/lit/ - Literature

>>22745050
>Buddhadasa's on Anatta and Rebirth
Eel wriggling

>>22745077
Read the Sabbasava sutta chud.
Buddhadasa is just reflecting what the Buddha taught

>>22745106
Buddhadassa's views on moment-to-moment rebirth are in line with pretty much all orthodoxies. That he's willing to at least imply there's no life-to-life chain of formations after death is another matter and part of the reason he's controversial in Thailand. Some see his views and reading of the texts as bordering on Zen or heresy.

>>22745050
Everytime there's a secular buddhism vs traditional buddhism debate, there's always that one asian kid who rants about white people

>>22745165
He didn't mention moment to moment rebirth in the speech I recommended iirc

Read the Sabbasava sutta what Buddhadasa says about after death is perfectly orthodox for a practioner:

"Was I in the past, was I not, what was I, how was u, shall I be, shall I not be, what shall I be, how shall I be'
All inappropriate thoughts
>>22745176
Point to a singular (1) instance

>>22745196
>Read the Sabbasava sutta what Buddhadasa says about after death is perfectly orthodox for a practioner:
That's your reading, sure. But I'm far from being the only one, from either the monastic or academic world to interpret him as deviating from orthodoxy.

>>22745196
>Read the Sabbasava sutta what Buddhadasa says about after death is perfectly orthodox for a practioner:
then just read the suttas and skip all those dubious commentaries

>>22745202
>>22745214
If you worry about past or future existence,
And worry about whether the self survives or not
You are not freed from rebirth

According to the Sabbasava Sutta. How is this different to what Buddhadasa says?

So how much do you believe that the Budhha was a Scythian?
>>>/his/15896088

>>22745361
No

>Gautama Buddha (c. 6th to 4th centuries BCE), whose teachings became the foundation of Buddhism, was the best-known Shakya

>The laws of Manu treats Shakhyas as being non Aryan. As noted by Levman, "The Baudhāyana-dharmaśāstra (1.1.2.13–4) lists all the tribes of Magadha as if they were outside the pale of the Āryāvarta; and just visiting them required a purificatory sacrifice as expiation" (In Manu 10.11, 22). This is confirmed by the Ambaṭṭha Sutta, where the Sakyans are said to be "rough-spoken", "of menial origin" and criticised because "they do not honour, respect, esteem, revere or pay homage to Brahmans, ancestors, women and elders." Some of the non-Vedic practices of this tribe included the worship of trees, tree spirits and nāgas.

> It is uncertain whether, by the time of Siddhartha's birth, Vedic Brahmanism had been adopted to any significant extent by the Shakyans. Scholar Johannes Bronkhorst argues, "I do not deny that many vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when Buddha was born. However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against brahmanical thought and culture
>Furthermore, the founder and recognised forebearer of the Shakya clan, King Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka) has a Munda or Dravidian name. Most of the Shakya republic village names were non Indo-Aryan in origin. The word for town or city (nagara; cf. the Sakya village Nagakara) is of Dravidian origin.
So, Okkāka was the progenitor of the Shakyas. The Shakya clan derived their ancestry from King Ikṣvāku, whose name is of Austro-Asiatic Munda origin. The Shakyans were said to have rough unrefined speech, and their Munda ancestors suggest that they at the very least originally spoke a non-Indo Aryan language. There is evidence suggesting that they were indeed a separate ethnic (and linguistic) group from Indo Aryans and were still in touch with their Dravidian ancestry and language, it is possible that Pali/Sanskrit was not their native tongue, but rather secondary or third languages.

>>22745165
> moment-to-moment rebirth
an invention of the abhidharma, it was not taught by Buddha

>>22745592
It's implied by anicca, chuddy

Not even an abhidhammist but it's obvious

>>22745638
> It's implied by anicca, chuddy
Not at all, impermanence just means that things aren’t permanent (lasting forever), affirming that has nothing to do with saying things only last a moment or that they are reborn each moment.

If it was Buddha’s intention to teach the latter concepts. then he would have done so explicitly, you wouldn’t have to debate about whether it was implied or not.

>>22745638
>>It's implied by anicca, chuddy
momentariness is not in the suttas

Is there a recommended into to dzogchen? Preferably some lecture series or audiobook?

I have a visual impairment and I’m trying to find audiobooks or lectures on Dzogchen since that’s my preferred format but they are super limited.
I’ve seen sky gazing meditation mentioned a lot but very detailed few descriptions. I think those alternative types are very interesting

Although is this lack of info intentional? Should westerners not even look into this? I’ve mainly just used meditation to help with chronic pain and I honestly still remain skeptical about reincarnation or enlightenment

At 9m20s in this talk Thanissaro says he has not read the Abhidhamma.
http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/16/talk/4761/venue/sati/20140426-Thanissaro_Bhikkhu-sati-romanticizing_the_buddha_part_2.mp3

Incredibly based and buddhapilled.

>>22745050
Here's my recs

>>22745645
>>22745745
All dhammas are constantly arising and ceasing my dears. This is clearly what is meant by anicca. Anicca is not a long run prediction about otherwise stable entities, it is the constantly renewing marker of arisen dhammas

Like just meditate for 5 minutes and you'll see it

https://www.cambridge.org/au/universitypress/subjects/religion/buddhism-and-eastern-religions/reconstructing-early-buddhism?format=HB

Buddhist origins and discussion of the Buddha's teachings are amongst the most controversial and contested areas in the field. This bold and authoritative book tackles head-on some of the key questions regarding early Buddhism and its primary canon of precepts. Noting that the earliest texts in Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese belong to different Buddhist schools, Roderick S. Bucknell addresses the development of these writings during the period of oral transmission between the Buddha's death and their initial redaction in the first century BCE. A meticulous comparative analysis reveals the likely original path of meditative practice applied and taught by Gautama. Fresh perspectives now emerge on both the Buddha himself and his Enlightenment. Drawing on his own years of meditative experience as a Buddhist monk, the author offers here remarkable new interpretations of advanced practices of meditation, as well as of Buddhism itself. It is a landmark work in Buddhist Studies.

Exciting: brings bold and potentially game-changing new perspectives to the study of early Buddhism and to the teachings of its founder
Relevant: uses expert comparative analysis of the earliest Buddhist texts to reveal the path of meditative practice that the Buddha most probably followed to achieve Enlightenment
Revolutionary: brings fresh understandings to the historical Buddha – Gautama – and to the contested context of how Buddhism as a religion came into being


IT'S ON LIBGEN

Reviews & endorsements

This book proposes a radical and new understanding of the Buddha's path to awakening (based on a detailed analysis of the earliest textual sources available to us) that will undoubtedly prove provocative and controversial. It will certainly generate much discussion in scholarly circles, within Buddhist communities, and among those interested in understanding the Buddha's teaching and engaging in its practice. Mark Allon, University of Sydney

This book is the culmination of fifty years of Roderick Bucknell's Buddhist Studies scholarship, in which he has explored issues in the nature of the path of practice in early Buddhism, especially by comparing a range of parallel texts in Pali and Chinese. The work is clear, informative, well written and well referenced. It contains illuminating analyses of details of the Buddhist path – and of how they relate together, and evolved in different forms – in the first few centuries of Buddhism. It is thought provoking and thus includes controversial aspects with which other scholars may not agree. It will prompt deeper thought on the nature of the path of Buddhist practice, and be of great interest both to scholars of Buddhist Studies and Buddhist meditators. Peter Harvey, University of Sunderland

'This excellent book sheds fresh light on the early Buddhist tradition.' Huỳnh Cao Nhựt Quang, Religious Studies Review

another forum for buddhism
https://classicaltheravada.org

>>22745784
Interested in this too. And mahamudra

>>22745223
Traditional Buddhism's cornerstone is the problem of Samsara, regadrdless of its specific mechanics. If you deny rebirth you're left with little more than the commodified modern version of ir.

>>22745784
>Although is this lack of info intentional?
Yes, partly because of the secretive nature of Vajrayana, and also because Dzogchen didn't use to be accepted by everyone due to what they perceived as non-Buddhist influences or philosophical ideas, to the point practicioners were accused of sneaking Hindu-style theism into the mix
>Should westerners not even look into this?
You absolutely should. Vajrayana taboos are hogwash, and were often meant to protect the teachers from comically ignorant regular folks who would see them as either sorcerers or plain crazy/grifters. But the practices can work amazingly well for what you mention

>>22745592
>not taught by Buddha
We don't even have good historical evidence that the Buddha existed as an individual. If he did, whatever he said was probably warped beyond recognition in the 300 years it was transmitted orally

>>22745821
> All dhammas are constantly arising and ceasing my dears
Do you have a source for this statement in the Nikayas? If not then I’ll have to dismiss that as another confused product of the Abhidharma’s imagination

>>22746362
So if it is intentionally secretive, and would lack books on specific subject like chronic pain, or something, does that mean I would essentially just need to find a teacher physically?

All the western teachers seem so far out of their traditional context that it is difficult for me to gauge what is essential and what to look for.

> Hindu theism
That is the case within Dzogchen? I could see it being such within Tantric deity yoga but I guess I’m not entirely clear on what is considered part of both

>>22746308
The argument is more subtle than that. You seem to be more ensnared in views to understand what the point being made is
>>22746481
Aniccā vata saṅkhārā,
uppādavayadhammino.
Uppajjitvā nirujjhanti
tesaṃ vūpasamo sukho.

Which has various iterations from the mahaparanibbana sutta to the samyuttanikaya's verses section

All formations arise and cease

>Hurr but they can subsist in between
Do I need to teach you about what change is? All dhammas are conditioned, any change in conditions as per patticcasamutpada implies a change in Dhamma.
For example: a piece of cheese at 1pm.is different to a piece of cheese at 1:15pm by virtue of there being a different condition of time

>>22748061
>>Hurr but they can subsist in between
Yes, that quote does not say anything about "arise and cease unceasingly with no temporary persistence until their eventual dissolution", it's just generally affirming that impermanent things arise and eventually fall

>For example: a piece of cheese at 1pm.is different to a piece of cheese at 1:15pm by virtue of there being a different condition of time
This is making an unjustified leap of presupposing that the piece of cheese ceases to be that particular leap of cheese in spite of being conditioned by other things in success during its duration as that particular pieces of cheese, but Buddha never says in the Nikayas that things lose their identity and gain a new identity each moment, eg he does not say that the same tree that was planted there yesterday is now a different tree because time has passed or because an arrow hit it today, so it's circular logic to interpret a quote about general impermanence as such.

>>22745809
A lot of heretical Mahayanist gobbledygook there...

>>22748306
>Temporary persistence
It is an illusion. All things depend upon conditions, conditions which are obviously in constant flux, simply because
>Time ever changes
Let alone the ever changing mass of other conditions like change in mental states, perceptions, spatial positions etc.

If a thing persisted, then it would be invariant in the face of time: for example the clock would be at 1:15 but the cheese would still be at 1.
>Suttas don't support
Many suttas explain patticcasamutpada or other dependence relations:

Eye conscious depends on eye, and sights. Those are perishing, so eye conscious is perishing. The meeting of the three is eye contact, eye contact is perishing.

Now think about seeing something. It is made up of temporal instances of being seen.

>>22748306
>>22748511
Here's your ref btw:
AN 1:48
>I do not see a single thing that's as quick to change as the mind. So much so that's not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes
Remember mind precedes (conditions) all dhammas

And in SN1.11
>Impermanent are all formations, their nature is to arise and vanish, having arisen, they cease
No mention of subsistence

In the Mahayana agamas it's very clearly spelled out that dhammas momentarily arise and cease.

I'm not even a momentfag because even momentarinesd can be negated once you get to Nagarjuna's level

But believing in persistence is heinous clinging

>>22748531
>>22748511
>>22748306
Of course in the MMK time is negated as are arising, ceasing and abiding and simply because discrete or continuous units of time are logically unfathomable

That said, thinking that anicca teaching is just that things eventually go away but abide in the meantime is a reification view.

>>22748531 (You) #
>>22748511 (You) #
>>22748306 #
Of course in the MMK time is negated as are arising, ceasing and abiding and simply because discrete or continuous units of time are logically unfathomable

That said, thinking that anicca teaching is just that things eventually go away but abide in the meantime is a reification view.
Momentariness is a useful observation of conventional reality to see anicca more clearly as compared with believing things persist in some way but reifying moments isn't useful as even these are negated upon analysis

You don't need Mahayana to refute momentariness because there is no khanika in the suttas. It's that simple. All this stuff about momentariness à la Visuddhimagga stems from the Visuddhimagga to begin with.

Go into the Visuddhimagga and see how they attempt to ground their view into the suttas.

PTS Pali English Dictionary
Khaṇika
adjective unstable, momentary, temporary, evanescent, changeable; usually syn. with ittara, e.g. Ja.i.393; Ja.iii.83; Pv-a.60
■ Vism.626 (khaṇikato from the standpoint of the momentary). Khaṇikā pīti “momentary joy” is one of the 5 kinds of joy, viz. khuddikā, khaṇikā, okkantikā, ubbegā pharaṇā (see pīti) Vism.143, Dhs-a.115.

-citta temporary or momentary thought Vism.289
-maraṇa sudden death Vism.229.
-vassa momentary i.e. sudden rain (-shower) Ja.vi.486.

>>22748685
You're wrong because you're implying that no momentariness means that things persist which is a perversion of anicca.

The opposite is true. Nonmomentarinous means things are like an illusion entirely

>>22745050
https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/dwr/
https://pathpress.org/book-dhamma-within-reach/

1. Prey to Suffering
2. The Uprooting of Suffering
3. Intentions Behind Actions
4. The Right Endurance
5. Addiction to Sensuality
6. No Need to Say No to Everything
7. Contemplation of Anger
8. Overcoming Depression
9. How to Develop Solitude
10. Appointment with Death
11. Truth About the Five Hindrances
12. How to Calm Your Mind
13. Gateway to Nibbāna


1 - PREY TO SUFFERING

>One should not act out of one’s emotions.
>Instead become AWARE of them while they’re enduring.
(Which is how you don’t act out of them.) But you should also see them as a symptom of an underlying problem and not as the problem itself. When you think that the symptom is the problem, you’re not going to look for what the real problem is. And unless you’re free from suffering and have understood the Four Noble Truths (have become a sotāpanna),
>everything you think is a problem is actually a symptom of the problem. Even when you suffer, that dukkha is a symptom of your LIABILITY-to-suffering (Dukkha). And that’s where the problem is, that’s why you suffer in the first place: because you are liable to suffer even when you are not suffering.

>Suffering is the symptom of Dukkha, which is the problem.
Freedom from Dukkha then means freedom from the symptoms as well. In other words, freedom from the liability to suffer means freedom from suffering.

>Dukkha that needs to be understood is on the level of that “liability”. Something like an ever-present risk of suffering. That risk is not on the level of some particular thing that currently might be bothering you. That’s why the Buddha would say: “The wise man would reflect: I am subject to suffering. I’m subject to misfortune.” Meaning: “Nothing has happened to me, but it could. I am subjected to the possibility of these bad things happening.” I am at risk.

If you were being hunted by a lion, you’d assume that the problem is only if a lion actually attacks you. You don’t recognise that the problem is already, in fact, that the lion could possibly attack you at any given time. And that would be the main reason for the lion eventually attacking you: you remained within its hunting ground because you didn’t recognized the risk of being there even before you were attacked.

>>22745050
https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/dwr/
https://pathpress.org/book-dhamma-within-reach/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YdrrkKfh3I&list=PLUPMn2PfEqIw9w6zCsn6l0jtG2Ww2prRD

1. Prey to Suffering
2. The Uprooting of Suffering
3. Intentions Behind Actions
4. The Right Endurance
5. Addiction to Sensuality
6. No Need to Say No to Everything
7. Contemplation of Anger
8. Overcoming Depression
9. How to Develop Solitude
10. Appointment with Death
11. Truth About the Five Hindrances
12. How to Calm Your Mind
13. Gateway to Nibbāna


1 - PREY TO SUFFERING

>One should not act out of one’s emotions.
>Instead become AWARE of them while they’re enduring.
(Which is how you don’t act out of them.) But you should also see them as a symptom of an underlying problem and not as the problem itself. When you think that the symptom is the problem, you’re not going to look for what the real problem is. And unless you’re free from suffering and have understood the Four Noble Truths (have become a sotāpanna),
>everything you think is a problem is actually a symptom of the problem. Even when you suffer, that dukkha is a symptom of your LIABILITY-to-suffering (Dukkha). And that’s where the problem is, that’s why you suffer in the first place: because you are liable to suffer even when you are not suffering.

>Suffering is the symptom of Dukkha, which is the problem.
Freedom from Dukkha then means freedom from the symptoms as well. In other words, freedom from the liability to suffer means freedom from suffering.

>Dukkha that needs to be understood is on the level of that “liability”. Something like an ever-present risk of suffering. That risk is not on the level of some particular thing that currently might be bothering you. That’s why the Buddha would say: “The wise man would reflect: I am subject to suffering. I’m subject to misfortune.” Meaning: “Nothing has happened to me, but it could. I am subjected to the possibility of these bad things happening.” I am at risk.

If you were being hunted by a lion, you’d assume that the problem is only if a lion actually attacks you. You don’t recognise that the problem is already, in fact, that the lion could possibly attack you at any given time. And that would be the main reason for the lion eventually attacking you: you remained within its hunting ground because you didn’t recognized the risk of being there even before you were attacked.

>>22748973
You keep yourself in the hunting ground because of the many pleasures that you get there. The nice fruits, good company, beautiful views, lovely streams, etc. And the problem is that you put that first, and the danger from the lions second. If you were not to forget that the lions might be watching you at any given time no amount of those joyful pleasures would be enough for you to stay there. But what happens is that most of the time you don’t see the lions. So you forget that you are still a prey to them, even when you don’t see them. Then you get careless and attracted, attached and dependent on all those beautiful sense pleasures which you enjoy there. Forgetting that you’re liable to death, by not thinking about it, you maintain the whole world of sensuality, suffering, anger, despair, etc. But if you were not to forget that you are liable to die at any given second, during an in breath or an out breath, then any passion you would have on account of being alive will have to fade away. It would wither away because you’re not feeding it anymore:


2 - THE UPROOTING OF SUFFERING

>The practice of the Dhamma is not supposed to only help you deal with things that bother you, it’s supposed to uproot your liability to be bothered in the first place.
The Dhamma does not manage your suffering, it removes the possibility for you to suffer in the first place. So
>the goal for your practice is to learn how not to be affected by things to begin with.
It’s not about having a perfect management system that will always help you deal with the pain once it has arisen.

Because that’s where the true problem of dukkha is: it has arisen. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t last long or if you know how to quickly get rid of it. What matters is that you cannot prevent it from arising and affecting you. And that should be your real concern.

