sometimes (not every day), seems to me to be:

Relatively harmless
Not incompatible with the Middle Way (neither extreme austerity nor extreme self indulgence)

It may also be unnecessary; different Buddhists might suggest different limits, one of the limits sometimes suggested is "none at all".
Furthermore I read the precept as "avoid intoxicants". IMO it's not just a matter of how much you drink: it's also a matter of how much your companions drink; avoiding intoxicants may imply avoiding intoxicated people.

I no longer approve this answer, but I won't delete it because some people found it useful. Having studied (experienced) the subject for a while longer I think that, at least for me, "moderate drinking" will be associated with "moderate suffering".

Buddhism and Alcohol
By Sanja Blackburn

Alcohol consumption is inconsistent with a Buddhist's quest to
understand and develop the mind. Buddhists believe that by practicing
meditation, wisdom and morality, every individual has the innate
ability to experience true happiness.
The Buddha encouraged his
followers to refrain from consuming any kind of intoxicant. This
included alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. These substances are said to
be inconsistent with Buddhist beliefs as they distort the mind.
Buddhists regard the mind as precious; they work diligently, through
meditation, to master it.  Buddhists follow five precepts, serving as
guidelines for correct and moral behaviour. One of the precepts
clearly states that Buddhists should 'refrain from taking
intoxicants'. Buddhists adhere to these guidelines with differing
degrees of success.
Only a small number of followers practice
Buddhism seriously, even though an overwhelming number of people in
Buddhist countries, such as Thailand, identify as Buddhists.
Despite
the Buddha's teachings, a number of Thai adolescents consume alcohol.
Despite the popularity of Buddhism as a philosophy in the west, few
people are willing to follow the Buddha's advice regarding alcohol.
People with a shallow understanding of Buddhism may believe that
alcohol is acceptable if used in moderation, justifying this in terms
of the Buddha's preaching of the 'Middle Way' philosophy.  The Buddha
was against any form of alcohol consumption, even in moderation,
because of the effect it has on the mind.
Mindfulness is central to
Buddhist philosophy. This concept requires a constant awareness of
changes occurring in the mind and body. Mindfulness enables the
individual to react wisely to emotions and sensations when they arise.
Alcohol distorts the mind and makes it impossible to practice this
tenet.
Karma is another Buddhist teaching inconsistent with the use
of alcohol. The Buddha taught that each individual must be responsible
for one's own Karma. This involves being responsible for the
consequences of one's actions, speech and thoughts. Alcohol tends to
encourage irresponsibility. It is possible to generate much negative
karma while under the influence of alcohol.
The Buddha taught that
true happiness was to be found in letting go of attachments. Many
people are deeply attached to the feelings they experience when
drinking alcohol. Through meditation it is possible to let go of this
attachment. Buddhist meditation has been successful in treating
alcoholism.
Many people use alcohol as a means of avoiding problems
that arise in life. Buddhism encourages people to deal with life's
difficulties and challenges. It encourages individuals to view
problems as opportunities to learn and grow. By practicing meditation,
an individual can develop the courage and determination to deal with
life, rather than rely on alcohol to create an artificial sense of
contentment. Alcohol consumption is inconsistent with Buddhist beliefs
for a number of reasons. Buddhists exert an enormous amount of effort
through meditation in order to change the mind. By consuming alcohol
the individual is unable to have any control over the mind.

I like this one!

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE! We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Have to point out one thing:  It is technically incorrect to imply that the Buddha specifically mentioned tobacco.  Tobacco did not even come to India until 2000 years after his parinibbana.  The Buddha did not even mention (psychoactive) drugs.  (Though monks are allowed to use marijuana for a specific medical condition.)  It is reasonable to suppose, however, that if he were alive today, he would have included both tobacco and drugs as prohibited under the Fifth Precept.

Yes it is acceptable in the sense that "I accept". A monk I doubt would say "I accept".

Drinking without becoming intoxicated is acceptable in Buddhism. Anything, that you do without craving and clinging (suffering), is acceptable. Drinking without becoming intoxicated falls within that category.

Anything? Does that include killing, stealing, cheating, and lying? Do you have a reference for this position? Thanks.

Killing, stealing, cheating and lying exists only when suffering is present. When a being ceases to suffer, killing, stealing, cheating and lying cease too.