>The Dhamma is that direct, one and only path for uprooting the suffering,
not the management of it. Management helps you deal with it when you don’t know the escape. The Dhamma is the escape. That knowledge that overcomes the liability to suffering, once and for all, is what the Dhamma is.

So, although one might currently not be experiencing any form of suffering and unwholesome states, one should not settle for that. Instead, one should look further and think thus:
>“Although right now I am not experiencing bad and painful mental states, will I also be so in the future? Is it possible for those non-arisen unwholesome things to arise?”
If the answer is “yes”, then one should recognize that that is something that can be addressed right now, and not tomorrow. That’s the crossroads: are you headed in the direction of uprooting, or management? Most people go down the road of management, thinking that they will deal with the problem when it arises later on. While failing to understand that the liability to future unpleasantness is already a problem RIGHT NOW.

>>22748981
>Management of suffering is not the answer
because management requires suffering to arise first. It needs dukkha to be there first in order to manage it. If you keep managing your dukkha with the hope that somehow your liability to suffer will disappear by itself, that means your practice revolves around wishful thinking. It means there is no direct insight into the arising of suffering and thus no knowledge of what needs to be understood for the complete freedom from it.

>One needs to aim at understanding the root of suffering
and not just the way out of this particular suffering that’s currently present.

>You suffer because you resist the idea of discomfort
even before the actual discomfort comes your way. You resist the thought of the possibility of discomfort here and now and that is why here and now you experience dukkha. It’s not because there is something in the world bothering you.
>You are bothered because you resist the idea of being bothered.
That’s why the Buddha did not say that things in the world are the cause of dukkha; he said that
>craving (taṇhā) in regard to how you feel is the cause of dukkha.
If you feel good, you habitually crave for more of that feeling. If you feel bad, you habitually crave for less of that feeling. If you feel neither-bad-nor-good, you habitually ignore that feeling.

So the reason for your suffering in the first place is not because the world throws things at you that make you feel unpleasant. The reason is your ATTITUDE towards whatever you are currently FEELING due to that world. And you will not see this as the root of suffering for as long as you accept the management of the world as the valid way of freeing yourself from dukkha.

How then do you not crave against the pain?
How do you stop craving for pleasure?
>By enduring the pain and not acting out of it.
>By keeping the precepts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts)) and seeing the danger in the slightest chance of breaking them.
That’s how you will gradually stop blaming the world and others for your suffering and instead see your craving as the direct and only cause for your dukkha.

>>22745807

Two of my favorite quotes from him:

>How many times people have complained to me "If you live content with very little then the economy is going to collapse". Well, if the economy is built on greed, anger, and delusion, then maybe it should collapse.

>People say that you can desire as much you want as long as you're mindful. That sounds like a recipe for a serial sex offender.

>>22748397
Heretical mahayanist Buddhism is the only kind I care for. Buddhadasa was based. Dogen advanced Buddhism to be a better technology of the self. Zen is the best escape from neoliberal capitalism.

>>22745050
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gT1rCJ3K4Hk_1cOAVi0CO6TSRLbvzcuX/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NLXgfjQEuCfLhY4E5vL-Wcn-sp0w3fpL/view

'What You Might Not Know About Jhana and Samadhi" by Kumāra Bhikkhu

>>22745050
https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html

>>22749060
nice verbal fabrications

>>22748983
3 - INTENTIONS BEHIND ACTIONS


The Right meditation is determined by the Right view.

“The Blessed One said: Now what, monks, is noble right meditation with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors—
>right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness
—is called noble right meditation with its supports & requisite conditions.
Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does the right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one’s right view.”
—MN 117

That means that
>even if a person doesn’t have the Right view, their meditation should be concerned about getting it.
And that is done by developing the self-transparency (or self-honesty) concerning skilful/good states of mind (kusala) and unskilful/bad ones (akusala).

The Buddha defined the Right view in those very terms—
>knowing “good as good”, and “bad as bad”.
The person with the Right view knows for himself, beyond any doubt, kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. By seeing it—he recognizes it. He doesn’t need to hold or adopt any other external criteria. The clarity of his vision pertains to here-and-now, internally. Thus, for someone who hasn’t achieved that yet, that’s where the meditation should start. The obtaining of the right criteria and then meditating through it. Keeping it “composed” is the definition of the Right samādhi.

If we look at the Suttas, whenever the Buddha was talking about meditation it was to
>bring the fulfilment of knowledge and wisdom.
Yet, if a person has none of the latter to begin with, then the fulfilment cannot arise nor be fabricated mechanically. Very often the Buddha’s reply on how to meditate would be in instructing people in
>recognizing and avoiding the unskilful, and cultivating (bhāvanā) the skilful.
Discerning the nature of kusala and akusala has the potential of taking the mind above both. Freeing it from action (kamma) and its results (vipāka). And that’s exactly why performing (doing or acting) the specific steps cannot take one beyond the nature of kamma. UNDERSTANDING it, however, might.

>>22749332
Methods and techniques are inadequate because usually they don’t amount to more than management of the problem of suffering. Management of a problem is not the same as UPROOTING it. That’s why a person will be better off trying to
>DISCERN what kind of attitude towards meditation can be sustained throughout the day that would eventually uproot or prevent one from being able to suffer in the first place.
An attitude that wouldn’t need any particular favourable environment or special conditions to be applied. One needs to find that kind of COMPOSURE that one can maintain in different circumstances. The way to do this is by establishing the GENERAL MINDFULNESS. Not the particular observation and adherence to the prescribed steps of a “meditation” technique, that results in one being absorbed in it. But the opposite:
>AWARENESS of one’s general situation as a WHOLE (e.g. an enduring mood, state of mind, persisting feeling etc.).
Common practice of “absorption” can then be seen as the complete opposite of this type of general mindfulness.

Every jhāna, for example, is fully founded upon the basis of the UNSHAKEABLE MINDFULNESS as a number of Suttas often mention. So, even if a person wants to do his meditation in a “formal” manner, such as sit for an hour a few times a day, that is fine. As long as it is not done for the purpose of developing some sort of “experience of absorption” out of it. Like trying to watch one’s breath hoping for some novelty energy release or pleasures.
>The point of meditation is to remain AWARE as much as possible.
>Aware or mindful of whatever is already there enduring (feeling, perception, intentions).
Not interfere with it, or deny it, or try to replace it. Just DISCERNING the enduring presence of the arisen experience. Emotionally, perceptually and intentionally. That kind of composure can then be “spread out” over one’s entire day, even when a person is not sitting down to meditate. (Which is what the Buddha said for jhāna too—one can sit, walk, eat, go to toilet, etc., while in jhāna. Very contrary to the popular belief.)

>The whole point of the practice of Dhamma and meditation is nothing other than understanding the nature of things.
The understanding that arises on account of the MINDFUL DISCERNING of whatever is ARISEN and ENDURING in our experience. And it’s that understanding of the unskilful that frees the mind from it. If a person wants to be truly free once and for all, the only way to do so is through KNOWLEDGE and MINDFULNESS.

Thus, if one wants to practice in a manner that pertains to this final goal of freedom,
>one needs to become very MINDFUL and HONEST about the INTENTIONS behind any ACTIONS.
>one needs to be concerned with one’s ACTIONS and CHOICES.
Through this persistent SELF-QUESTIONING one can also see whether an action that is about to be, is rooted in an unskilful motive. Like sensuality, ill will, vanity or distraction for example.

>>22749337
What’s important is that
>one would need to abandon only that: the unskilful.
One doesn’t need to cancel the entire arisen experience and behaviour. That would be a form of overdoing it, and not using mindfulness as a criterion of discernment.
>“Is what I am about to do rooted in greed? Lust? How about ill will and annoyance or anger?” Or “am I acting out of a desire for distraction and forgetfulness? Am I willingly giving in to acts and desires that would delude me further and mask the unskilful basis of those very actions?”
Such questioning about the personal and inner dimension of one’s daily experiences and actions will have to result in being mindful. This is a definition of (proper) vipassanā, or INVESTIGATION, since that’s exactly what’s being done. Self investigating the MOTIVATION behind any ACTIONS. And it is obvious to see how this kind of attitude and mindful practice would result in discerning “good as good, bad as bad”. How it would not be dependent on any external authority or belief. Instead it would be a direct, visible, universal criterion seen personally for oneself.

>SELF-HONESTY or TRANSPARENCY is not an optional thing
It’s an absolute pre-requisite for any chance of getting the Right view and knowing how to practice the Dhamma. If a person still has difficulties in abandoning his own dependence upon a particular “method” of practice, he can still take up this practice of self-questioning all the time, as a “method”. Although not ideal, it will still result in seeing through the motivation and emotional need for any methods in the first place. (Needing “something to do”.) By seeing the subtle motivation under any action, one will automatically feel responsible for one’s choices. No matter how “justified” those might seem externally. The weight on it is always on oneself, and that’s something that one cannot ignore any further.

It is also then when the full weight of the Buddha’s “beings are owners of their actions” saying is truly felt:

>“I am the owner of my actions, heir to actions, born of actions, related to my actions, and I have actions as my shelter. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I become the heir.”
—AN 5:57

>>22749337
>>Not interfere with it, or deny it, or try to replace it. Just DISCERNING the enduring presence of the arisen experience.
that's the crap stemming from mahayana. In buddhism meditation has a clear goal and it's to remove temporarily the hindrances and prepare the mind to get insights into ''how things really are''.
And like the buddha said in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html and in the sutta about his night of his enlightenment, plenty of crap in the mind has to be removed ''by force'' and this means ''by wisdom'' in seeing them as toxic, and the few good stuff in the mind has to be cultivated.

More generally, the path is a bahavana, ie a cultivation at the beginning by faith, of what the buddha calls ''good'' and the weeding out of what the buddha calls ''bad'', because non-enlightened people have no clue about good and bad, until the follower knows for himself what is good and bad, typically after stream entry.

>>22749340
>>22749414
4 - THE RIGHT ENDURANCE

Q: What is the middle way between asceticism and sensual indulgence? Is it the practice of enduring (neither giving in to or denying) thoughts?

Nyanamoli: That’s the way to cultivate the middle way. Acting out of sensual thoughts, accepting them without reflection, not enduring them with sense restraint—that is what Sensuality is.

Once you realize that acting out of sensual thoughts is bad, you will probably naturally jump to the conclusion that you mustn’t have those thoughts to begin with. That you must get rid of them and prevent them from manifesting. That is how you go to the other extreme: denial of thoughts.

You need to differentiate between “withstanding arisen thoughts” (enduring) and trying to “get rid of the presence of arisen thoughts” (denying).

The latter way is equally ignoble to the habitual giving in to sensual thoughts. That way can take you into that other extreme of self-mortification and extreme denials.

Physical endurance is hard, but it’s not as hard as enduring a presence of a sensual thought without acting out of it or trying to deny its presence.

Physical endurance is hard, but it’s not as hard as enduring mental states like anxiety, betrayal, irritation, without acting out of them or trying to deny their presence.

When the Buddha spoke about “getting rid” of the sensual thoughts, he explained how that is done: by not welcoming, not delighting, enduring them and not acting out. That’s how those thoughts go away. Leave you alone, so to speak. Thus, you have “got rid” of them.

It’s important for people to recognize that
>acceptance or denial of one’s states of mind is where the problem is.
Not in the states of mind arising in themselves. And when the Suttas talk about the two ignoble ways of “sensual indulgence” and “self mortification”, this is where those ways are rooted. The casual practitioner nowadays might be too quick to dismiss these two “extremes” by believing they are these coarse forms of misconduct and self-torture. But they are not. Sure, they can be, but they are rooted at a much more subtle level. The level of simply saying “yes” to the joy of one’s desire, or trying to deny the appearance of it. It’s crucial to regard it as subtle as this, because only then the true subtlety of the Middle Way can become apparent. (Middle Way that is also quickly conflated and misconceived as a mere practice of moderation in regard to everything, including sensuality).

Enduring patiently allows for wisdom. The Right discernment begins by
>allowing thoughts to endure without welcoming, denying or ignoring them.
Thoughts manifest on their own. That’s the fundamental point. Thinking that you can deny them already implies a wrong view, whereby you think that you are in charge of those thoughts, or that you are responsible for their arising. What you are responsible for is your acceptance of them. You are responsible for delighting and acting out of them.

>>22749648
If you manage to allow them to endure, and not act out of the pressure these thoughts put on you, you will then naturally try to get rid of them. Why? Because allowing them to endure, without acting out, is very unpleasant. That’s why “self-mortification” is a natural response by one who has tried to endure sensuality: doubling down and trying to take control of that unpleasantness by intentionally increasing it.

It is easier to either act towards sensuality or deny it. Patiently enduring it, without acting out or denying it, is the hardest thing of all. The Middle Way is the hardest thing of all. It’s much easier to get angry or lustful at things, and just to say yes or no, act and express yourself quickly. Rather than to deal with the pressurizing thought and enduring it for as long as it wants to be there.

If you want to deal with the pain of an enduring thought, when you are not acting out of it, you need to allow it to endure so that you can understand it.
>The problem is not that unwholesome thoughts are manifesting. The problem is in that you cannot endure their presence.
It pressures you. So you go either towards or against them. Either way, you are affirming the grip that such thoughts have over you. You are feeding it.

>ALLOWING thoughts to endure WITHOUT ACTING out of them, would be the beginning of the Middle Way.
That’s exactly what “grasping the sign of the mind” (cittanimitta) means in the Suttas. Grasping the signs of the endurance of your mind. Signs that are usually covered up by habitual acting out or denying it, by either over-doing or under-doing the restraint.

“So too, Soṇa, if effort is aroused too forcefully this leads to restlessness, and if effort is too lax this leads to laziness. Therefore, Soṇa, resolve on a balance of effort, achieve a natural state of the faculties, and pick up the sign there.”
—AN 6:55

>>22749684
Q: When you are watching the breath and a lustful thought arises, some tend to think ‘I must get rid of this’ therefore I must just watch my breath so that I don’t have lustful thoughts, and if I can keep watching my breath I will never have lustful thoughts again.

Nm: That’s like the simile of the deer herd that ran on top of the mountain (MN 25). They are not experiencing any temptation from the bait, for some time, but they are not growing wisdom concerning overcoming the bait either. That means that when their food on the mountain runs out they will go straight back and eat the bait that the hunter laid for them. A person cannot sustain watching their breath 24/7, something will have to come up, one way or another. And when it does, their temporarily generated calmness fades away. There will be no wisdom remaining as to how never to engage with the bait ever again. And the wisdom won’t be there because there was never a direct effort made to develop it. Watching the breath so that pressuring thoughts will go away is identical to running to the top of the mountain where you will hide from the pressure of the bait. Either way, you are ignoring the problem.

>There is no problem if you are watching your breath for reasons other than to ignore or deny the unwholesome thoughts. The problem is when people choose to attend to the breath with the intention of denying the thought,
because the thought is unpleasant, and they do not want to endure it in full awareness. Like in the Suttas when Mara comes and tries to tempt the Buddha. The Buddha can’t chase him away, but he can not provide Mara with a basis on which to latch, and that’s when Mara leaves him alone.

“Once upon a time, mendicants, a tortoise was grazing along the bank of a river in the afternoon. At the same time, a jackal was also hunting along the river bank. The tortoise saw the jackal off in the distance hunting, so it drew its limbs and neck inside its shell, and passed the time in non-activity and silence. But the jackal also saw the tortoise off in the distance grazing. So it went up to the tortoise, and waiting nearby, thinking, ‘When that tortoise sticks one or other of its limbs or neck out from its shell, I’ll grab it right there, rip it out, and eat it!’ But when that tortoise didn’t stick one or other of its limbs or neck out from its shell, the jackal left disappointed, since it couldn’t find a vulnerability. In the same way, Māra the Wicked is always waiting nearby, thinking: ‘Hopefully I can find a vulnerability in the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind.’ That’s why you should live with sense doors guarded…”
—SN 35:240

>>22749716
>Thoughts of sensuality arise like flies buzzing around you but unless you provide something suitable for them to land on, they will just buzz off elsewhere.
And just like when the Suttas describe how to not pay attention to unwholesome thoughts:

“If evil, unskilful thoughts—connected with desire, aversion or delusion—still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no attention to them, those evil, unskilful thoughts are abandoned and subside…”

This should not be confused with denying the presence of thoughts. It’s quite obvious: it’s because they are present on their own, that you have an option to not give them your attention. I wouldn’t have to ‘not give you my attention’ if you are not here. So if I am instructed to not give you my attention, that means I need to know that you are here first. Then for the duration of, or endurance of your presence here, I will not give you my attention.

Q: Is it about being equanimous regarding a lustful mind state?

Nm: EQUANIMITY would be the outcome of this correct way of ENDURING. Eventually, Mara will indeed leave you alone. The pressure will not be able to overwhelm your mind if you maintain SENSE RESTRAINT. The restraint will equip you with the ability to endure the thoughts correctly. And
>the longer you do it, the stronger you will become. The clearer the Middle Way will be.

Q: Those mental states will be less intense.

Nm: Yes, but that’s more of a side effect. Your concern should be that
>‘you are not moved by those states even if they intensely last forever’.
Your concern should not be “how I make this less intense”, since that would amount to denying its presence again. As the Buddha said:

“Rāhula, cultivate a meditation that is in tune with the earth; for when you cultivate a meditation that is in tune with the earth (water, fire, air, space) arisen agreeable and disagreeable contacts will not invade your mind and remain. Just as people throw clean things and dirty things, excrement, urine, spittle, pus, and blood on the earth, and the earth is not repelled, humiliated, and disgusted because of that…”
—MN 62

So it’s important to remember this.
>You cannot decide or hope for an end date to your endurance, after which you can go back to the world.
>The attitude and your willingness to endure must be infinite.
>For as long as you live you shall not give in.
That’s the correct way to develop patience that can eventually lead to complete freedom from suffering.

Only then can you reap the benefits of the Middle Way that the Buddha taught. Only then can you say that you are truly and completely free.

>>22749760
Q: What to do when you have a peaceful state of mind?

Nm: You do the same. Don’t be negligent, or distract yourself from it. If it’s peaceful, then question it also: “Did I create that peace? Did I have a direct say in its manifestation? No. I am actually subjected to it. It’s agreeable, but let me not delight in that agreeability of mind and become careless. It’s peaceful, but let me be equally aware of it. Thus, when it changes I shall not be affected by it.”

>The goal is to eventually not be affected by any state of mind.


>[5 - ADDICTION TO SENSUALITY]

Q: You mentioned before that a person cannot get the Right view without first abandoning the value of sensuality. What did you mean by that?

Nyanamoli: One must understand that abstaining from sensual acts does not automatically mean one is abandoning sensuality. A person might be perfectly celibate and restrained, but internally he still might be valuing the pleasures of the senses. He still might not be seeing them as bad, unwholesome and very dangerous. For as long as that is the case, he lacks the necessary basis for the Right view to arise. No matter how physically restrained he is.

Nm: It’s the gratuitous dependence on experiencing the pleasure of the senses. It’s the value of safety, comfort, contentment, that for an untrained mind is rooted in the pleasures of satisfying one’s sensual cravings. When you can satisfy your desires you feel safe. Desires towards sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches. It’s the value of peace that a drug addict would get after taking drugs.

If you wish to free yourself from that dependence, then you will have to be willing to accept, in a universal manner, that for the rest of your life
>the safety, peace and joy that you get on account of sense pleasures is dangerous and not worth depending on.
You need to see that safety based upon one’s senses is not actually safe.

The only reason you’re not seeing sense desires as a problem of addiction is because you are refusing to give them up.
>All you need to do is SAY “NO” to sensual cravings that manifest in your day-to-day life
and then very quickly you will feel how deeply addicted you are. You’re never going to see how addicted to cigarettes, alcohol or heroin you are until you try to quit. That’s when you will feel the weight of it. So the necessary step for giving up an addiction is to stop giving in to it even while you still want to. By restraining yourself physically, your dependence will become more apparent. Then
>you will have to be willing to ACCEPT and ENDURE the inevitable pains of withdrawal. For as long as it takes.

>>22750156
You have to understand why you are addicted to sensuality. It’s not because of the nature of the human body, or “hormones” or something. No.
>It’s because you are finding gratification and safety in the satisfaction of your desires.
>It’s because not satisfying your desires and enduring their pressure makes you feel unpleasant and unsafe.
>It’s because not satisfying your desires hurts.
That’s all.

So, in other words, the value of sensuality is that it provides you with pleasure from the pain of itself.

>*** THE VALUE OF SENSUALITY IS THAT IT PROVIDES YOU WITH PLEASURE FROM THE PAIN OF ITSELF ***

Sensuality touches you with pain, but at the same time, it offers you a solution for that same pain. It’s just like racketeering: “Okay, if you pay me, I’ll make your problems go away, problems that I put on you so that you will pay me”. So you get extorted by your own sensuality, your own desires. Sensual desires hurt, and giving in to them will remove that hurt and reward you with more pleasure. It’s a win-win. Or so it seems, until you realize that the true win is to not be pressured by the desires in the first place. The win is not having to pay the racketeering thugs for your safety; the win is to not have the thugs pressure you at all.

>The more you give in to the pressure of sensuality, the more you will have to give in since its nature can never be changed.
The Nature of sensuality is that it hurts, burns, and pressures you.

–“Magandiya, suppose that there was a leper covered with sores and infections, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. A doctor cures him and he's now happy and free. Then suppose two strong men were to grab and drag him to a pit of glowing embers. What do you think? Wouldn’t he twist his body this way and that?
–“Yes, Master Gotama. The fire is painful to the touch, very hot & scorching.”
–“Now what do you think, Magandiya? Is the fire painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, only now, or was it also that way before?”
–“Both now & before it is painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, master Gotama. It’s just that when the man was a leper covered with sores and infections, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired, which was why, even though the fire was painful to the touch, he had the skewed perception of ‘pleasant’.”
–“In the same way, Magandiya,
>sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching;
>sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching;
>sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching;
but when beings are not free from the passion for sensual pleasures—devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever—their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of ‘pleasant’.”
—MN 75

>>22750204
>The reason why addictions in general are hard to give up is because you’re not just giving them up. You’re actually giving up the entire world that you lived through them.
Hence, even the idea of sense restraint and saying “no” to one’s desires almost immediately results in fear. Whether it’s drugs, sex, food, music, video games, tv, movies, internet browsing, doesn’t matter. The reason they’re pleasant is because you get to experience the whole world on the basis of that substance or that pleasure. Heroin is not pleasant in itself, but experiencing the world through heroin is where that addictive pleasure comes from.

Everybody wants peace. Everybody wants non-disturbance. And sensual pleasures offer you that peace. They tempt you with a perfect satisfaction and freedom from disturbance… disturbance that they put on you.

That’s why withdrawal from sense pleasures, in general, has to be painful at first. You are withdrawing from the only peace and safety you know. That’s why, more often than not, such withdrawal will feel like dying

And all of this is even more true if you try to abandon sexual desires, which are far more deeply rooted than any substance you can be addicted to. You will need to have a pretty strong determination in order to abandon it. Such determination can be found and developed by
>contemplating the danger that is hidden in every sensual desire,
regardless of how small or insignificant it might appear.
Allowing yourself to feel the peril of it that is universally present in every sensual desire. Even if you don’t want to practice the Dhamma for full awakening.
>Sensuality is always unwholesome, because sensuality is always dangerous.
That’s what the Buddha advised to everyone who wanted to practice his teaching. He said that
>whatever action or practice leads to DISPASSION, DISENCHANTMENT, ABANDONING, RENUNCIATION, a person should value it and do it. That action is good.
Whatever action leads to passion, attachment, indulgence, a person should abandon it. That action is bad.

“These qualities lead to DISPASSION, not to passion;
to being UNFETTERED, not to being fettered;
to SHEDDING, not to accumulating;
to MODESTY, not to self-aggrandizement;
to CONTENTMENT, not to discontent;
to SECLUSION, not to entanglement;
to aroused PERSISTENCE, not to laziness;
to being UNBURDENSOME, not to being burdensome’:
You may categorically hold, ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’”
—AN 8:53

So, ask yourself, which practice leads to dispassion? Practice of celibacy or non-celibacy? Sense restraint or non-sense restraint? Behaviour of addiction or non-addiction? Well, the answer is pretty straightforward.

>>22750260
>[ 6 - NO NEED TO SAY NO TO EVERYTHING ]

“Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to pursuit of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no good.

>THE MIDDLE WAY discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbāna.
And what is that Middle Way? It is simply
>THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH: right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right composure.
That is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbāna.”—SN 56:11

Nyanamoli: What needs to be restrained. Do you say “no” to everything? To whatever your eye wants to see or whatever your nose wants to smell? Or are there things that you don’t have to refuse.

Q: Depends on my motivations.

Nm: Correct. So what would be the motivation for restraint?

Q: Wanting pleasure and not wanting pain.

Nm: Well, you always want pleasure, you always don’t want pain. That’s the inevitable starting point. Whatever you do, it’s done for the sake of pleasure. However,
>not every pleasure is sense based. Not every joy is sensual.
That’s what you want to discern. What are the types of pleasures that are not dependent on my senses? And that’s why
>the sole purpose of sense restraint is to reveal your motivation behind your need for pleasure.
Are you motivated by the sense pleasure at the time, or
>are you motivated by the restraint of the sense pleasure, so you get a more wholesome pleasure of peace and non-disturbance later?

You can see here that even the practice of sense restraint and keeping the precepts is rooted in the simple wanting of pleasure. That’s what the Buddha meant when he said:

“This body comes into being through CRAVING. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned. This body comes into being through CONCEIT. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.”
—AN 4:159

Thus,
>it is fine to crave for the FREEDOM from CRAVING.
That craving has as its aim the extinguishing of craving. The extinguishing of itself. So, although it’s still the craving, the motivation behind that craving is different to the craving for sense pleasures for example. Sensual craving has more of sensual craving as its aim, as its motivation. The increase of itself.

>>22750632
Lust, aversion, and distraction (lobha, dosa, moha) are not the things that you crave for. They are your motivations for craving things that you crave for. And that’s the verse from the Suttas:

“Thought and lust are a man’s sensuality, not the various things in the world;
Thought and lust are a man’s sensuality, the various things just stand there in the world;
But the wise get rid of desire therein.”—AN 3:63

If you want to uproot lust, aversion and delusion, or at least diminish them, you have to
>be AWARE of your INTENTIONS and MOTIVATIONS behind your every ACTION.
Action by body, by speech, and by the mind. You need to QUESTION it, be honest with yourself and then not do it if you know it is unwholesome. But for this practice to bear fruit you need to first
>RESTRAIN your:
Habitual actions towards the beautiful/wanted—lobha;
Habitual action away from the ugly/unwanted—dosa;
Habitual action from distracting yourself from neither ugly nor beautiful—moha.

So, for example, you
>take on the PRECEPTS first (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts).).
>Then within that, you practice the SENSE RESTRAINT too.
Then you might develop a view that “I will not do anything because everything is rooted in desire”. You will need to see that that very view and decision too is already rooted in desire. If you say, “I will stop thinking,” that is already your thought. So such view is a contradiction in terms. That’s why
>you can’t just decide to stop the problem. YOU are made up of the PROBLEM; your existence is the problem.

Lets assume you keep the eight precepts strictly. Then you have a thought: “I want to go for a walk.” Ask yourself why you want to go for a walk. “Oh, because I’m restless”. Then it’s clear: your motivation is restlessness. That’s not wholesome. Don’t do it.

Perhaps it’s because you want to experience sights, sounds, smells that will please you and distract your mind from itself. That’s unwholesome. Don’t do it.

Perhaps it’s because your body aches from too much sitting, mind is getting dull and sleepy and you want to break away from the indolence. Then by all means. Go and climb the top of the mountain if it will help you practice mindfulness.

So you need to MAINTAIN PERSPECTIVE regarding your INTENT. Going for a walk is itself neither unwholesome nor wholesome. It is neither sensual nor not.
>It is your INTENT behind such an action that determines whether you should or shouldn’t do it.
This of course applies only to actions that are pretty neutral in themselves. Certain other actions, such as anything that would be against the five or eight precepts, are always rooted in unwholesome and wrong intent. Such actions can never be done for the right motivation: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, consuming intoxicants.

>>22750690
See, you don’t need to say no to everything. Just those things that are against the precepts and a few other things if they are rooted in your unwholesome intent behind them. Practically speaking,
>in the beginning you will probably need to say “no” to more than you should,
but that’s just to be on a safer side. Until you get the correct footing and understand the principle. That’s why
>the Buddha would always lean on the side of ASCETICISM, even if in itself it does not necessarily result in wisdom.


“…Now, monks, suppose that I had eaten, refused more food, had my fill, finished, had enough, had what I needed, and some alms food was left over to be thrown away. Then two monks arrived hungry and weak, and I told them: ‘Monks, I have eaten and have had all I needed, but there is this alms-food of mine left over to be thrown away. Eat it if you like; if you do not eat it then I shall throw it away where there is no greenery, or drop it into the water where there is no life.’ Then one monk thought: ‘the Blessed One has eaten and had what he needed, but there is this alms-food of the Blessed One left over to be thrown away; if we do not eat it the Blessed One will throw it away, but
>this has been said by the Blessed One: ‘Monks, be my heirs in Dhamma, not my heirs in material things.’
Now this alms-food is one of the material things. Suppose that instead of eating this alms-food I pass the night and day hungry and weak.’
And instead of eating that alms-food, he passed that night and day hungry and weak. Then the second monk thought: ‘the Blessed One has eaten and he has had all that he required, but there is this alms-food of the Blessed One left over to be thrown away. Suppose that I eat this alms-food and pass the night and day neither hungry nor weak.’ And after eating that alms-food he passed the night and day neither hungry nor weak. Now although that monk by eating that alms-food passed the night and day neither hungry nor weak, yet the first monk is more to be respected and commended by me. Why, because the WILLPOWER that he has demonstrated shall contribute to the fewness of his wishes, contentment, effacement, easy support, and arousal of energy. Therefore, monks,
>be my heirs in Dhamma, not my heirs in material things.”
—MN 3


Thus,
>keep the PRECEPTS. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts))
Steer on the safer side if unsure. But at the same time don’t allow yourself to become neurotic and start blindly saying “no” to everything without making the effort to DISCERN your MOTIVATION behind it. You’ll will not only lose the Right context but also prevent yourself from developing the understanding that otherwise you were capable of.

Reminder to read Gendun Chophel if you want to understand Nagarjuna

>>22745050
Is this a good translation of the Dhammapadda? It claims to be unabridged and Shambala seems like a trustworthy company, but it's suspiciously small and light

>>22745784
https://youtu.be/rhOIXuQMU6c?si=XerhriGQAtU86yqX
You can watch youtube videos of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu for an introduction, but to actually practice Dzogchen you need a teacher.
>I’ve seen sky gazing meditation mentioned a lot but very detailed few descriptions. I think those alternative types are very interesting
These practices are very secret because because they can easily be misunderstood and create obstacles on your path. If you don't have a correct understanding of the nature of what you experience in these practices there is no benefit to doing them. Do not look into them any more without the direct instruction of a teacher.
If you're interested in learning Dzogchen, 8 can recommend this guy. He is a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and teaches in that tradition.
https://www.rangdrolfoundation.org/

>>22746362
>Hindu-style theism into the mix
I don't know how anyone could think that, since Dzogchen considers the deity yoga of general Vajrayana to be entirely pointless as a path to Buddhahood. And philosophically, the view of Dzogchen is identical to the view of Prasangika Madhyamaka. The basis is not Brahman.

>>22750734
> [ 7 - CONTEMPLATION OF ANGER ]

Right contemplation is learning how to think without greed, hatred and delusion underlying your thoughts.

Try and CONTEMPLATE the phenomenon of anger, the phenomenon of ill will. You don’t have to be angry when you want to do this meditation—just bring it to mind, remember when you were angry. You can ask yourself,
>“What is common to all of those experiences of anger or irritation? What is their nature?”
You can answer these questions in many ways, and it’s not always crucial to answer them in the same way, because your investigation will lead you to different aspects of that phenomenon. But just keep pressing with the questions while the phenomenon is enduring.

One of the most obvious things is that
>ANGER is UNPLEASANT.
Every single time you experience it, it’s unpleasant. Then you can ask a second question:
>“Can I be angry without that little sting of displeasure in it? Is there any anger that is truly enjoyable and pleasant?”
There might be a secondary experience of pleasure through getting back at someone who upset you, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the very first, originally enduring, phenomenon of anger. Is that pleasant or unpleasant?
>It’s always unpleasant,
there’s not a single exception. It always burns.

Let’s put it like this: somebody does something that upsets you, that irritates you. You’re irritated, you got angry because you’re upset for whatever reason. Then, say, on some other occasion, you’re in a good mood and somebody does the same thing to you but now you really did not experience that sting of discomfort and you’re not angry. You might even laugh it off. You realize then that
>ANGER is not directly determined by what has been done to you—it’s really determined by whether you’re EXPERIENCING DISCOMFORT on account of it or not. It’s determined by your STATE OF MIND

>Every time you were angry, irritated, annoyed, means to some degree you were upset.
It doesn’t matter how subtle that upset was, it’s still the upset which means
>there was a degree of discomfort, displeasure, unpleasant feeling—every single time.
And every single time that you get upset in the future, that will be the same basis. Then you realize that what you get angry with in the present, what you’ve been getting angry with in the past, or what you will be getting angry with in the future, is your
>being LIABLE to FEEL DISCOMFORT on the emotional level.
>Experiencing unpleasant feelings is what makes you angry.
Not other people or objects.

>>22745784
don't know if this has audio and haven't read it but it's on the r/streamentry sidebar

>a pragmatic and secular guide to Dzogchen specifically written for Westerners. Enlightenment is clearly defined and the stages of awakening as understood in Dzogchen are thoroughly explained in plain language. This is a recommended resource for anyone interested in an "awareness-based" approach to Awakening.

>>22750795
>Whenever there is ANGER, it is rooted in DISCOMFORT.
What is common to every single discomfort?
What kind of mental attitude is always in the background?

It’s not wanted. That’s the attitude. It is resisted. You don’t want it to be there. You feel entitled to not having it there. That’s why when people get upset they aim and blame the circumstances that were upsetting. But in reality those are irrelevant.
>It’s the discomfort that is felt, that’s where the problem always is.
So even when people aim at changing the circumstances, they do so only to remove the displeasure that’s within them. But this can never remove your liability to future displeasure touching you and you getting angry. This can only manage the symptoms of anger, but never uproot it.

>Unpleasant feelings arise on their own.
If we were to have control over what feeling arises in us, we would never experience displeasure of any kind. Since we do, it means
>the domain of feelings is not something we can control. It’s something we are subjected to.

But why is that a problem? Because you don’t want it? But why don’t you want it? Because it’s a problem. Thus,
>you create your own vicious circle of not wanting discomfort that is only a problem because you don’t want it.

So,
>would you be able to maintain the attitude of trying to get rid of displeasure if you’re not holding on to a view that you can get rid of that displeasure?
>If you completely realized that the domain of feeling is inaccessible to you, would you still be acting as if you have access to it? As if you can control it?

As we just clarified and discovered, you wouldn’t be trying to get rid of the unpleasant feeling unless there is an implicit assumption that you can get rid of it. But
>when you look at the unpleasant feeling, you realize it has ARISEN ON ITS OWN, fully formed, independent of you, and you’ve no say in it.
You endure it when it’s there. You are free from it when it goes. All you can do is secondarily complain about it, try to get rid of it, prevent it, or affect the circumstances that have indirectly propped it up. So,
>why do you then still hold on to the attitude of not wanting it, of trying to get rid of it, craving for it not to be, when it’s obvious you have no say in it?

It’s because of your other underlying attitude that is even more fundamental than the attitude of craving for getting rid of the unpleasant feeling—and that attitude is the attitude of IGNORANCE, the attitude of ignoring the nature of the feeling, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. That’s why ignorance is the most fundamental existential error for which every single being is responsible.

>>22750844
Not contemplating that Nature long enough—that’s how you maintain the fully gratuitous attitude of resisting or indulging feelings, depending on whether they were unpleasant or pleasant.
>Any attitude toward feelings implies the assumption that you can control those feelings, either through prolonging them or getting rid of them. But you realize that, whether you’re trying to prolong them or get rid of them, that is secondary to the presently enduring feeling that has arisen on its own and that you are subjected to.
If you stop ignoring that, these wrong attitudes will have to eventually fade.

That’s why
>ignorance cannot be undone accidentally.
You cannot accidentally stumble upon the answer to the universe that will solve and prevent you from suffering ever again, because it’s not a mistake, it’s an attitude that you maintain through your ACTIONS.

You can stop resisting unpleasant feeling, for example, not by deciding to not resist the unpleasant feeling, but by fully overriding it with the UNDERSTANDING that,
>whether you resist or not makes no difference.
Resistance is futile. That’s how resisting fades. Ceasing to ignore the obvious futility of your resistance to your present emotional states is how you stop resisting them.