Are you referring to enlightened beings? I believe the question is being asked on behalf of ordinary beings. :)

Most people don't have to be enlightened to know that killing, stealing, cheating and lying is bad karma. There are other things that are bad, but we don't even perceive them as bad until we enlighten ourselves. There are also other things that are good (or neutral) but we perceive them as bad until we enlighten ourselves.

It is a serious but common wrong view to think that it would be possible to break any of the Five Precepts without craving and clinging.  An ordinary person breaks them because of clinging, and an enlightened person (arahant) is free of craving, clinging and aggression, and thus would not even want to break them.


text:
Did the Buddha discourage antropomorphic representations of himself?
The first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha appeared centuries after his death (see this related question). Buddhist art then was "aniconic", insofar as the Buddha was only represented through symbols such as the Buddha's footprint or the Dharma wheel. In the Wikipedia article on Greco-Buddhism, there is a hint as to why this might be so:

[The] reluctance towards anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha, and the sophisticated development of aniconic symbols to avoid it (even in narrative scenes where other human figures would appear), seem to be connected to one of the Buddha’s sayings, reported in the Digha Nikaya, that discouraged representations of himself after the extinction of his body.

This assertion isn't, however, accompanied by a reference to the relevant portion of the Digha Nikaya, and it is contradicted in Donald Lopez's latest book, From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha (University of Chicago Press, 2013):

[N]o proscriptions against making images of the Buddha have been located in what scholars would regard as an early Buddhist text, nor have any prescriptions for his representation been found.

Is there actual textual basis for the claim that the Buddha discouraged antropomorphic representations of himself (in the Digha Nikaya or other early Buddhist texts)?

There is a Theravada Monk building a monastery in Malaysia without any image or representation of the Buddha, as you said Buddha images appeared only 500 years after his death. As the Buddha said, the Dhamma is our teacher now, this is the most important thing, the images are just to remind ourselves of the good qualities of the Buddha

Is anthropomorphic a correct term to use given that the historical Buddha was always human?

@Robin111 I'm not sure I understand your question. An anthropomorphic representation simply is a representation having human characteristics, while an aniconic representation is one that doesn't.

@konrad01 That's very interesting, do you have any information on the monastery (name, location, etc.)?

I'm going by this definition. It seems to say assigning human characteristics to something not human; like a deity or an animal. Is there a different definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

@Robin111 There is a difference between the noun anthropomorphism and the adjective anthropomorphic. An anthropomorphic representation can be a representation of anything (human or not) provided the representation has human characteristics. I hope that's clearer.

I'm not sure your link for anthropomorphic clarifies as it states: ADJECTIVE

Relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism. But if you believe it makes sense; that's fine. Be well. :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

A direct quote from the Digha Nikaya that explicitly expresses a prohibition or even a discouragement concerning his antropomorphic representations has not been found yet, as far as I know.
In Religions of the Silk Road (Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1996), Yuvraj Krishan maintains that the aniconic period is due to a Vedic heritage: Vedism was aniconic because it considered the highest gods as ultimately transcendent and formless. His contention is that when Buddhism was in its infancy, those who were faithful to the growing tradition were careful to act within to the Vedic tradition to avoid any normative displacement. So it should not surprise us that the earliest representational art appears at the geographical fringes of the Indian subcontinent (Sri Lanka and Gandhara). The earliest source for this thesis that I know is John C. Huntington's 1977 paper titled "The origin of the Buddha image".
Although there seems to be no known explicit doctrinal injunctions against the representation of the Buddha in anthropomorphic form, there is an  oblique statement in the Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins (first called attention to by Arthur Waley) which may be interpreted as a prohibition and consists the only textual source I have found to this effect. In this passage, which deals with the decoration of monasteries, Anathapindika asks:

World-honoured one, if  images  of yours  are  not allowed  to be made, pray  may we not at least  make images  of Bodhisattvas in attendance  upon you? (apud Waley, 1931/2)

Although this statement addresses the theme of iconic representation of Buddha, it is an isolated case and cannot really be construed as a prohibition. Therefore, Huntington's theory that the aniconic representation of the Buddha in early Buddhism was a result of Vedic traditions and not specific doctrinal prohibitions seems to be the best explanation.

Further reading:

Rob Linrothe, 'Inquiries into the origin of the Buddha image: a review', East and West 43, 1/4 (December 1993), pp. 241-256.

I suspect that the avoidance of idols and images was not the result of tradition but motivated by the same reasons it is avoided in the Vedic tradition and warned against in the Bible. To paraphrase, ' because it considered Reality and Consciousness to be ultimately transcendent and formless'..