Imagine you’re trying to break through a door. You will keep trying for as long as there is hope that you can do it. But then suddenly you hear the possibility that maybe there’s no need to be breaking through this door—there’s no need to get rid of it. And then you understand that, truly, there is no need; and not just that, you understand that
>you can’t break through even if you wanted to.
There’s no door, actually—it’s a fully cemented, concrete metal block, painted as a door inviting you to come and break it.

That’s basically what
>feelings are. A trap.
They present themselves as if they’re for you, which is why you naturally assume the ownership and control over them. But that’s wrong.
>They are not for you, you are for them.
You are the one who is subjected to them and has to ENDURE them. Feelings deceive you into a gratuitous sense of ownership. Hence the psychological dependence people have on feeling good and avoiding feeling bad. It helps them maintain the ILLUSION OF OWNERSHIP. If things were solely unpleasant and hurtful it would be easier to give them up. You wouldn’t want to own them, would you?

So,
>feelings present themselves as if they’re controllable, and that’s why you just fall into that trap of trying to control them, which is why you suffer.
As the Buddha himself said, you don’t suffer because there is displeasure present, or because misfortune happens to you, and so on—you SUFFER because there is CRAVING in regard to that unpleasant feeling. Thus,
>presence of CRAVING means presence of SUFFERING.
Absence of it means there is no suffering present either, regardless of what feeling chooses to arise on its own.

Is this book worth reading generally, and if it is, is it still worth reading if I have little understanding of Buddhist thought in general? It caught my eye today in the bookshop, but I couldn't immediately tell if it was just some New Age syncretic nonsense or actually worth my time.

>>22750872
It is not allowing me to attach the file for some reason, sorry. The book is Suzuki's Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist.

>>22750870
What one usually does when there is an unpleasant feeling is to make effort towards chasing an experience that will replace the pain with the pleasant feeling. But that’s a separate experience now—you haven’t dealt with the original unpleasant feeling. You just covered it up. It ceased on its own and now you’re experiencing some other pleasure on account of your desperate actions of chasing it. But even that feeling of that pleasure has arisen on its own. In other words, it’s not a guarantee that the actions towards the world will always result in the same type of feeling, and that’s enough to then reveal the nature of its independence. That’s why the Buddha said
>the puthujjana doesn’t know any other escape from the arisen unpleasant feeling except sensuality, as in replacing it with another experience of pleasant feeling, on account of his inability to deal with the fundamental nature of being affected by feeling of any kind in the first place.

“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, a man harbours aversion towards it. When he harbours aversion towards painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling lies behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he seeks delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because
>the uninstructed worldling does not know of any escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure.
When he seeks delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling lies behind this. He does not understand as it really is the ORIGIN and the PASSING AWAY, the GRATIFICATION, the DANGER, and the ESCAPE in the case of these feelings. When he does not understand these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling lies behind this…”
—SN 36:6

>If you cease to be affected by an unpleasant feeling, if you cease to be pressured by the pleasant feeling, why then would you need to replace it with any other feeling or act towards getting more of it?
You wouldn’t. That’s why somebody who’s free from aversion becomes free from sensuality as well—hand-in-hand.
>Freedom from sensuality is freedom from aversion.
That’s pretty much the state of anāgāmi.

>The practice then is about ceasing to ignore the fundamental nature of the presently enduring feeling, whatever that feeling is—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.
With the guidance of the Suttas and Dhamma talks, which give you pointers to where and what to look for—you must be making that effort to look for it. Not looking for it means automatically ignoring it.

When you have been making an effort in contemplating correctly, and you are touched by an unpleasant feeling, you will be able to discern the choice of attitude you have—either to try and control, manipulate, deal with the world, or simply
>remove the attitude of resistance in regard to anything you feel.
And only one of these choices will result in freedom from suffering.

>>22750877
start with these 2 - one quick rundown of buddhism and a meditation book
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhasTeachings/Section0003.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/WithEachAndEveryBreath/Section0003.html

For Pete's sake a just read Nagarjuna

>>22745809
Can you change the color to make it easier to read? thank you

>>22745833
>320 pages
>AUD$ 141.95
I wonder who with two brain cells would pay for it. I suppose they did not intend to make money from publishing this.

Here is the file on libgen
https://files.catbox.moe/g698jy.pdf

>>22751842
it's really universities which buy those academic books

>>22751384
why

>>22750886

>[ 8 - Overcoming Depression ]

“Bhikkhus, there are these three feelings.
What three? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.
>The underlying tendency to lust should be abandoned in regard to pleasant feeling.
>The underlying tendency to aversion should be abandoned in regard to painful feeling.
>The underlying tendency to ignorance should be abandoned in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.
When one experiences pleasure, if one does not understand feeling the tendency to lust is present. For one not seeing the escape from it.
When one experiences pain, if one does not understand feeling the tendency to aversion is present. For one not seeing the escape from it.
The Blessed one has taught with reference to that peaceful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant:
If one seeks delight even in this, One is still not released from suffering.
But when a bhikkhu who is diligent does not neglect clear comprehension, then that wise man fully understands feelings in their entirety.
Having fully understood feelings, He is taintless in this very life. Standing in Dhamma, with the body’s breakup the knowledge-master cannot be measured.”
—SN 36:3

To overcome depression a person needs to realize that
>depression is not caused by anything external to oneself.
Even when there might be some external reasons present,
>DEPRESSION is a state of MIND.
A state of mind on account of the external world, sure, but not the world itself. It’s also
>a state of MIND for which one is RESPONSIBLE.

This principle is true for any unpleasant mind state whatsoever—any unpleasant feeling. There is a natural TENDENCY to ASSUME that it’s the world and things in the world that upset and affect us. One assumes that one’s mental states, good and bad, are caused by what is experienced in the world. Yet if this were true then it wouldn’t be possible to free oneself from suffering at all. If the world causes us to suffer, then there would be no choice about it since one has no fundamental control over the world.

Yet, as you can see below, deep down
>there is always a CHOICE.
This is not something easy to admit. This is because admitting that there is a choice makes people jump to conclusions that depression is their fault. That’s not the case. We are not talking about the faults of one’s choices—we are talking about one’s RESPONSIBLITY for them.

>>22752585
>YOU have a CHOICE to either GIVE IN, OR NOT to give in, to what you are FEELING at any time—
even if those feelings were caused by the world. The mind affected with ignorance, lacking training and restraint, when touched by pleasure will automatically want more of it. This is not a rational and premeditated decision. When agreeable things come, the mind automatically leans towards them, which is the result of an unrestrained mind that has been, and still is, under the influence of IGNORANCE. Likewise, when there is an unpleasant feeling arising, the unrestrained mind will automatically resist it. It will try to get rid of it and prevent it from fully manifesting.
>It is this gratuitous acceptance of the pleasant, and resistance to the unpleasant, that makes you RESPONSIBILE for what you do on account of your FEELINGS.

Depression, being an unpleasant state of mind, is something that has needed time to develop. It has accumulated gradually due to
>perpetually seeking safety in desire for pleasures, which fueled more resistance towards pain and any type of discomfort.
Even if the world were very unjust at times, one need not be a victim of depression.
>The problem of the mental state of depression, or any other state rooted in an unpleasant feeling, is not in what happened or why.
>The problem is that the person is averse towards it right NOW.

That’s the sole issue—if depression weren’t felt unpleasantly, depression wouldn’t be a problem. This is where that RESPONSIBILITY needs to be seen.
>RESPONSIBLITY is not in the fact that one is experiencing depression. It is in the fact that one is resisting the unpleasantness of it.

>The resistance towards pain will remain for as long as one values pleasure, wants it and delights in it.
By mentally leaning towards pleasure, one is implicitly leaning away from pain. That’s why in the practice of the Dhamma,
>SENSE RESTRAINT needs to come first.
One needs to start saying 'NO' to the gratuitous acceptance of pleasures without self-awareness and unrestrained and careless actions.

If you commit to the practice of sense restraint, you’ll get to understand where the line is, so to speak. Even if your depression has a specific reason, or no reason at all, and you just feel averse and depressed without a clear cause, the point is—it is unpleasant.
>If you STOP RESISTING the displeasure of it, depression can have no hold over you.
But to be able to stop resisting it, the MIND needs to develop first. And especially in regard to things that you can control: sensual desires, your speech and what you frequently choose to think. That’s why the Buddha kept talking about
>“TRAINING ONESELF”. These EFFORTS of RESTRAINT need REPETITION—
it’s not a mere decision you make once and then it is upheld for the rest of your life. No, it’s something you have to keep going back to and training yourself in. Drilling it, repeating it.

>>22752621
Thus,
>if you train the RESTRAINT of your SENSES you can DISCERN the true root of depression and anxiety.
And sensuality too, for that matter. If you address the depression on this level, you will not have to worry about the world at all. Because you’ll know that if the world affects you, positively or negatively, it can only do so through the gateway of your own attitude of aversion.

It must be emphasized that this ‘gateway’ is your ATTITUDE of aversion towards your own FEELINGS—aversion towards not having pleasure; aversion towards feeling pain.
It’s not an attitude towards the world, or him or her, or anything else external. It’s not towards your past, future, your plans or memories.
>It is only towards what you are FEELING PRESENTLY (on account of the world, him or her, past, present or future). That’s where your ATTITUDE matters.
>If you’re presently RESISTING the FEELING (of PAIN) you will SUFFER.
>If you’re presently WELCOMING the FEELING (of PLEASURE), you will SUFFER.
It’s about recognizing that
>if you are careless about the PRESENTLY ENDURING FEELING in your experience, you will be a victim of your mental states.

If you learn how to train yourself and do not deny the mental states and blame the world, you’ll have a chance of rising above all mental states. You’ll need to see that, when there is an agreeable feeling, you shouldn’t blindly go for the pleasure that’s offered in it.
>If you develop such strength to resist the pull of a pleasant feeling, that same strength will then prevent you from sinking into an unpleasant one, when that occurs.
As simple as that.

So
>if there is any unpleasant mental state don’t try to get rid of it.
Don’t blame the world. RECOGNIZE the unpleasantness of it and stop trying resisting only that. If you wish to not be affected by unpleasant feelings, you have to restrain yourself regarding pleasant feelings. It all depends where the roots of your motivation are.

If you are careless when pleasurable experiences arise for you, e.g. sights, sounds and touches, you will become dependent on them. And because of that be affected when those experiences change and disappear. When there is a pleasure, you overdo going towards it; when there is a pain, you overdo trying to get rid of it. If, on the other hand, you implement the training outlined above, then any long-lasting and persisting issues will start to fade away.
>Mental states are like habits, they require constant fuel, and the wrong attitudes towards your own feelings provide them with that fuel.

So whatever issues of a psychological nature might be bothering you, if your behaviour is kept in check, then you will see your RESPONSIBILITY and ATTITUDE towards your own FEELINGS. Then none of these states, no matter how long they’ve been persisting, can exercise any influence over you, because the gateway for any such influence is now always under your watch.

>>22745050
>Let's play the telephone game for 2000 years
THIS IS DEFINITELY WHAT THE REAL BUDDHA ACTUALLY SAID

>a big list of larping shit
does not make you "authentic"

I look at pieces of shit like you and I know you're going to go extinct. Everything you do is so obviously retarded and pointless. I'd kill you myself.

>>22752936
see
>>22750795
>>22750844
>>22750870
>>22750886

>>22752936
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoFeCQaflJ0

>>22752936
Why does it matter if the historical Buddha said it? He wasn't a prophet. If a teaching is beneficial and agrees with dependent origination, it is Buddhadharma.

>>22752936
https://looptube.io/?videoId=4BoDdnGhmTo&start=212&end=304
https://youtu.be/lBJDcg60aSE?t=1555
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUfE6w-XP8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-fhz8z6i0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s--6wJca6SQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhiHCU2CpB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_4aRznxXkI

>>22752684

>[9 - HOW TO DEVELOP SOLITUDE]

“Ānanda, a monk does not shine if he delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; if he delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group. Indeed, Ānanda, it is impossible that a monk who delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; who delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group, will obtain at will—without difficulty, without trouble—the pleasure of RENUNCIATION, the pleasure of SECLUSION, the pleasure of PEACE, the pleasure of SELF-AWAKENING. But it is possible that
>a monk who lives alone, withdrawn from the group, can expect to obtain at will—without difficulty, without trouble—the PLEASURE of RENUNCIATION, the pleasure of SECLUSION, the pleasure of PEACE, the pleasure of SELF-AWAKENING.”
—MN 122

Q: The Buddha encourages the development of seclusion. What then is the best way to cultivate it?

Nyanamoli: You need to
>start exposing yourself to seclusion gradually.
Needing others, however subtly, is quite a serious compromise for someone interested in practising the Dhamma. I’m speaking specifically about needing others for your existential wellbeing and sanity. That’s a massive compromise and a huge risk if you never become independent of it.
>We are all OWNERS of our ACTIONS,
fully enclosed within them and ourselves.
>What you do stays with you.
No other person can help you with that or take away from your burden. >It’s always on you, your INTENTIONS, your DECISIONS, your ACTIONS: they always stay within you.
You are bound up with your actions and burdened by the results of them. Company makes us forget that.

Thus,
>you’re alone whether you want to be or not.
Enclosed within yourself. Most people choose to distract themselves from that truth. Lots of effort is invested in ignoring it. However, the recognition of that profound truth is where the Dhamma practice starts. You can be very close to others, but fundamentally, your feelings, your choices and responsibilities are things only you are privy to. Recognizing this can reveal that heavy burden, and that’s exactly what the Buddha meant by saying
>“beings are the OWNERS of their ACTIONS”.
And the burden accumulates through that ownership and ignorance.

>>22752684

>[9 - HOW TO DEVELOP SOLITUDE]

“Ānanda, a monk does not shine if he delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; if he delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group. Indeed, Ānanda, it is impossible that a monk who delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; who delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group, will obtain at will—without difficulty, without trouble—the pleasure of RENUNCIATION, the pleasure of SECLUSION, the pleasure of PEACE, the pleasure of SELF-AWAKENING. But it is possible that
>a monk who lives alone, withdrawn from the group, can expect to obtain at will—without difficulty, without trouble—the PLEASURE of RENUNCIATION, the pleasure of SECLUSION, the pleasure of PEACE, the pleasure of SELF-AWAKENING.”
—MN 122

Q: The Buddha encourages the development of seclusion. What then is the best way to cultivate it?

Nyanamoli: You need to
>start exposing yourself to seclusion gradually.
Needing others, however subtly, is quite a serious compromise for someone interested in practising the Dhamma. I’m speaking specifically about needing others for your existential wellbeing and sanity. That’s a massive compromise and a huge risk if you never become independent of it.
>We are all OWNERS of our ACTIONS,
fully enclosed within them and ourselves.
>What you do stays with you.
No other person can help you with that or take away from your burden.
>It’s always on you, your INTENTIONS, your DECISIONS, your ACTIONS: they always stay within you.
You are bound up with your actions and burdened by the results of them. Company makes us forget that.

Thus,
>you’re alone whether you want to be or not.
Enclosed within yourself. Most people choose to distract themselves from that truth. Lots of effort is invested in ignoring it. However, the recognition of that profound truth is where the Dhamma practice starts. You can be very close to others, but fundamentally, your feelings, your choices and responsibilities are things only you are privy to. Recognizing this can reveal that heavy burden, and that’s exactly what the Buddha meant by saying
>“beings are the OWNERS of their ACTIONS”.
And the burden accumulates through that ownership and ignorance.

Reminder to study Abhidharma

>>22753836
why

>>22753627
Q: I can tell you how I feel but I cannot give you my experience of that feeling.

Nm: Yes,
>the dimension of your feeling is inherently inaccessible to anyone but yourself.
It can only be felt by you. I can give you all the compassion and sympathy in the world, but it is still only you who feels that feeling.
>Existence is solitary and company of others can only be secondary to that.
So if somebody wants to overcome dukkha, they need to start >recognizing the nature of their own feelings.
Not mask them through seeking approvals or sympathy of others. Thus, for as long as you don’t leave the group, how can you develop solitude? If you don’t develop solitude, how can you stop covering up the nature of your feelings? How can you see through it? Most importantly, how can you develop and discern that neutral feeling that the Buddha praises, for which solitude is necessary?

Most people who are not used to solitude, when they are left alone, boredom is the first result. Which is a lot more problematic than one might initially think. If you stay with your boredom, it will turn into a restless panic, fear, anxiety. And that’s when you realize how much you actually depend on your perception of others around you and all the activities that come out of it.

That’s why there's an inherent fear of boredom that most people share. >Boredom reveals that deeply seated uneasiness that emerges when you are left alone with yourself and not doing anything.
But why is being with oneself, without others, without distractions such a problem? What is that fear trying to tell us?… Well, it’s a number of things, but we won’t dwell on that here. The truth of the matter is that
>boredom is not actually “just boredom”.
There is much more to that non-activity and non-company that people dare to admit to themselves. That’s why it’s a problem, and that’s why it should be understood.

Of course, you can’t expect to be able to just jump into solitude and get used to it right away. You could legitimately lose your mind by becoming completely overwhelmed. However, at the same time, do not give in to an excuse to never do it and never prepare yourself for it either. So
>slowly start practising being alone.
Even allow that uneasiness to arise. It will become apparent that solitude mimics something much more primordial than you wish to admit to yourself.
>SOLITUDE mimics the inherent FEAR OF DEATH and dying that every unenlightened mind carries.
>Solitude reveals the implicit ending of your means of escape from yourself. The ending of distractions, pleasures of the senses. Cancellation of the company of others. Joys of relationships. It reveals the end that your life is destined to.
That’s why people fear it and that’s why death is the ultimate terror for an ordinary person (putthujana) who is existentially dependent upon others, upon sensuality, upon distraction.

>>22754071
Thus, training your mind to get used to, not fear, and see the benefits of solitude, is hard work. But it’s the work that is worth doing, for one who wishes to fullfil the Buddha’s instruction and practice the Dhamma for the complete liberation.

Even as a layperson, one should at least start preparing oneself for it, even if they never go into complete solitude or ordain into the Sangha, etc. as a monk, the sooner you start the better. You will get sick, you will die, your senses will fail, so don’t wait until that happens in order to leave the group.
>How do you think it will feel when your senses fail? It will feel like you’re being confined more and more into one solitary box from which there is no escape.
That’s the simile the Buddha gave, to that ageing king, of the four mountains coming closer and closer from every direction and eventually crushing you: leaving you no room to escape, or space to move.

In other words, leaving you fewer and fewer chances of distracting yourself with the senses. Removing the last possibility of engaging with sensuality.

Of course, being with others can be beneficial in the beginning. A group of like-minded people you can learn from can be helpful. But it’s beneficial inasmuch as a school is helpful for somebody who’s learning a craft. However, the school can’t do the craft for you. Especially when that craft is “solitude”.