You may want to refer to this sutta from Pali Canon
Buddha said to him, "The sight of my foul body is useless; he who sees the Dhamma, he it is that seeth me"
yo kho dhammam passati so mam passati; yo mam passati so dhammam passati
Vakkali Thera
Idols and Suptas are representing the teaching of Buddha, the Dhamma.

"The disciplines of austerity and contemplation Gautama had taught were now increasingly confined to a minority of orthodox .., the followers of Mahayana winning conversions among the masses. One sign of this was the proliferation in the first and second centuries AD of statues and representations of the Buddha, a practice hitherto restrained by the Buddha's prohibition of idol-worship." (Roberts 1995: 417)
ROBERTS; J.M. 1995. The Penguin History of the World. London: Penguin Group, 3rd edition.

Householder, interested,
Did the Buddha discourage antropomorphic representations of himself?
Not so explicite, but tendency to encouragements on reminders... image of him?
Ven. Ananda Thera once desired to keep a reminder of the Buddha at the monastery, while the Lord Buddha went into the lands, for encouragement of all in his absence, and asked the Buddha in relation of this. While the Buddha remarked that certain memorials of a Buddha while alive are not proper, he allowed to plant a Bodhi-tree one that occation.
"Not proper when alive..." does easy allow the thought that an image (after death) as encouragement and to increase faith, is approved by the Buddha. Now what kinds are there?
Maybe quoting the passage later...oh here

Kalingabodhi-Jataka (Kāliṅgabodhijātakaṃ)
..."This monastery, Sir, is left unprovided while the Tathāgata goes on pilgrimage, and there is no place for the people to do reverence by offering fragrant wreaths and garlands. Will you be so kind, Sir, as to tell the Tathāgata of this matter, and learn from him whether or no it is possible to find a place for this purpose." The other, nothing loth, did so, asking, "How many shrines are there?" —"Three, Ānanda." —"Which are they?" —"Shrines for a relic of the body, a relic of use or wear, a relic of memorial [202]" —"Can a shrine be made, Sir, during your life?" —"No, Ānanda, not a body-shrine; that kind is made when a Buddha enters Nirvāna. A shrine of memorial is improper because the connection depends on the imagination only.(?) But the great bo-tree used by the Buddhas is fit for a shrine, be they alive or be they dead." —"Sir, while you are away on pilgrimage the great monastery of Jetavana °° is unprotected, and the people have no place where they can show their reverence. Shall I plant a seed of the great bo-tree before the gateway of Jetavana?" —"By all means so do, Ānanda, and that shall be as it were an abiding place for me."...
202: See Hardy, Eastern Monachism, 216 f. The last class is said to be images of the Buddha. (similar in German translations)

My person also remembers, that in regard of not allowed to carry and draw pictures, images of humans, for monks, the commentary, at least, report that aside of samvega increasing, images of the Buddha are allowed.
The often ignored commentary, "historical" reports at least, of serious source, whould surely give much detail. There are even guidlines how and where to put (direction...).
Shrine should be understood as memorial image.
More on general reason why such "forms" is found in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta (DN16)

Vandāmi bhante cetiyaṃ, sabbaṃ sabbattha ṭhāne, supatiṭṭhitaṃ sārīraṅka-dhātuṃ, mahā-bodhiṃ buddha-rūpaṃ, sakkāratthaṃ.
I revere every stupa established in every place, every Relic of the Buddha's body, every Great Bodhi tree, every Buddha image that is an object of veneration.

The tendencies in Vinaya are generally strong against subha, but allow asuhba images. See also general comments on Buddhist Art here. The strong attachment to form, by humans, would also explain the Dhammic reason behind the rules.
Further additions, edits and discussion on it can be found here: [Q&A] Buddha-images are allowed by the Buddha (at least by monks)?, in the Open-Vihara.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Early artists did not make statues of Buddha so as not to make mistakes in representing the features and characteristics of the Buddha.
The statues came later as a tool of worship to develop faith in the Buddha.
There is not encouragement or discouragement of this from the Buddha or in the ancient texts.

Can you cite any sources backing up your first claim?

John C. Huntington, a significant art historian of Buddhism, published an article in 1977 which argues that the only explicit ban on images of the Buddha comes from the Sarvastivadin Vinaya. In the passage, Anathapindika asks "World honoured one, if images of yours are not allowed to be made, pray, may we not at least make images of Bodhisattvas in attendance upon you?", to which the Buddha assents. Even that is rather oblique, of course.