Q: It says in SN 45.2:
Venerable Ānanda approaches the Buddha and says:
“Venerable sir, this is half of the holy life, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.”
“Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda! This is the entire holy life, Ānanda, that is, good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship. When a bhikkhu has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, it is to be expected that he will develop and cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path. And how, Ānanda, does a bhikkhu who has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, develop and cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path? Here, Ānanda,
>a bhikkhu develops right view, which is based upon SECLUSION, DISPASSION, and CESSATION, maturing in release. He develops right intention; right speech; right action; right livelihood; right effort; right mindfulness; right composure, which is based upon SECLUSION, DISPASSION, and CESSATION, maturing in release. It is in this way, Ānanda, that a bhikkhu who has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, develops and cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path.”

>>22754097
Nm: As you can see, the Buddha describes what he means by “kalyāṇamitta” (spiritual friend). It doesn’t refer to someone who you just get on with and you enjoy their company. It’s actually someone who can direct you and assist you in the cultivation of the Noble Eightfold Path. Who inspires you and fills you with a sense of urgency to commit to the practice of Dhamma before it’s too late. Even if you have never met them in person. Just as none of us have met the Buddha, yet our entire holy life now is determined by him. That’s the friendship the Buddha refers to in the same Sutta above:

“By the following method too, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship: by relying upon me as a good friend, Ānanda, beings subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject to ageing are freed from ageing; beings subject to death are freed from death; beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. By this method, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.”
>By taking the Buddha as a friend, his teaching becomes our company.
On account of it we make the Right effort and eventually experience liberation. So in that sense ‘friendship’ with a Noble One is essential (even just to the extent of hearing their Teaching second hand). It is the solitude where that friendship bears fruit. That’s not negotiable. That’s why
>the Buddha would encourage the monks with the Right view to go into solitude, to go to an empty hut or root of a tree.
And the person with the Right view will actually do it rightly. They won’t be using solitude for any wrong reasons. So if you wish to develop the necessary ability to go into solitude, you shouldn’t expect that ability overnight. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t start gradually preparing yourself for it. If you want to develop any form of strength, for example, you acknowledge your weakness first. Then you realize what needs to be developed in order to overcome that which you lack.

>>22748511
>It is an illusion
Buddha never says in the Pali Canon that temporary persistence is an illusion, so it’s dumb to foster that view on him and pretend that he taught it when he didn’t.

>Let alone the ever changing mass of other conditions like change in mental states, perceptions, spatial positions etc.
So? That changes nothing

>If a thing persisted, then it would be invariant in the face of time: for example the clock would be at 1:15 but the cheese would still be at 1.
No, because the same object can simply continue throughout time, do you really not understand how time works?

>Suttas don't support
>Many suttas explain patticcasamutpada or other dependence relations:
Yea, they mention pratityasamputpada they dont say anything about the retarded idea that things gain a new identity every moment.

All of your arguments are circular

>>22748531
>No mention of subsistence
So? It’s not saying they arise and fall instantaneously with no gap inbetween. Buddha mentions plenty of things persisting in the Pali Canon like peoples karma bearing fruit in a future life.

>In the Mahayana agamas
Lol, that doesn’t prove shit about what Buddha taught

>But believing in persistence is heinous clinging
Compelete nonsense, and not supported by anything that Buddha said

>>22748552
>Of course in the MMK time is negated as are arising, ceasing and abiding and simply because discrete or continuous units of time are logically unfathomable
pro-tip: time isn’t actually discrete

>>22754507
They don't gain an identity because identity doesn't exist. It's conventional to refer to an object as continuing in time, so we do, but in actuality there is nothing that persists for more than a moment on which to base that conventional imputation of a persistent object.

>>22754519
The agamas are just the Chinese recension of the Pali Suttas

I don't get Nikaya fundamentalists. Why do you care if something was taught by the historical Buddha? How do you know he was a reliable source? How can you verify his enlightenment?

>>22754540
So is that a missing passage or something from the Nikayas or is that just contained in the Abhidharma section of the Agamas? Because the latter would be just as invalid as citing the Abhidharma commentaries/analysis in the Pali Canon as being taught by Buddha. Do you have the passage and which text it belongs to?

>>22754550
>How do you know he was a reliable source?
We don’t
>How can you verify his enlightenment?
We can’t

Buddhists who are honest with themsleves are candid that they just have to place faith in it being true.

>>22754562
>Buddhists who are honest with themsleves are candid that they just have to place faith in it being true.
Just like the Mahayana Buddhists?

>>22754527
>They don't gain an identity because identity doesn't exist.
More retarded nonsense which was not taught by Buddha in the Nikayas, try again
> It's conventional to refer to an object as continuing in time, so we do, but in actuality there is nothing that persists for more than a moment on which to base that conventional imputation of a persistent object.
The same tree in moment one, two and three has the same roots, the same appearance, the same location, the same smell, etc etc; in light of this it’s absurd to say that nothing persists from moment to moment.

>>22754566
Not just them, every kind of Buddhism involves some level of religious faith.

>>22754571
>the same roots
The roots are transporting water, so their content constantly changes
>the same appearance
That would only be true if the tree and observer were perfectly still
>the same location
We're constantly flying through space
>the same smell
The particles that give rise to smell are always different

>>22754685
>The roots are transporting water, so their content constantly changes
the root isn't reducible to what it's transporting, so that's not an example of it being a different root than before
>That would only be true if the tree and observer were perfectly still
No it's not, since appearance is defined with reference to the observer, if an appearance indistinguishably looks the same as before then for all intents and purposes it's the same appearance.
>We're constantly flying through space
It has the same location on the planet, either way changing points in space is not proof of a new identity and Buddha doesn't endorse that kind of retarded logic anywhere
>The particles that give rise to smell are always different
If they are generating the same smell then it's experienced as the same smell, from an empirical perspective nothing has changed and it's the same smell as before even if the smell was generated by different particles (which itself isn't even proof of the tree being a different tree anyway)

>>22754575
>Not just them, every kind of Buddhism involves some level of religious faith.
Enlightenment can be replicated by any engaged being. Takes 20-40 years usually though. I expect that there'd be an element of "faith" in the sense that all claims about an external world involve faith in evidence from external sources being "true." However, once you've tested it internally that's a different form of knowledge to sense data, not because consciousness doesn't sense itself, but because the data arises from the act of sensing.

So its an ontological argument that can be internally conducted by any ontology.

Are you cunts new here?

>>22754550
they are hyperprotestants assuming that the sutta pitaka is the bible... in reality the methodology they mistakenly transpose here is more like going to a doctor's office, taking all the copies of the prescriptions he wrote to the pharmacist, and then assuming you can consume every dosage regardless of who it was for

Reminder that the Buddha gets his authority from the Dharma, the Dharma does not get its authority from the Buddha

so how many of you fellas are secular "buddhists"?

>>22754507
>>22754519
>>22754519
>>22754525
Buddha says in the PC the thing which changes most quickly is the mind

The Buddha also says mind is a condition of all experiential phenomena

If a condition changes so does a thing.
Time is a condition. As is the mind. Both are changing constantly

>>22754557
It's from the Chinese version of the Samyuttanikaya

>>22755035
and somehow this upsets you

I have a general buddhism question. Can someone who has attained enlightenment please answer?

I have been interested in buddhism for a long time because it seems to me that the Buddha may have actually learned to see past delusion. After reading buddhist literature and meditating modestly for a number of years I have come to have a good deal of faith that he actually did.

However, I do not have within me the desire to overcome suffering. I do not wish suffering to increase, but I also don't wish for it to decrease. I appreciate it as one of many parts of existence and praise it as I praise pleasure.

My interest in buddhism arises (at least consciously) as a desire to see without delusion. I understand that there is a contradiction here and that this desire itself may keep me from seeing without delusion if the Buddha was correct. But still my motivation is just to see clearly.

So with that mindset, can I actually practice buddhism or does that very motivation mean that my efforts would always be deluded and lead nowhere?

Can one attain enlightenment even if they set out on the path without he desire to end suffering?

>>22755107
The entire goal of Buddhism is to gain insight into the nature of reality and eliminate delusion. Meditation is just a support to gain that insight.

>>22755107
>So with that mindset, can I actually practice buddhism or does that very motivation mean that my efforts would always be deluded and lead nowhere?
you can, just go as far as you can inside the jhanas.

>>22755107
>Can one attain enlightenment even if they set out on the path without he desire to end suffering?
you can't but the desire to end suffering is not the the way to end suffering. Suffering ends by wisdom only

>>22749414
I highly recommend you don’t dismiss outright the quotes & the words of the bhikkhu being quoted
He is a monk who follows the early suttas with absolute precision and strictness, and without any aberrations or later added fluff
if you are seriously interested in Buddhism as taught by the original Gotama Buddha, I recommend you at least give that monk’s work an honest thorough chance

do skanks go to eternal hell in Buddhism or not

Ajahn Brahm: "What is Letting Go?" Guided Med, Dhamma Talk and Q&A at London Scottish House 20.11.23

https://youtu.be/AB_EjraxFOI

>>22754685
How can a momentary object re-emerge from a state of not-being/cessation, non-existence, dissolution, being extinguished, such that this tree that you are experiencing is a tree from one moment to the next moment and not a giraffe or a lion, or a bird? Very idea of this sort of momentariness implies that causality is something totally arbitrary and chaotic, that there is no order in creation, that this could indeed be accepted that at one moment of observing the tree, it could be changed into a severed head the size of a college football stadium.

Also all of these "changes" in the tree that you have mentioned depend upon the previous state of the tree, water follows a course, in other words temporal succession must be admitted, so also for the tree there is cause and effect, infact the water is water, the tree is tree, the mixture of the tree with water, do not make the tree not a tree anymore, but just a tree with water absorbed in its roots, same for a tree which has moved through space, or a tree which emits a different smell for some reason

>>22755244
Your argument against that anon does not convince me to the effect that a denial of there being a regulatory principle which has the function to the effect of governing the manifestation of objects, or actualizing non-emergent potentials is tenable, in other words something like "cause and effect." Otherwise we would be living a concrete world of disorder and randomness, very much resembling the internal conscious reflections of a dreamer where different external impressions are actualized into a subjective internal experience that is a dream, where there is no such thing as a physical tree, but for a moment and the next moment it is your mother hung upside down on a tree with her stomach sliced open and her intestines dangling out.
How can we have memories if there is not something to the effect of "temporary persistence," how can we observe and consciously reflect upon a singular object?

>>22755259
>>22755244
the principle of "coming and going" does not suggest that the universe is constantly changing, denying there being qualities, species,etc. etc.

All that teaching of the buddha is recommending and pointing towards is that there is field of experience "changing coming and going" consisting in emotions, thoughts and sensations, and that includes the thought of there being an "unchanging witness to these changes"

>>22755268
And it also includes the thought that "reality is changing and re-emerging in such and such a way"

>>22755244
Causes and there effects are neither the same nor different. A tree at one moment is the cause of the tree in the next moment. Read Nagarjuna.

>>22755300
>Causes and there effects are neither the same nor different. A tree at one moment is the cause of the tree in the next moment. Read Nagarjuna.
Explain the application to the momentariness of consciousness supposedly implied by anicca by the anon above which I may be wrongly assuming you are defending?

If a tree at one moment is the cause of the tree in the next moment, what does this mean in relation to the remergence of a tree from a state of dissolution which is between the tree at one moment and the tree at the next moment, if the tree at one moment is the cause of the tree at the next moment you are implying some sort of continuity
What do you mean it is hard for me to understand

>>22755292
does nagarjuna not refute causelessness?
He also refutes inherent sameness and otherness causation, Inherent otherness or difference causation and inherent sameness causation (self-causation)

In favor of emptiness dependent co-arising, which talks about instead the interdependence of cause and effect, and ultimately he is simply reaffirming:
>>22755268
>there is field of experience "changing coming and going" consisting in emotions, thoughts and sensations, and that includes the thought of there being an "unchanging witness to these changes"

He is not refuting that there can be causes and effect on a conventional level, that is refuted by him when he refutes causelessness:
by refuting with similar logic the idea about spontaneous chaos moment to moment

I never proposed that to be the case, my view is that there is Self beyond Mind (which is neither affirmed to be changeable, unchangeable or both) I guess Nagarjuna's Emptiness could be a starting point

But that also with Mind (BodyMind, whatever) and the External world there is Cause and Effect, and that we (in our waking world) are not living in a spontaneous moment-to-moment dream world without causality at least

>>22755413
also the whole view is about bringing the "cessation" of the dependent arising, which corresponds to "realization" of the Absolute. The Absolute which is Infinite - without limit, thinking about things like "changeability" "unchangeability" "changeability and unchangeabillity" "no-existence" "existence" or any other philosophical speculation

What is meant by the Infinite is the "Sufficient Reason" and is of the nature of incommunicability/unknowability, invisibility

If you figure this as "clinging to an imagined permanent entity" then I disagree, but if you agree that it is mere words, then I also agree, just like your refutation.

>>22755300
Nagarjuna doesn't know anything about buddhism, there's no benefit reading him.

>>22745050
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/wiki/booklist
https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/wiki/beginners-guide

https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/NibbanaDescription.html

i think i'll pass on nagarjuna

Scholars love to indulge in all these transcendent theories about emptiness, nibbana, etc. But how does it play out in the context of your own life practically speaking? Buddha talks about that extensively in a practical way. But there is really no practical or actionable path to be found from Nagarjuna's teachings. They are very riddle like, poetic and subject to misinterpretation, unhelpful paradoxes, contradictions.

>>22754107

>[ 10 - APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH]

“The world is undermined by death and limited by old age.
Affected by the thorn of craving, and perfumed with longing.”
—Thag 6:13

Q: I was wondering if you could speak about the contemplation of death—how should we think about it?

Nyanamoli:
>Walking, standing, sitting or lying down, you should be dwelling on the fact that you might die.
That’s the ultimate context. That context is what death is. It’s the ultimate context of your life—it’s a non-negotiable context. People might think: “I must be going through the motions and methods of practising mindfulness of death, thinking about it when I’m walking, sitting.” That’s true only in the sense that
>you need to discern the most fundamental, always present possibility of death,
which is what makes it such an ultimate context of your life.
>Everything else within your life can come and go—
what has been or could have not been. But one thing is for sure:
>when LIFE is there, DEATH is implicit; it is GUARANTEED as the final outcome of it.

>The reason why people are oppressed by their desires, burdened by their intentions and unskilful actions, is because they turn a blind eye to this very factual liability to death.
Death that can come at any given moment. Pretty much everything unwholesome, that a person can engage in, is a result of ignoring the fact that they will die, that they will not always be healthy, not always be young. By being intoxicated by those things, you entertain your sense desires, you want more of them. But all you need do is uncover that fundamental context and accept the certainty of death, and that will automatically prevent you from running too far down the rabbit hole of desires. And that’s what mindfulness of death is.

Obviously, you can do this practice loosely, on a very low level. But you can also start expanding it and realize that
>death is so close you might not even see the end of this day.
You don’t necessarily have to become neurotic about it, thinking “I will die, I will die.” But you do have to recognize that this possibility-of-death is so immediate that you might not see the end of the day—the end of the morning. You might not have enough time to finish your meal. You might not have enough time to breathe out once you breathe in. That’s how much you’re fundamentally not in control of your life. That doesn’t mean that you should be repeating to yourself that you will die every second of the day. That’s not contemplation of death, that’s just a mechanical repetition of the idea of what death is for you. You want to understand that context of death, and not feel affected by it.

>>22755989
As for “mindfulness” of death—
>whenever there is a principle of MINDFULNESS, there is a principle of peripheral AWARENESS.
By being mindful of the context of death with regard to your day-to-day life, that’s already the practice of peripheral awareness. In order to practice this contemplation correctly, a person will have to withdraw themselves from distractions, from company, and set some solitary time to start thinking about it. (Just like with any other meditation.) If you don’t know where to start, just
>think about the nature of death that is inescapable to you.
Then you take that further and start thinking: “OK, so what would be the real significance of this life that is fully under the control of death?” Because
>whatever you do in this life cannot help you step outside of the liability to death. It cannot free you from death.
That order cannot change—it doesn’t matter what you do, doesn’t matter what you distract yourself with, doesn’t matter what you accomplish in this life. Fundamentally that whole thing—as much as you developed it, as far as it proliferates— is still fully within the domain of death. You simply can’t change that.
>What you can do is stop ignoring it.
The practice then would be in recognizing this “right order”, seeing what is more fundamental and what comes first so to speak. Whatever you do in this life will be within your liability to sickness, ageing, and death. That context is something you need to keep at the back of your mind. You need to know that:
>While I’m doing this or that, I might die.
It’s highly unlikely that I will die as a result of sitting in my room reading a book, but death is equally present there because
>my life depends upon working organs, beating heart, breathing lungs. And those things can never be in my control.

So, you want to see that your life is undermined by the random operation of organs inaccessible to your will power.

Q: What about this example? It’s like someone who has chosen a job which requires them to be on call 24/7. Whatever they do has to be done with that in the back of their mind.

Nm: That’s what I mean by context. It’s not a context you can be indifferent about, because it’s the context that undermines and affects your life. It’s a context that fills you with concern, as it should. That’s what the Buddha meant by
>“invoking the sense of urgency” for practice.
The simile for this would be, for example, you have a job interview. You have one shot at something that can change your life in a week’s time. Whatever you do that week, this will be at the back of your mind because it is so important—there is a degree of concern with regard to it. Now imagine if that one shot is death—it’s not a random interview that can go either way, it’s as fundamental as losing your life. So, you realize what kind of concern that would be, peripherally, and how much influence that would exert on your choices and decisions during that week.

>>22756094
Also, you can have a job appointment at an exact time, exact day, but
>the appointment with death is uncertain in the sense that it can arise at any given time.
That appointment might be today, might be tomorrow, might be in 10 years’ time. You cannot forget about it because it can be here the next moment and if you forget about it you might fail.
>Whatever you do in this life, you do it on the basis of not forgetting about the ultimate context of your liability to die. You don’t cover up the certainty of death.
You can already see how much less you would be pulled by the fleeting desires of the senses, distractions and so on—they just would not have any value if you wouldn’t forget you’ll die.

If you have any doubt about it, just
>RECOLLECT when you feared for your life for a period of time, on account of anything: illness or an accident or whatever. Then see how much interest you had in the world during that period of time.
Very little. You were not enjoying your food, you were not finding solace in friends and distractions or whatever else. This was the most pressing thing. So, it’s about reconnecting to that context that is always there, you don’t have to fabricate it, you just have to stop covering it up. And covering would stop if you would RESTRAIN the constant influx of sensuality and intentions towards distraction. Thus, if you always feel like you’re on call—called upon by death—that already means you are developing that proper context. And that context will now shape your other decisions.
>It will make you more careful about all things in your life.

This kind of practice can be a bit too intense for some people—the concern revealed can overwhelm you. That’s why the
>VIRTUE and SENSE RESTRAINT needs to be thoroughly developed beforehand.
With it, you would rapidly develop DISPASSION towards everything in your life. And that’s why the Buddha praised it as the quickest way to free your mind from any unwholesome states, ignorance, avoidance of responsibility and so on. However,
>if it is too much, then you can practice MINDFULNESS of BREATHING
because it has the same result but is slower and more gradual. You can recollect that your fully controlled act of breathing depends on things that are not your own while you’re breathing. This means that
>your sense of control is undermined and fundamentally dependent upon things you cannot control.

>>22756109
Q: So, one of the most important things to keep in mind is that one has an appointment with death.

Nm: Yes. Another thing to keep in mind is, if you think you are practising mindfulness of death and making the correct effort, then you should ask yourself:
>“Is my mind getting angry? Is my mind getting lustful?” If the answer is yes, it means you haven’t established the context of death.
If you had, these things would not be able to even arise—let alone persist.

>The only way you can be triggered by various matters—the only way you could be emotionally affected by anything, is if you have lost sight of the context of death.

The practice of mindfulness of death is about clarifying the understanding of that inherent context in whatever you do. The context of
>that ultimate FINAL CESSATION that you cannot even conceive escaping from.
That’s because if you think about escaping from it, the thoughts of that escape are already within the context of death. You’re fully enclosed by it. That’s why it can be quite frightening, like being buried alive for example. You’re still alive, but you realize that escape from this is inconceivable.

One needs to start admitting to oneself what’s obvious right from the start—
>as soon as you’re born, you’re old enough to die.
The second you’re conceived, you’re liable to death. And that’s it. It’s not negotiable. People might say: “You shouldn’t be thinking about this because you won’t enjoy life.” And that’s true:
>you won’t enjoy life in an unwholesome sense anymore. However, you will certainly appreciate it in a new wholesome way
—as a possibility for developing wisdom that can free you from death. As a possibility for doing good, and even showing others who are willing to learn.
>There is still plenty you can do in this life within the context of death,
that won’t be as futile as simply distracting yourself from the obvious truths or endlessly pursuing sensuality.

As frightening as this type of contemplation might be,
>you need to be developing yourself regarding that which scares you.
Because UNDERSTANDING something requires you to STOP RUNNING AWAY from it first.

>>22756205
Q: The Buddha said in AN 6:20 that a monk should think:
“There are many possible causes for my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm… piercing wind forces might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me.’ Then the monk should investigate:
>‘Are there any evil, unskilful qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?’
If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskilful qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then
>he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.”

Nm: He thinks these things to re-evoke the context of “I am susceptible to die at any given moment.” Having established that context, he doesn’t need to keep thinking about it because now, whatever he does, that context is maintained in the background. He is feeling it.

MINDFULNESS, when properly developed, is on the level of KNOWLEDGE. It means that
>whatever thing is present in your experience, the context is also there, present as knowledge.
And that’s why MINDFULNESS, MEMORY and RECOLLECTION go hand-in-hand. It’s not a mechanical focusing technique that you do on account of different meditation ‘objects’—it’s the knowledge of the context regarding any situation you are in.

I think Ajahn Chah gave a similar example. It’s like a mother who has to do work outside and leaves her baby in the house. So, she’s out there only for the amount of time required to finish the work. She doesn’t linger, she doesn’t forget about her baby, she doesn’t distract herself from it. It means whatever she’s doing, she still maintains the importance of that certain context. And when she’s done, she returns to the baby. It’s the same with the development of mind, the development of mindfulness—you keep the context in mind as though it were your precious child.

“Why would I then be breaking the precepts, why would I then be careless, when I might die within 10 seconds? My heart might stop”. Then you might think: “It probably won’t.” But it might. That’s more than enough for that right type of concern to arise. You could go as far as to say that
>the entire Noble Eightfold Path is predicated upon developing the Right CONCERN.
That’s what the Buddha meant when he said: “I’m only teaching suffering and freedom from it.” That means
>you need to know how to see suffering properly—the Right concern, the Right displeasure.
The nature of recognizing that it’s not a choice, and it’s not negotiable either. It cannot be compared to other concerns, it’s more fundamental than anything.

>>22756226
To practice mindfulness of death, make sure your virtue is unbroken. Practice sense restraint. And then just sit quietly and think, for example, about your beating heart or your breathing lungs. Don’t negate anything—there’s nothing to negate. Just
> be aware that you are breathing now, but you might not be able to.
>>>That your entire life depends on your heart continuing to beat, yet you have no say in it.
Then endure that recognition.

Q: You could think, “how is it possible for me to die, or how is the possibility of death present?”

Nm: You might have to start like that. But you don’t want to merely find an intellectual answer to that. You want to feel a sense of concern. That’s when you recognize that it’s that concern that needs to be developed. It must not be distracted from, must not be covered up, must not be ignored. You must not be trying to get rid of it either. It’s
>establishing the concern, the context of death and then allowing it to endure.

Q: Therefore, just as a contemplation, whatever you’re doing, try to see that possibility of death therein. Like, I’m sitting now, so how could death come to me? I could fall off my chair and hit my head.

Nm: Sure, I understand what you’re saying, but the point I’m making is that you can do that only initially before it becomes that mechanical visualization of how you might die. When things become mechanical and impersonal, there will be no underlying concern for your life that you are after. That’s why you can’t just be focused on what you’re going to think—
>you have to focus on that emotional background of being liable to death,
in which case you don’t even need to think particularly “I will die because my heart will stop, or I’ll fall off the chair”. You just need to think “I will die; I could die,” and you already feel that.

>>22755902
Realizing that all things are empty and lack inherent existence leads to the cessation of grasping. Nagarjuna is very practical

>>22756482
Q: It’s basically about ‘picking up the sign’.

Nm: Picking up the sign, exactly. The theme, the context, the peripheral knowledge of the actual possibilities of death. And that’s going to be initially an unpleasant concern. Afterwards, the displeasure of that concern disappears because you will stop resisting it through the contemplation of its inevitability. You might be apprehensive, but none of that would become full blown fear and dread and pain at the prospect of death. Why? Because you’re not as intoxicated with life as you were before. And
>you are not as intoxicated because you stopped maintaining the intoxication, that was maintained through ignoring the concern about the life that’s liable to death.
So yes,
>if you want to do meditation on death, think about your beating heart—you can feel it beating—but can you have any intentional say in it? You realize, no.
If this thing stops—in the same sense that a branch falls, a cup gets knocked over—the heart stops. You realize the heart is on the level of these random things in the world that can just change because of the elements, because of the wind, because of whatever. But if that does happen, my life is over.
>So, my entire life—my sense of mastery, my sense of control— depends on something as silly as a cup being knocked over, a valve just going ‘boop’. A pump just ceasing to pump or getting blocked.

If the pump gets blocked for 10 seconds, that might be enough to kill me. And it is inconceivable to have a say in that.

That’s why,
>if your VIRTUE and SENSE RESTRAINT are unbroken, you will not be overwhelmed by fear and anxiety.
As you persevere through it, and fully maintain this context, DISPASSION will be the inevitable result—Arahantship. Full Awakening, through abandoning life before it abandons you. “Die before you die,” as Ajahn Chah used to say.


Q: “When covered, it rains too much; When uncovered, it does not rain too much. Therefore, uncover the cover, thus it will not rain too much.”—Thag 6:13, 447.

Nm:
You will get more affected by the rain if you fear it. Even if you don’t get wet, the fear of getting wet is already soaking you. And it same goes for death.
>A person who never allows themselves to think about their own death and feel the weight of it, is a person that gets “affected” by that death more.

>So you’re going to get affected by death, or even by anything unpleasant, for as long as you’re covering things up from yourself.
All these truths are there, obvious in a way, but you need to make the effort of undoing the cover-up for them to be discerned. So, it’s not like finding a new way out, it’s basically just stopping of covering up what’s obvious. The certainty of death, the certainty of non-control, the certainty of change.

>>22756490
And how does one realize that?

>>22756516
https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/lam-rim/vipashyana/the-5-great-madhyamaka-lines-of-reasoning-for-emptiness
Read the Mulamadhyamakakarika

>>22756512
If you want to meditate on it,
>set aside half an hour or whatever you have without any distractions, think about your liability to death until you develop that context that slightly (or not so slightly) concerns you, and then just allow it to endure.
If you’re thinking, “What do I do next?” Nothing. All you do is make sure that this context remains transparent for this half hour that you’re meditating, nothing else. So, if your thoughts start coming, you let them, while you still keep a corner of your eye on that context. If you go away and realize you forgot, then you go back to the context. And again, just let your mind start going again, but not losing sight of the context. That’s the practice of mindfulness that results in sammādiṭṭhi, which then feeds mindfulness—because you’re learning how to not forget about the context, even when other things are happening, and that’s life. So, whatever’s happening in your day-to-day life, then you still have that context at the back of your mind. That is the unshakeable mindfulness that is the proper maraṇasati.

>Whether you’re eating, breathing in, breathing out, the context remains at the back, and you’ve not lost connection with it.
It doesn’t mean you must have it all the time in front of you, quite the opposite. It means you should be able to go as far as you want, but you still don’t completely lose sight of it.

If you think “have I lost sight of it?”, then check if there’s greed, aversion, or delusion in your mind—is there desire for distraction, carelessness, sensuality, ill will, anger? If yes, then you did lose the sight.
Because when you’re rooted in the context, these things cannot arise. Amidst sensuality, amidst irritable things, they can’t arise, because they require passion which is incompatible with the mindfulness of death. Passion requires ignorance of the fact that this is all subject to certain destruction—but if you don’t ignore that anymore, it means you can’t engage in passion anymore.

That’s what the Buddha meant when he said those people who are not mindful—as in those who are not aware of that context—are as if dead already. They’re fully under that weight of death. The only way to not partake in it, to not be affected by it, is to fully understand that context of death. So, by being unmindful, you’re fully subscribed, fully covered up, fully cocooned in that liability of certain death. It means you’re as if dead—it doesn’t matter if it’s in five minutes or fifty years.

>>22756530
And what practical methods does he give?

If you've read it then I'd expect you to easily give a few.

>>22749060
What is Zen?

>>22756538
The true meaning of life would be to find that which is not permeable by death. That which is not subject to it.

Hence,
>mindfulness is the path to the deathless—
peripheral awareness of that context will take you out of the confinement of it, through understanding.
>You’re going to give up passion, any appropriation, any relationship with it—with everything that’s liable to death, with your experience as a whole, your life, past, future—all of it.
It’s all about removing the emotional connection and appropriation of it. And you will know you’re removing it, because if you think about losing your life there will be no concern arising any more.

Q: There’s also an idea that one must practice so that when death happens, one will be able to control it in a nice way.

Nm: Yes, that’s what I meant with what I was describing before. For people that are so used to just focusing on what’s in front of them, they think if they just learn the art of focusing, regardless of what the nature of the things they’re focusing on is, when death comes in front of them, they’ll be able to attend it rightly. But
>it’s not about attending to what’s in front of you, it’s about knowing what’s simultaneously “behind” you while you are attending to this or that.

>>>If you want to practice towards not being affected by the experience of death when it comes, you start practising towards NOT BEING AFFECTED by any experience in this life, even now.
So, ask yourself: “Am I affected by the arisen desires of sensuality, or ill will, or distraction, or carelessness? Yes, I’m affected by it. If these worldly things affect me and move me so much, how can I expect to be unmoved in the face of death when it comes?” Impossible!

So, that’s then
>your job: training to NOT BE AFFECTED by anything that pressures you, agreeable or disagreeable.
The only way you won’t be affected by death is if life itself stops affecting you.

>>22756563
You apply the five Madhyamaka Reasonings to objects. It's a form of analytical vipashyana.

>>22756692
Any examples from your experience?

>>22756666
Q: Whatever arises, it arises within a context.

Nm: There’s always a context, yes. To everything, internally, there’s a context, which is why people spend most of their time covering it up because it always reveals that which you don’t necessarily want to see. Or rather, it takes time and effort to be able to get used to seeing it and then not suffer on account of it. That’s why one’s life, the entire saṃsāra, and the whole of sensuality goes with the grain—it’s effortless to turn a blind eye, it’s effortless to engage with sensuality. So,
>you need to start making the effort to pull yourself out of it, and then you will be able to appreciate sense restraint, solitude, non-distraction, non-ill will.
You won’t naturally value those things. Effort and wisdom are against the nature. Nature which tries to keep you under its thumb of mortality.

That’s what meditation is, whatever your object of it might be. Developing the same principle: the peripheral enduring context that becomes imperturbable regarding things that are within it. Or “inferior to it” as the Suttas would say. Things that are actually presenting themselves. That’s why the Buddha said:
>“He establishes his mind in the divine abiding of the jhāna and—whether he sits, walks, urinates, defecates, eats—his mind is established in that state,” because all these activities are “inferior” to his context.

Q: You don’t create death.

Nm: No, that’s the whole point. In the same sense, you don’t create the Dhamma. Even the Buddha said it’s just an ancient path that was covered and he uncovered it. He didn’t create anything—it’s just the DISCERNMENT of these universal truths. Therefore, that’s what meditation should be revolving around—it doesn’t matter if you do it for fifteen minutes or for five hours. Establish your mind upon the greater context that is an infertile basis for any passion and ill will—that cannot exist in that context. And then you let that context endure until your mind gets established in it. And
>you know your mind is established in it when you cannot be passionate, you cannot be affected by the arisen feeling, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.
And then you also know, when you’re about to do something, if it’s going to make you more firmly established in that context, or it’s going to take you away from it. The choice becomes much clearer: “This is unwholesome, this is wholesome.” Unwholesome means it takes you away from the wholesome context. Wholesome means it keeps you within the wholesome context.

>>22757166
Q: In line with the truth.

Nm: Yes, within that domain, your actions do not contradict it, they don’t abolish it, they don’t drag you down from it. That’s why Devadatta, once he started engaging in unwholesome acts, was unable to keep his mind in jhāna. It wasn’t some magical energy that got trapped or evaporated. It’s just that unwholesomeness contradicts the domain of it.

If you choose to engage in it, you choose to then forsake this: the greater context. And
>the only way to develop the greater context is to keep discerning it, keep thinking about it, keep trying to establish it, allowing it to endure. Not trying to get rid of it just because it might feel unpleasant.
That’s why you can’t crave for it either. You can’t crave for jhāna. You can’t crave for the imperturbable, wholesome samādhi because craving is always toward the actual experience. Not the context of it. Feeling in regard to the actual thing—that’s what you crave for. But this is the context of it, and now your mind is established in that, which means your mind then becomes unreachable by any craving. So, if people want to know how to make this context endure, you don’t do it, you can’t make it endure—because that’s like you’re still trying to make it ‘in front of you’. So, you make it endure by stopping trying to make it endure. You make it endure by thinking about it, but by not interfering with it either. In the same sense as the example we gave of the appointment—the life-changing appointment you have—you don’t need to make it endure. It’s already there. All you need to do is to stop distracting yourself from it.

Q: You can’t cancel the appointment.

Nm: No, you cannot. So, you realize the recognition of that is already a form of endurance, even if you don’t necessarily feel fully concerned about it. Still,
>you are aware of the context that whatever you do, it’s going to end, all of it.
It can end even before you realize it will end.
>Your beating heart right now can stop. Allow that thought to endure—don’t overthink it, don’t give in to fear of it—just allow it to endure.
And then see other things that appear in your mind against the endurance of that thought—because you’re not looking for a specific answer of “This is how it is” or “This is how it will be.” You’re looking for the evoking of the context of being liable to death—that’s how you create that connection.

>>22757191
So, while I’m sitting here, secluded from unwholesomeness, secluded from distraction,
>what if this beating muscle in my chest were to stop?
Don’t answer it, don’t provide an excuse or an explanation, just allow that question to sink in. What if it were to stop? And then the mind will think about it, but all that is secondary, still allow just the question to endure. Then the thought comes,
>“my heart will stop.” Allow that to endure.
Then your timer rings, your meditation is finished. OK, fine, but you realize that context still hasn’t changed. You go about your duties and you still have that context enduring, and you will forget it only when you engage in unwholesomeness—lust, aversion or delusion.

That’s why
>you need to meditate in this manner as much as you can until that context becomes imperturbable.
You will also see that
>you need a basis of SENSE RESTRAINT, physical restraint, as a guardian for not losing that context.
And then your bodily behaviour, speech, or mental behaviour doesn’t take you as far back into the unwholesomeness, and therefore you won’t have to undo it as much. Hence,
>VIRTUE comes first. It’s necessary.

If the context is enduring—you still haven’t forgotten that your beating heart might stop, that you’re fundamentally liable to death, you have a degree of concern—you might think what do I do now? Well, you include the thought of “What do I do now?” against that context, and
>you realize you don’t do anything, you don’t need to do anything.

Is the context still there? Yes.

Whatever might happen to me, would it be against the backdrop of that context? Yes.

Whatever I might do with my life, immediately or in the future, is this context changeable? No.

So, are my engagements with life or with people worthy—against this context, in this new light of the new context? Is it worth it to be so emotionally disturbed by not getting what you want? Not really.

If you’re in that context, being affected by things such as sensuality becomes inconceivable. So all you need to do is
>find ways of maintaining the context,
regardless of whether you’re sitting in a protected meditation environment or not. Hence seated, walking, lying down, extending your arms, eating, urinating, defecating, whatever you do, you
>maintain the context, day and night. To the extent necessary for obliterating any ground for passion to manifest again. All passion. And that’s the meditation “object” of death.

>>22756622
It is the babe with the power.

>>22756945
This is the best piece of questioning in this thread. It is the equivalent of "What did you learn in India? —We have enough stone buddhas."

>>22757215
> [ 11 ] TRUTH ABOUT THE FIVE HINDRANCES

“Monks, there are these five hindrances. Which five?
>Sensual desire as a hindrance,
>ill will as a hindrance,
>sloth and drowsiness as a hindrance,
>restlessness and anxiety as a hindrance,
>and doubt as a hindrance.
These are the Five hindrances.”
—AN 9:64

The first thing is to understand what the hindrances are. They are not things that occasionally arise in you before they go away, and then you go back about your day. They go much deeper than that.
>The hindrances are on the level of your currently enduring existence as a whole, they are the way you regard the entire world at the time.

So in day-to-day life,
>one’s mind is always within the domain of the hindrances.
Even if one is not gripped by some strong defilement at the time. The fact is that at any given time one’s mind is liable to lust, anger, sloth, restlessness or doubt, means that at any given time that mind is still well within the domain of the five hindrances.