Above is a common opinion held by many people in Sri Lanka regarding the matter. I am no sure it it is there in any texts. May be perhaps books by Sri Lankan historians.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_art

To get the 32 marks of a Great man 80 sub marks is not easy.


text:
What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?
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?

What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to the different lines of practice? How are they rationalized?
Here are some:

Etymology:
pari- is a prefix used with the connotation of around, about, all over, or that of completeness. Thus dhāvati means
  'to run' and paridhāvati means 'to run about'; vajati - 'to go/
  proceed' becomes paribbajati, 'to wander about', ie. 'to live the life
  of a religious mendicant'; carati - 'to walk' becomes paricarati - 'to
  walk around, ie. to serve, honour'; gaṇeti, 'to count' becomes
  parigaṇeti - 'to calculate'.
mukhaṃ means primarily and literally 'mouth', by extension 'face' and
  figuratively 'entrance', 'opening', 'brim', then in a more abstract
  meaning 'the front', 'the foremost' and finally 'that which is an
  entrance into something', ie. 'a mean', 'a cause'.
Strictly from the point of view of semantics (ie. neglecting
  contextual information), the following meanings could reasonably be
  derived from the juxtaposition of these two components: around the
  mouth, all over the mouth, completely on the mouth, around the face,
  all over the face, completely on the face, around the entrance, all
  over the entrance, completely on the entrance, around the front, all
  over the front, completely on the front

Note: The above link also has references to commentaries & later Pāḷi literature.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
  To the fore (parimukhaṃ): The Abhidhamma takes an etymological
  approach to this term, defining it as around (pari-) the mouth
  (mukhaṃ). In the Vinaya, however, it is used in a context (Cv.V.27.4)
  where it undoubtedly means the front of the chest. There is also the
  possibility that the term could be used idiomatically as "to the
  front," which is how I have translated it here.

Ānandajoti Bhikkhu:
  Parimukhaṃ means at the front, or perhaps, around the mouth, i.e. it
  is a vague area, not meant to be confined to one particular spot or
  place, which would have been easy to designate if that is what was
  meant (like specifying oṭṭha, the lip). It is of course the
  mindfulness that is important in the practice, not the breathing as
  such, which only provides a basis for the mindfulness.

Anālayo Bhikkhu:
  Once the posture is set up, mindfulness is to be established “in
  front”. The injunction “in front” (parimukhaṃ) can be understood
  literally or figuratively. Following the more literal understanding,
  “in front” indicates the nostril area as the most appropriate for
  attention to the in- and out-breaths. Alternatively, “in front”
  understood more figuratively suggests a firm establishment of sati,
  sati being mentally “in front” in the sense of meditative composure
  and attentiveness.

Sujato Bhikkhu:
  In the gradual training, sati and upatthana occur together in the
  common idiom parimukhaṃ satim upatthapeti. Here the term parimukha is
  one of those simple words that is so hard to interpret. It modern
  renderings usually use something vague like 'in front'. However the
  phrase frequently occurs in contexts outside of anapanasati, making
  the interpretation 'at the nose-tip', or any literal spatial
  interpretation, unlikely. The Sanskrit has a different reading,
  pratimukha. This has many meanings, among which are 'reflection' and
  'presence'. Both of these would be appropriate in meditative context.
  But the word usually, as here, occurs in close conjunction with
  upatthana, which also means 'presence'. I think here we have another
  example of that common feature of Pali or Sanskrit, a conjunction of
  synonyms for emphasis: literally, 'one makes present a presence of
  presence of mind', or more happily, 'one establishes presence of
  mindfulness'.

S. N. Goenka: The awareness is established around the mouth,
  the entrance to the nostrils: parimukhaṃ. Certain traditions
  translate this as "in the front," as if the awareness is imagined to
  be in front of the person, but this sets up a duality. Actually you
  have to feel the breath coming and going around the mouth, above the
  upper lip, which is parimukhaṃ.

Additional References:

Parimukhaṁ article with Āgama references
Footnote 55 of Piya Tan's Study of Kāyagatāsati Sutta
Dictionary entries

This is an extremely important issue when it comes to jhana practice. The etymology is as per the above, mouth first, face second, front I would put third from a review of it's contextual uses where it's 50/50 mouth/face a little bit of the rest. Mouth of a river, face of the moon, etc.
In actual meditation experience testing the idea as mouth, face, and forefront (as it is often translated 'bring mindfulness to the forefront' or 'make mindfulness the purpose of one's sitting') I found advantages to all three ... over mindlessness. All three together as a progression is also interesting. Using 'face' one roams the face and discovers and releases facial tension. Since facial tension reflects one's reactions to sense stimuli it is the point where these tensions can be let go and so the result is an over-all release of tension. More effective in attaining concentration as a factor of jhana, is focus around the mouth. The idea is: "Take the mind and place the focus around (pari) the mouth. Then, in the same way, focus on the breathing." This is the answer to the debate as to where and how to place the attention on the breathing. You do it in the same way as you just put your mind onto the area around your mouth. It is not one spot because that spot is not there that stands still even for a second. When the idea is around the mouth in general one finds it relatively easy to maintain focus for prolonged periods. Again, to have gone directly to the breath would not have provided such a concrete example of how to do it.
There is also the residual benefit of the fact that after sit-down practice the idea of focusing on the mouth hangs around and as most of us know, it is from the mouth (after the mind) that most of our trouble begins.
An important thing to understand is what 'mindfulness' means. The word sati means remembrance but also mind. The two are actually the same thing from one point of view: that is that the mind consists of memory (think computers). A better translation would be simply 'mind' as in what the babysitter does with the baby. She does not keep her eye on the baby without a break. She checks it sufficiently often to establish awareness that everything is ok. Mind your manners. Mind your own business. Mind the time.

Mindfulness means to 'remember' or 'keep in mind'. To quote from the Suttas:

Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu
SN 46.3

What is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago.
SN 48.10

To also quote from the Abhidhamma:

Therein what is controlling faculty of mindfulness? That which is mindfulness, constant mindfulness, recollection, mindfulness, act of remembering, bearing in mind, non-superficiality, non-forgetfulness, mindfulness, controlling faculty of mindfulness, power of mindfulness, right mindfulness. This is called controlling faculty of mindfulness.
Vb 5

What is kept in mind is 'right view' or 'abandonment'. To quote again from the Suttas:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.
MN 117

Keeping the mind empty is all that is required. Sujato has the best answer, in my opinion.

This explanation is a mixing up of 3 of the steps of the Noble Eight-fold Path. Right View is the first step, abandonment is part of Right Intention, which is the second step, while Right Mindfulness is the 7th step. As for what Samma Sati is, it would be a different topic, but worth taking up the endeavor of looking it up.

Thank you for the feedback, but for the current formulation, the comment is not erroneous. Maybe the answer had the wrong choice of words, so amending and rephrasing it might shed some light into what was meant to be explained. Otherwise, the original term Sati, a noun, commonly translated as attentiveness or mindfulness, can indeed be also translated as memory or remembrance and in the context of the question at hand what is to be kept in mind as pertaining to the original phrasing is the process of in-and-out breathing: parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā so sato va assasati sato va passasati

Hello. Please desist from commenting on my posts.

with all due consideration, they are not your posts, they are information that is publicly available and it needs to be objectively scrutinized. the whole point of talking about Buddhism would be to apply the teaching of not believing anything only for being written or passed down as tradition, but to be logically assessed and to be confirmed by putting into practice, since direct experience is the cardinal filter for the truthfulness of principles

Hello. I updated my post with quotes from the scriptures. Also, the word 'sati' does not mean 'attentiveness' ('manasikara'). Sati means 'remembrance' always. It means to remember Dhamma Principles. This forum is not a debate forum. I will ask you for the last time to desist from commenting on my posts. Thank you

@DhammaAnatta IMO "you're not allowed to comment" would be one extreme, and "endless argument" would be another. I once tried to explain my own view of this topic in this answer -- it's long but in summary, if you disagree with something, try to say so clearly and politely in one comment -- to suggest an improvement to the answer for the author, or to mention your view to other readers -- and maybe let the author of the answer have the last word, to avoid "extended discussion".