>The only time a mind can step outside of the domain and extent of the five hindrances is when a person has diligently ABANDONED joys and griefs regarding the entire world.
>It’s when a person has become completely SECLUDED from all the unwholesome states.
It’s in the first jhāna.

The first jhāna is pleasure born of sense of a safety upon the surmounting of one’s entire existential situation. That means that a person who develops and cultivates the jhāna is not only free from lust, aversion and delusion at that time; they are also free from the liability to those defilements as well. This is important to note, because as long as people think that hindrances are these particular states of mind that come and go, they will never be properly uprooted.

If, on the other hand, one understands that
>“even if I am not experiencing any specific hindrance right now, I am still liable to them. I am still within the hindrances’ domain and thus, not free of them.”
This kind of reflection will force a person to broaden their context and look for the solution further than the immediate management of currently arisen lust, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and doubt.

>If you are not sure whether you are liable to lust or not, that means you are.
The hindrance of doubt is there, and thus the domain of the five hindrances is there.
>If you are liable to one hindrance you are liable to them all.
There are the five hindrances, not three and a half or two, so it’s always the five different ways that comprise one domain that hinders you.

>>22757832
You need to start thinking of them, not as individual things but as something that your world is within. Even your current sense restraint and even your Dhamma practice.
>Everything is within that domain of the five hindrances.
The only time you are not within them is in the first jhāna, as above. That is why the one who surmounts them in jhāna, abides in the joy of seclusion from all unwholesome states, even when walking, sitting, eating or going to the toilet, etc.:

“…But, Master Gotama, what is the celestial high and luxurious bed that at present you gain at will, without trouble or difficulty?”
“Here, brahmin, when I am dwelling in dependence on a village or town, in the morning I dress, take my bowl and robe, and enter that village or town for alms. After the meal, when I have returned from the alms round, I enter a grove. I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I bring mindfulness to the fore. Then,
>SECLUDED from sensual pleasures, SECLUDED from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna…
Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed. This is that celestial high and luxurious bed that at present I can gain at will, without trouble or difficulty.”
—AN 3:63

The Five Hindrances Are One In Unwholesomeness

So once you start seeing that all that is happening is within the domain of the Five hindrances, and that liability to them means that they are already there, then you will get to see that
>you are not responsible for the hindrances arising. The manifestation of lust, ill will, sloth and so on, that’s not actually your doing. What is your doing is being hindered by those manifestations.
So, it doesn’t matter which hindrance or liability to hindrance is present. In themselves, hindrances cannot hinder you. The domain of the hindrances is the domain of the unwholesome of any kind, and all you need to do is look closely at why you are liable to that domain to begin with.

The answer is quite simple:
>it’s because some of those unwholesome states you don’t recognize as unwholesome.
It’s because your criteria for determining what is unwholesome is not sufficiently developed and clarified. That’s why some of the things and mental states that should not be welcomed, delighted in and entertained—you ignorantly welcome, delight in and entertain.

>>22754772
>owever, once you've tested it internally that's a different form of knowledge
You can't "test internally" Buddhisms metaphysical claims about rebirth and karma in future lives, the require religious faith just as much as it does to believe that God was crucified and rose from the dead.

>NNNNNOoo AAHHHHH!!!! DONT COMPARE ME TO CHRISTI-
you're more alike than you're different sweetie

>>22755099
Which Sutta?

>>22757859
The Chief Hindrance And The Foremost Danger

What is the chief hindrance on account of which people let the other four hindrances in? Which unwholesome thing is usually not seen as unwholesome?

It’s sensuality, of course. Delight and lust. It is not seen as wrong and the deep danger of it is not something that is apparent. Thus, by welcoming and accepting the arisen prospects of sensual desires, you are automatically welcoming and accepting the domain of the five hindrances. That means that
>when restlessness and anxiety arise, although you will not want it, you have already opened the door for it from before, when you opened the door to sensuality. Thus, through accepting one, you place yourself on the ground that is flooded by them all.
That’s where the crux of that recognition of danger in sensuality is.
>>>By accepting sensuality you are becoming simultaneously liable to everything else that is painful and unwholesome.
Such as anxiety, worry, doubt, fear and so on. And that liability remains, for as long as you maintain an attitude of welcoming sensual pleasures. Like consuming a perfect tasty drink that has poison in it. You cannot taste, smell nor see the poison, but it enters you as you enjoy the taste of the drink.
Thus,
>through willingly entertaining sensuality you are willingly accepting anxiety, worry, fear, dullness, depression, confusion, and everything else that comes from the domain of the unwholesome.
When this “poison”, this danger, is DISCERNED as what sensuality actually is, then no amount of sensual pleasures will be able to make you accept it and say “yes” to it.

“There are ascetics and brahmins in the present who see the things that seem nice and pleasant in the world as impermanent, as suffering, as not-self, as diseased, and as dangerous. They GIVE UP CRAVING. Giving up craving, they GIVE UP ATTACHMENTS. Giving up attachments, they give up suffering. Giving up suffering, they are freed from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They are freed from suffering, I say.”
“Suppose there was a bronze cup of beverage that had a nice colour, aroma, and flavour. But it was mixed with poison. Then along comes a man struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. They’d say to him: ‘Here, mister, this bronze cup of beverage has a nice colour, aroma, and flavour. Drink it if you like.
>If you drink it, its nice colour, aroma, and flavour will refresh you. But drinking it will result in death or deadly pain.’
Then that man might think: ‘I could quench my thirst with water, whey, or broth. But I shouldn’t drink that beverage, for it would be for my lasting harm and suffering.’ He’d reject that beverage. After appraisal, he wouldn’t drink it, and it wouldn’t result in death or deadly pain.”
—SN 12:66

Im a Orthodox Christian why should I become buddhist?

>>22757905
By seeing the connection between welcoming sensuality and the simultaneous ingestion of poison that is hidden in it, you will then realize that

>NO AMOUNT of sensuality is worth accepting.
>NO BENEFIT of sensual pleasures can outweigh that risk.
That’s when the “danger becomes apparent” as the Suttas often say:

>the only actual reason people keep engaging with sensuality is because they do not SEE THE DANGER of it.

“…When these five hindrances are unabandoned in himself, a bhikkhu sees them respectively as a debt, a disease, a prison, slavery, and a road across a desert. But when these five hindrances have been abandoned in himself, he sees that as freedom from debt, health, release from prison, freedom from slavery, and a land of safety.”
“Having abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of the mind that weaken wisdom, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters upon and abides in the first jhāna.”
—MN 39

That sense of safety and relief does not come from ‘nobody knocking on your door and threatening you’. It comes from you >knowing how not to open that door through which harm can come your way.
The safety comes from
>not welcoming sensuality through which other hindrances would enter you.
The reason why this is actually very good news is because it’s entirely up to you. Welcoming sensuality or not doesn’t depend on the circumstances, it depends on your CHOICE only.
>You can always SAY NO to welcoming sensuality on the levels of your THOUGHTS and ACTIONS.
That means you don’t have to worry if sensuality is at your door. You don’t have to try to chase it away or fight it. All you need to do is not open the door, and just endure its outside presence until it leaves you alone.

Furthermore, ask yourself: what is my attitude when the thought of sensuality arises? When it is at the door? Do I see it as agreeable, as a friend, dear to me and not wishing me any harm? Or do I discern its deceitfulness, the poison, the hunter’s trap? Do I see the danger simultaneous with opening the door and letting it in?

It’s important to note that you cannot simply choose to not welcome sensuality once, and be free, since your mind has been accepting it and welcoming it for a very long time. You will have to CONTEMPLATE the DANGER in it. ENDURE it when it arises. Only then will your habitual welcoming of it begin to slowly fade. So if you keep practising sense restraint and keeping the precepts, contemplation of the danger can actually bear fruit. Then you will also understand the gratification, the escape and the way that leads to the escape from sensuality and the Five hindrances as a whole.

>>22757924
Why change? Is there something you dislike about your current religion?

>>22757924
Here's a book you can check out. Haven't read it though.

>Exploring the spiritual connection between Christianity and Buddhism, Thich Nhat Hanh reawakens an understanding of both religions and offers simple yet meaningful ways to enhance our daily lives.

>>22757870
>Buddhisms metaphysical claims about rebirth and karma in future lives
You need to sit more. Those are ontological claims about consciousness.

>>22758010
>You need to sit more. Those are ontological claims about consciousness.
An ontological claim is a type of metaphysical claim anon

And there's no amount of sitting that can verify what happens after death, don't kid yourself by pretending otherwise.

>>22758022
>An ontological claim is a type of metaphysical claim anon
Honey, you need to go sit down and read Heidegger, because you're not understanding the claims of this tradition.

>>22758032
>b-b-but Heidegg-
completely irrelevant here, basically everyone agrees that ontology is a subset of metaphysics, this is something that naturally follows from the dictionary definition of the terms

>Many important metaphysical questions are closely tied to ontological questions. But ontology, the part of metaphysics that deals with what the world is made from or what exists, gives rise to a series of puzzles.
https://academic.oup.com/book/5722/chapter-abstract/148847739?redirectedFrom=fulltext

>>22757924
read this and see if it makes sense
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhasTeachings/Section0003.html

and this book/posts
>>22748973

>>22758056
>Being is a subset of whatever I declare it to be.
You have experiemental equipment to inspect consciousness directly. It is called consciousness. Go sit.

Also pulling out a fucking dickdef? Are you 15? Is this wikipedia?

Is consciousness now what consciousness was 15 minutes ago. Wow mate, you've just discovered rebirth. Fuck me.

>>22758077
>Go sit
Imagine coping this hard about Buddhism requiring religious belief

>Is consciousness now what consciousness was 15 minutes ago.
Yes, it's literally the same exact consciousness as before. No, that doesn't prove rebirth.

>>22758247
>Yes, it's literally the same exact consciousness as before
Go cut wood. Go draw water.

>>22758262
>Go cut wood. Go draw water.
le reddit koan

>>22758264
I'm not the series of posts claiming to constitute a coherent consciousness over time because it claims to present a coherent identity over time.

>>22758271
Uh oh? Sounds like Buddha was refuted

>>22754685
>We're constantly flying through space
Lmao. Midwit believes we're all constantly flying thru space at 1000mph

>>22757951

>[12] HOW TO CALM YOUR MIND

“There is the case, Mahānāma, where a disciple of the noble ones is consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows the right measure in eating, is devoted to wakefulness, is endowed with seven qualities, and obtains at will—without trouble or difficulty—the four jhāna that constitute heightened awareness and a pleasant abiding here and now.”
—MN 53

I talk a lot about the right ENDURANCE and RESTRAINT. That’s because the Buddha was quite clear that that is the necessary prerequisite for any successful meditation. It’s very important to keep reminding yourself of that.
>Unless you are fully restrained, curbed and in control of your senses, you will not be meditating rightly.
Regardless of how much effort and hours you put into it. It would be like spending a lot of time carefully and meticulously planting seeds… in barren ground.

“A bhikkhu is virtuous, he dwells RESTRAINED by the rules of the Pātimokkha, accomplished in conduct and behaviour, seeing danger in the slightest fault, and having undertaken them, he trains with the training rules.”
—AN 3:90

So, as the Suttas on gradual training say,
>a person needs to come to the point of being watchful on account of “seeing the danger in the slightest fault”.
Of course, all these prerequisites can create an impression that it’s all about enduring and more enduring. And in a way it is, but there is a point at which a person can begin to learn how to calm down within that very endurance. And that’s the correct place of samādhi in the practice.
>Learning how to calm down, without abandoning your patient endurance and sense restraint, and without turning back to sensuality, can make that same pressuring endurance not unpleasant at all.
“Patient endurance is the foremost austerity” that, paired with right samādhi, can be quite agreeable.

Thus, as already said earlier in this book,
>you cannot meditate rightly without the Right view.
This statement can be a bit too abstract for people. The practical reason behind this statement is that your meditation will not be within the right endurance that needs to be calmed. Without the Right view, it will always be rooted, however subtly, in your aversion towards the unpleasantness of the enduring sense restraint. In other words, such meditation would aim to get rid of the pain that you are averse to. Such meditation would be for the management of pain, not the uprooting of it. On the other hand,
>meditation with the Right view will aim at calming your resistance to the pain of the endurance to which you are averse.
That’s why many people end up frustrated with their meditation techniques, since deep down inside, they follow them for the sake of getting rid of the pain. They do not fulfil and perfect the requirements for gradual training, which is why they cannot get through the inherent aversion to pain (which is where the true suffering is).

>>22758466
Endurance and the build up of the gradual training is simply not negotiable. How much you are going to suffer on account of it is. How much your mind will experience pressure and torment on account of sense restraint can be reduced with meditation rooted in the correct motivation. In simple terms,
>you don’t want to be meditating for the sake of managing the pain of endurance.
>You want to be meditating for the sake of calming your aversion towards endurance so that you can then endure even more.
Or as much as necessary for the final uprooting of defilements.

Q: So, a person is enduring, not giving in to defilements. The pressure builds up more, and the person puts up with it. What then?

Nyanamoli:
>That’s the endurance: putting up with the pressure without trying to get rid of it.
So, the first thing is to
>prevent yourself from acting out of pressure too often.
Then, while you are full of pressure caused by sense restraint, full of doubt, anxiety, temptations…
>What else is there that you are doing that is effortless and neutral? It’s breathing in and breathing out.
That’s what’s there. It doesn’t require any special way of attending to it, it doesn’t require any extra effort. It’s something that you can always be aware of at the back of your mind, as something that is there, inseparable from you, done by the body regardless of what mental states and experiences you are going through at the same time.

That’s why when the Buddha described the practice of anāpānasati, he always said:

“Mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out.”
—SN 54:9

That’s how it always starts.
>A simple knowledge of your breathing happening right there “beneath” whatever you are going through.
And you don’t have to stop enduring on account of it either. It’s there together with the pressure of sense restraint. You can see that breath happening to you, so to speak, while you are gripped by temptations and hindrances. But
>the breath remains underneath it, coming and going. Unchanged.
And it’s that knowledge at the back of your mind of something there, that we often refer to as “peripheral awareness”. So, you are not trying to distract yourself from your patient endurance and the unpleasantness of sense restraint and watchful guarding of the sense doors.
>All you are trying to do is maintain the knowledge that there is an enduring act of breathing, happening at the same time right there.

>If you see your breathing in and out in that neutral, peripheral way, it will slowly calm you down.
It won’t remove the endurance of sense restraint that you established. But it will take the edge off the pressure you were under. And if you cultivate it diligently enough it will remove the entire unpleasantness of it altogether.

>>22758512
>See your BREATH as something happening UNDERNEATH whatever else is going on.
“Underneath” because it will feel so from the point of view of whatever you are occupied with. “Underneath” because, although at the same time, it is “before”, it is more primordial and closer to the body.

>The knowledge of breathing in and out doesn’t require any special effort. Just a mental recognition.
You don’t need to go to it and make it your primary focus. Quite the opposite.
>If you keep it at the back of your mind without focusing on it, it will be done without any strain or force.
That’s why it will calm down your current strain of enduring.

That’s how you practice anāpānasati in the right direction.
>It’s a perpetual bodily activity that you choose to not completely forget.
If you cultivate such recollection of the present breathing, regardless of what you are focused on at the same time,
>it will also eventually prevent hindrances from hindering you.

And that’s the true samatha. Calming of the mind that you can do within your right endurance and sense restraint. And not using it to manage and get rid of the pain of your situation. Instead, just to calm down while the same situation remains.

>There is an in-breath and an out-breath.
An action that is bound with the experience of my body, inseparable from it. It is also a more fundamental action than any other action I choose to do.
>My breathing precedes walking, talking, standing up or sitting down.
All of that requires breathing to be there. So
>by attending to the breathing correctly, you are calming down an activity that is inseparable from the body.
You are calming down the kāyasaṅkhāra. By calming that down, all your other bodily actions will calm down too.

“Bhikkhus,
>this recollection of breathing, when developed and cultivated, is peaceful, sublime, an exquisite pleasant dwelling,
and it disperses and relieves right on the spot evil unwholesome states whenever they arise. Just as, bhikkhus, in the last month of the hot season, when a mass of dust and dirt has swirled up, a great rain cloud out of season disperses it and settles it on the spot.”
—SN 54:9

Genuinely curious, do any of you consider yourself fully enlightened?
I'll believe you if you say you are.

Also, what's it like? (Not theoretically, I mean in actual experience)

What a strange thing it would be to run into a fully enlightened being on 4channels.org.

>>22758616
In this moment this instance knows itself to be a boddhisatva in that the text before it is of one attachment to suffering, thereby attachment to suffering exists and enlightenment does not.

Good job Brad, you broke my streak.

>>22758639
Wtf how did you know my name

>>22758666
I fucked Karen last night. She was free'd from desire by repeated attachment and detachment from her desire for, and the just-being of, my cock.

>>22745050
https://
discord
gg/mWc8EVFr

>>22758616
They very likely would have no desire to come here and they're already rare as it is.

I've heard that someone becoming an arahant (4th stage - fully-enlightened) would soon starve to death without the sangha because of no desire to work to make money for food or even eat on their own without some schedule being in place to remind them to eat.

A sotapanna/stream-enterer (1st stage) would likely join a sangha because doubt in the buddha's teachings has been removed.

And they wouldn't have much of a desire to spend their time on a site like this.

>>22758559
I cannot emphasize enough the point that
>if you are doing anāpānasati as a technique, a method, you are doing it at the expense of the enduring container. And that’s a mistake.
There is no right samādhi without the right SENSE RESTRAINT being there as its basis. So,
>don’t use your meditation as an escape from the pressure of SENSE RESTRAINT.
If you do, that means it will be rooted in your aversion towards the discomfort of sense restraint.
>Any act rooted in aversion towards discomfort, of any kind, is in its nature an act towards sensuality (i.e. avoiding discomfort for the sake of pleasure or less discomfort).
That’s why the Buddha said that when an ignorant mind is touched by an unpleasant feeling, it knows of no other escape than to seek pleasure. It knows of no other way to calm down its aversion to discomfort except to appease it by distracting it with pleasure. However,
>each time the mind turns to the senses for safety, the underlying tendency to being averse to pain increases.
>Each time the aversion to pain increases, the underlying tendency to turn to sense pleasures increases too.
And so on. The vicious circle is maintained.

The entire point of “GRADUAL TRAINING” is to begin breaking this circle by preventing you from unwittingly feeding it.
>Virtue, sense restraint, moderation in eating, watchfulness—all are there to gradually build up a container that will prevent you from giving in to the senses for comfort and safety.
If you build it up properly it will also reveal to you that
>what you are averse to are the senses themselves.
The six senses are not pleasant in themselves. They are like untamed animals. Not very nice to be around. That’s why if you stop trying to blindly pacify those animals (so that they don’t bother or attack you), you will see that the only right way to deal with them is to tame them.