thank you @ChrisW, it will be taken into consideration. best regards

I think it is used idiomatically, but as one contributor stated pratimukha in Sanskrit could mean , "reflection" or "presence". If we look back to Ajhan Geoff's statement, that supports his idea. But the reason I started typing, is we can put aside the definition and see how we naturally start to relax in accord with the basic instruction. If you mediate like me, you will find great benefit from allowing the awareness of the breath through out the entire body, to develop the first foundation well. Well, how about if it could mean all three or four of the meanings, from the most limited to the most expansive...?
Excerpt from the Anapanasati Sutta
"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' So, My brief conclusion is, If we follow the instructions, to calm bodily fabrications, then we probably will not want to have our main focus on the the tip of the nose. Otherwise we would have to work our attention too hard, attending to the breath and the nose, in a focused way and also calming bodily fabrications. I think we need to see the bigger picture, and relax deeply.

the comprehensive context of Buddhist meditation for the term is parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā so sato va assasati, sato va passasati and the most precise translations doctrinally, etymologically and last but not least practically, would be those that have the sense of putting the development of mindfulness at the forefront of one's endeavour, namely: he establishes mindfulness as his only concern, thus mindfully inhaling and mindfully exhaling

This is a second answer I will provide for this question from an article on Anapanasati I recently published.
The preliminary instruction in the Anapanasati Sutta is the following stock phrase found in many suttas:

Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an
empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body
erect, and established mindfulness to the fore (parimukhaṁ), ever
mindful he breathes in, ever mindful he breathes out.

While the above included term ‘parimuka’ is often the subject of debate, the preliminary instruction here in MN 118 in no place refers to intentionally directing mindfulness onto the breathing. As previously suggested, directing mindfulness onto the breathing appears not possible because mindfulness does not mean consciousness, observing, contemplation, attention or similar terms.
In tune with the meaning of ‘mindfulness’ in SN 35.245 as ‘the gatekeeper’, MN 38, while not mentioning Anapanasati but instead proceeding directly to jhana, provides the following instructional explanation of the above stock phrase:

Endowed with this noble aggregate of virtue, this noble restraint over
the sense faculties, this noble mindfulness & alertness, he seeks out
a secluded dwelling: a wilderness, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a
glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a forest grove, the open air,
a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he
sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings
mindfulness to the fore.
Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an
awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of
covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness
devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings.
He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth &
drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness,
mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth &
drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed,
his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness &
anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over
uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental
qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty.
MN 38 (Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

Similar to the MN 38 instruction above, when the word ‘mindfulness’ is actually used in a practical sense in MN 118, following the stock definition of Samma Sati found in many suttas, mindfulness is used in the
following way:

….on that occasion a bhikkhu abides…mindful, having abandoned longing
and dejection in relation to the world.
MN 118

It follows when MN 118 describes mindfulness as a factor of enlightenment, it appears to say much ‘noble’ mindfulness possesses/matures with the salient quality of ‘letting go’, ‘surrender’ or ‘relinquishment’ (namely,
‘vossagga’), as follows:

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment
factor, which depends on seclusion, dispassion and cessation that
matures as relinquishment/abandonment/surrender/letting go (vossagga).
MN 118

Similarly, in respect to the development of concentration (samadhi), SN 48.9 & SN 48.10 unambiguously say concentration & jhana are developed by making ‘vossagga’ the object of the mind (aramana), as follows:

And what is the faculty of concentration (samādhi)? It is when a noble
disciple, making letting go the object (vossaggārammaṇaṁ), gains
concentration, gains unification of mind. This is called the faculty
of concentration.
SN 48.9 & SN 48.10

Also, as previously mentioned, MN 117 & SN 46.3 say the role of mindfulness is to bring the Teachings to mind and remaining abiding in Right View. Naturally, ‘vossagga’ is a manifestation of Right View, namely, per the instruction about the 2nd Noble Truth in SN 56.11, the abandonment of craving. Thus the 3rd Noble Truth contains a Pali word similar to ‘vossagga’, having the same root, namely, ‘paṭinissagga’.
In conclusion, when the opening instruction say the practitioner “brings mindfulness to the fore” (parimukhaṁ) and is “ever mindful”, it appears this means to always maintain Right View (per MN 117), the wholesome (per MN 38),
the absence of longing & dejection (per MN 118) and/or vossagga (per MN 118, SN 48.9 & 10) in the mind.
To reiterate, in no place is an instruction to direct attention/consciousness towards/onto the breathing. In other words, since the nature of consciousness is to come into contact with the most salient sense object, a mind established in letting go (vossagga) will naturally be quiet and the in & out breathing will automatically become the object of consciousness. By being free from coarse willfulness to observe the in & out breathing, the experience or perception of the in & out breathing will be much more lucid, pervasive & long-lasting.

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