Having a body is a chore. The six senses are a chore. The body is the natural and neutral resistance that you are paired with for as long as you live. An undeveloped mind, however, cannot bear this type of resistance and is thus averse to it in its very core. Hence, the automatic turn towards the senses and the relative safety and pleasure they provide. That’s what the Buddha meant in saying that
>the underlying tendencies towards aversion, lust and delusion are present from the moment you are conceived:

“A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion of ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.”
—MN 64

>>22759626
>Your patient ENDURANCE, VIRTUE and MEDITATION practice are about containing you from trying to spill out towards senses.
Because unless you find a different type of safety and comfort, other than that of the senses, you will never be truly calm or free.

>“Sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress,
and they are all the more full of drawbacks. Even though a noble disciple has clearly seen this with right wisdom,so long as they don’t achieve the joy and happiness that are apart from sensual pleasures and unskillful qualities, or something even more peaceful than that, they might still return to sensual pleasures. But when they do achieve that joy and happiness, or something more peaceful than that, they will not return to sensual pleasures.”
—MN 14

>If such safety is found, through the right calming practice, then dependence on sensuality will diminish.
By diminishing that dependence, feeding the tendency to aversion and ill will fades too. That’s why
>ill will and sensuality go hand in hand.
You are already averse to your sense bases. By not enduring that aversion and instead choosing to act out and seek pleasurable safety of the senses, each time you do so you are taking your aversion with you. So next time you will even be averse not because you didn’t get the pleasure you wanted, but simply because you didn’t get as much of it.

We can go as far as to say that
>people have ill will towards other beings only because, fundamentally, they carry ill will towards their own senses.
They are averse to the being that they themselves are. That’s the root of all ill will, and because of the aversion towards their senses they are dependent on sensuality through interaction with other people and the world. It’s the same root. Hence, if you uproot it, you will be free from both ill will and sensuality at the same time. Just like an anāgāmi is.

>>22759906
Q: Uprooting it doesn’t make the senses comfortable.

Nm: No, it doesn’t. But it trains your mind to go beyond that basic discomfort and not experience dukkha on account of harbouring aversion towards it. Using the direction of the senses as an escape has never been addressed in one’s life. From the moment a person is born their mind turns towards the world of the senses, as we elaborated above. This is also why
>people fear boredom and being with themselves without any distractions. It just brings back that which everyone has been trying to outrun their entire life: the discomfort of their own selves.

Thus,
>samatha is about calming that discomfort once you have sufficiently ENDURED it beforehand.
When calming is brought to fulfilment, then the FOUR FOUNDATIONS OF MINDFULNESS have been thoroughly developed. Then all one is left with is freedom and a basic discomfort or “disturbance” that is this body. The six wild animals have all been completely tamed. It’s just their calm presence now which still needs to be subtly endured until the aggregates break apart:

“He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
He understands thus: ‘Whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of sensual desire, those are not present here; whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of being, those are not present here; whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of ignorance, those are not present here. There is present only this amount of disturbance, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
He understands: ‘This field of perception is void of the taint of sensual desire; this field of perception is void of the taint of being; this field of perception is void of the taint of ignorance. There is present only this non-voidness, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’”
—MN 121

>>22759918
>[13] GATEWAY TO NIBBĀNA

We spoke a lot about the enduring of unpleasant or pleasant feelings. So how would you, practically, do that? If something bothers you and you fail to endure it, how do you know that you failed to endure it? What qualifies as failure in enduring it?

It is when you act out of that thing that bothers you.
>Acting out of anger or lust, means you failed to ENDURE it.
Even if your action is “small” and not a coarse breach of restraint, it is still rooted in a failure to endure the arisen feeling.

Now, what can you do in order to endure that pressure?

First, don’t act out of it. People might think, “I must be mindful of the pressure first”. But that’s not so.
>First you need to RESTRAIN your need towards acting out, by body, speech or mind.
Mindfulness will arise on its own as a result of it. If you refrain from acting out of that pressuring feeling (towards lust, anger or distraction), you will be mindful. If you think “I must be mindful of this” you will be doing that mindfulness, i.e. that will be “acting out”.

That’s why
>VIRTUE and the PRECEPTS come first.
>By NOT ACTING OUT of discomfort which resulted from an insult, for example, you know that you are enduring it.
You are refraining from acting out physically. Now you must also not act out verbally, too. After you become skilled at that, you can endure that pressure mentally without compulsively feeding unwholesome thoughts of cruelty and harm. This means that at any point throughout this proper way of enduring, you are actually very mindful.
>By preventing yourself from acting out of craving. By prioritising the ‘not acting out’ you are automatically cultivating mindfulness.

>It’s your mind that is choosing to act out of lust that overwhelms you with lust.
It’s not by having the lust arise on its own.
>It’s the mind choosing to engage with ill will that results in anger overwhelming you.
The ill will ARISES ON ITS OWN, and in itself is not the problem. This mental ‘choosing’ to engage with the states that pressure you is the gateway through which these unwholesome things enter. You invite them in, you open the door for them, by ‘acting out’.

>>22759948
For example,
>if someone comes to your doorstep and tries to pressure you to let them in, YOU are the one who CHOOSES to let them in or keep the door closed.
Sometimes many people might be at the door, trying to get you to open it. However, the door can only be opened from inside. So it is only when you cannot bear that mental pressure of knowing there are people outside that you willingly open the door. You might do so because you think you can successfully chase them away, but that was never the point. The point was for them to get you to open that door, and you did. It doesn’t matter what you do after that, even if you make them go away. You couldn’t bear the mental pressure they put on you and you acted out. They don’t care if you open the door to let them in or chase them away, they just want you to open the door because when it’s open they will find a way in. So, often people think: “I must get rid of this thing that pressures me”. And then they “open the door” and engage with the lust or ill will. Thus, they become fully involved with it, even if they don’t want to do so.

Not opening that door is the ENDURANCE that I am speaking about.
>If there is unpleasant pressure, don’t try to get rid of it.
>If there is pressure towards pleasure, don’t welcome it.
Just remain unengaged with it, keep the door closed and guard the gateway. You don’t need to be policing what is arising for you or what is pressuring you, or what hindrance is currently present. You don’t need to know why they are at the door. You are safe inside, as long as you don’t choose to open the door. That’s how you will be guarding the right gateway, and thus no problems will arise.

And the problem is not that there is something upsetting you. Or that there is something that is making your mind lustful. No, the problem is that when that experience manifests for you, you have no idea where the gateway for it is. You have no idea where the door is and that it should be kept closed. So before you know it, you are already outside. Trying to chase the upsetting experience away. Or trying to usher the pleasing experience in.

>>22760001
The gateway which I am describing is the Middle Way, and you need to see it sufficiently before it can become one of the options for you. At the moment, you are always outside, welcoming things or trying to make them disappear.

So, how do you develop the Middle Way then? How do you cultivate that choice?

By
>ABSTAINING from opening the door and welcoming pleasure,
and by
>ABSTAINING from opening the door and trying to get rid of pain:
you are thus abiding in the Middle Way. Even if you are unaware of it.

>By CHOOSING to NOT ACT OUT, you are choosing the Middle Way.
If you do this enough, that choice will become clear and visible to you. That is why
>if you guard your mind correctly, you will rise above the five hindrances or anything that bothers you.
You will realise that none of those arisen things are problems in themselves. The problem was in you being affected by or involved with them when you chose to open the gateway.

Thus,
>by ENDURING the five hindrances correctly, your mind will rise above them.
It’s not about preventing them from arising, because as it was said above—the hindrances don’t hinder you in themselves. They become “hindrances” for you because of your choice to engage with them.

So, how then do you practically not act out of these hindrances or these unpleasant things? What do you do right now that you see the door and are keeping it closed?

>You don’t lose sight of that gateway.
Don’t become careless and distract yourself from it. Clarify your responsibility for guarding the gateway and you will not need to worry about what specific lust or annoyance will be outside the door.

Thus the entire Dhamma can be boiled down to the simple instruction from the Buddha that
>whatever you know is wholesome, cultivate it,
and
>whatever you know is unwholesome, do not cultivate it.

“The NON-DOING of all evil, the cultivation of WHOLESOME QUALITIES, and the CLEANSING of one’s MIND. This is the teaching of the Buddha. Patient endurance is the foremost austerity. Nibbāna is supreme.”
—Dhp. 14, verse 183-184

Do it or not, it’s your choice, but if you cultivate the right choices sufficiently you will come to understand and uproot the nature of lust, aversion and delusion. You will fully discern the gateway and be unable to ever lose sight of it. It’s only then that you can reach the true peace.

>>22758056
Not really true, a lot of philosopher practice a form of post-metaphysical form of ontology, parmenides wrote the first ontological paper decades before aristotle was even born, let alone wrote the "metaphysics"

>>22758247
>Yes, it's literally the same exact consciousness as before.
What? This is a nonsensical claim

>>22760333
It only seems nonsensical if you misunderstand what consciousness is.

>>22760361
Sure, if you redefine words you can be right every time. I'm guessing you equate consciousness with awareness

Remember that if you accept the flatline existence of Buddhism, it means that you have abandoned the highest highs (without which there cannot be the lowest lows). I often feel there's a delusion in the community that you can have it all when the reality is that to escape suffering means exactly to abandon sensuality.

Nietzsches critique of buddhism, as I understand it, basically boils down to there being a detectable core of resentment that has not been extinguished even in the Buddha himself. The resentment for suffering.

Even though they go beyond all other valuations, they still retain the valuation "suffering = bad".

He says respectfully that buddhism is highly refined but that it is for extremely delicate people who canot tolerate even the most subtle instance of suffering.

Any thoughts on that by you buddhist scholars? I'm genuinely curious and not interested in arguing for or against neitzsche. Just interested in a response to that.

>>22748973
read this book/posts
>>22760545

Would you like to suffer more or less?
If less than you follow the Buddha's teachings,
if more then you suffer from delusion/ignorance.

You suffer by craving something.
Craving to get something or get away from something.
Craving some other state than the one currently experienced.
Craving more pleasure or craving less pain.

If you're horny (in Nietzche's case) and don't like the feeling of being horny so you go and have sex with a prostitute, then you suffer because of that. Everytime he gave into those horny urges he just made the pressure and pain of libido worse which caused him to suffer more. He fucked prostitutes because he couldn't endure the pressure of abstaining from sensuality. He couldn't handle the pain of celibacy. In the end, he caused more suffering to himself. Just like with any addict.

>>22750204
>THE VALUE OF SENSUALITY IS THAT IT PROVIDES YOU WITH PLEASURE FROM THE PAIN OF ITSELF
>Sensuality touches you with pain, but at the same time, it offers you a solution for that same pain. It’s just like racketeering: “Okay, if you pay me, I’ll make your problems go away, problems that I put on you so that you will pay me”. So you get extorted by your own sensuality, your own desires. Sensual desires hurt, and giving in to them will remove that hurt and reward you with more pleasure. It’s a win-win. Or so it seems, until you realize that the true win is to not be pressured by the desires in the first place.
>The more you give in to the pressure of sensuality, the more you will have to give in since its nature can never be changed.

>>22760747
Also, the one desire you should have is to be free from desire, which means follow the path.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy-34Sx-N38

"But the path that takes you to nirvana is rooted in desire — in skillful desires.... the noble truths give two roles to desire, depending on whether it's skillful or not. Unskillful desire is the cause of suffering; skillful desire forms part of the path to its cessation. Skillful desire undercuts unskillful desire, not by repressing it, but by producing greater and greater levels of satisfaction and well-being so that unskillful desire has no place to stand. This strategy of skillful desire is explicit in the path factor of right effort:

'What is right effort? There is the case where a monk (here meaning any meditator) generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful mental qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This is called right effort."

>>22760545
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhasTeachings/Section0003.html

>>22760513
>the highest highs (without which there cannot be the lowest lows)

been rewatching this video for years as a good reminder of "what goes up, must come down"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo

>>22760513
>to escape suffering means exactly to abandon sensuality.
Not if you practice Vajrayana

>>22760545
>it is for extremely delicate people who canot tolerate even the most subtle instance of suffering.

>>22745050
What are the actual differences between the three main schools of buddhism? And how might that influence any reading into the topic that I might do?

>>22760545
>there being a detectable core of resentment that has not been extinguished even in the Buddha himself
Nietzsche cites Buddhism as a form of nihilism (world-denial) alongside Christianity, but Christianity he also considers to be "slave morality" and driven by ressentiment. In other words, Buddhist world-denial is free of any sense of spite or inversion coming from anger at another's power over him. Nietzsche's version of Buddhism is meant to serve as a critique of Christianity and relies on agreeing with Schopenhauer's pessimistic reading of it, in order to ultimately reject it. However, world denial does not really fit with Mahayana Buddhism, which for instance teaches a non-duality between samsara and nirvana, which is remarkably different from Christian views on their afterlife being a post-death reward for not sinning

>>22760908
Put briefly, each expands upon the one before it in terms of canonical literature and practices, so Vajrayana considers itself an esoteric version of Mahayana, which considers itself supersessionist to "Hinayana, which is a Mahayana-specific term for the earlier schools of Buddhism from which contemporary Theravada is a direct descendent. We no longer have an original Buddhism and it is up to the student to decide what to make of the extant material and institutions.

>>22760939
Thanks. What is a good source where I can find specific information on the beliefs, traditions and practices of each school? Or is just any youtube video good enough?

>>22760908
>>22761074
Theravada is closest to the actual teachings.
Just read the suttas.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/index.html

>>22760908
If you could only condense it down to there things: Abstract theology concerning how one becomes a Bodhisattva, scholastic repetition (Theravada) vs translating received information (Mahayana), and a debate over whether the universe is a monistic continuity (Mahayana) or an atomic pluralism (Theravada). The Vajrayana is a grouping within the Mahayana to refer to several sects and denominations that seek to use special methods to achieve enlightenment more quickly than it is normally achieved.

You can never practice "pure" Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana however, it will always be some smaller sect, so "actual Buddhism" as practiced by humans and not just as an intellectual abstraction is only described so well by this exercise.

>>22761119
>Theravada is closest to the actual teachings.
Who cares?

>>22761145
Emptiness isn't monism, emptiness isn't a substance

>>22761119
Theravada is one of the most modernized schools of buddhism there is

>>22761470
>school of the ELDERS
>modern

>>22761573
You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't change the fact that modern Theravada is a product of modernization in response to British colonialism and protestantism. "Just read the suttas" is not a traditional approach to Buddhism at all.

>>22761357
Sounds like you should read the Golden Rafter Sutra, because he's clearly talking about ontology.

>>22759612
>I've heard that someone becoming an arahant (4th stage - fully-enlightened) would soon starve to death without the sangha because of no desire to work to make money for food or even eat on their own without some schedule being in place to remind them to eat.

Sounds like depression bro and also not the middle way.

>>22761612
>>22759612
>I've heard that someone becoming an arahant (4th stage - fully-enlightened) would soon starve to death without the sangha because of no desire to work to make money for food or even eat on their own without some schedule being in place to remind them to eat.
That's just to prevent people from going around and saying they're arhats

>>22761609
If this were the case you would expect to find muh colonialist/protestant revisions in the tipitaka. And yet they have pretty much the same content as the agamas in Chinese/Tibetan canons, unless you want to cry colonialism on those too.

>>22761345
If you want to follow BUDDHISM then you should listen to the BUDDHA

>>22761726
>you would expect to find muh colonialist/protestant revisions in the tipitaka.
That's not what the other anon is talking about, nobody has any serious doubts about the preservation of the canon, which is only a single component of Theravada Buddhism, which is a living religious tradition in southeast Asia that survived Christian missionary efforts in a way that the religions of other colonized countries did not. You are clearly out of depth on the topic of Buddhist modernism and should consider reading more about it

>>22761700
didn't stop daniel ingram

Some of my friends switched from Tibetan to Theravada and they told me these (paraphrased):

"Mahayana is like Mara trying to convince people to get trapped in Samsara. The bodhisattva idea is very nice, delay getting out of samsara, some even wish to delay it indefinitely. "

"The trouble with Mahayana is that they convinced people that whatever is contrary to the śrāvaka teachings, it's a superior, higher teaching."

A lot of Mahayana folks in general never really read up the Pāli canon and after encountering Theravada found that their Mahayana exposure is too shallow to be able to practise properly.

>>22760909
>suffering is inevitable
>so we gonna numb ourselves till we dont feel anything.
the insistence in suffering in buddhism is his own atomic bomb. buddhism is pretty uneffective and banal, if you really accept suffering as part of life. and i dont mean accept suffering so you can feel blessed of your own instrospection so the suffering is part of it all so you dont feel it as a bad thing at all.
im saying actual acceptance of real, raw, dirty and old suffering and the shaky aspect of it. the promise of buddhism is that this suffering can end if you want it. but why you should want it?.

>>22761787
Bodhicitta is the aspiration to achieve complete Buddhahood as swiftly as possible to benefit sentient beings, it's not a vow to remain deluded in samsara

>>22761802
You can suffer more or less. Buddhism will lead you down the path of less.

just read the suttas

>>22761846
yes, but if you start to question the suffering itself, if you start to question suffering as the villain of life, then buddhism dont have much to say. and in that perspective, nietzsche is right. budhism goes to the end with the annihilation of suffering but still hold suffering as an intrinsic bad.

>>22761802
"Suffering" is the popular explanation of dukkha used in a lot of translation but the shortcomings of this in understanding how it works theoretically have been pointed out by western indologists as early as Stcherbatsky. It is less a matter of pain and suffering and more that the elements (dharma) of experience are in a state of commotion or unrest. For instance, you are saying we should affirm "real, raw, dirty, and old suffering" but that is exactly what the Buddha is telling your that your body, as an entity you allege has value and self-existence, is a rotten corpse, not some pleasure house that you can endlessly visit (and by the way, all the whores there are also rotten corpses). It may be the case that you are disturbed in some way and enjoy feeling uneasy, and relish having anxiety and delusions and never a moment of peace, in which case Buddhism does not offer you much, since it promises that the clearing away of ignorance puts a stop to "suffering." But for many what is enjoyable is overcoming some particular struggle and thereby reaching an accompishment rather than the struggling itself being valued, since it is only a means. What the buddha is offering is to overcome not a particular struggle for a particular accomplishment, but struggle in general for the only accomplishment worth entering into. And for some people the means toward this is indeed a sort of purgative ascetic practice, but that practice by itself is of course not valuable for its own sake and to take that up and call it Buddhism is merely a half-measure

>>22745050
Summoning any and all anons in this thread! Someone posted a bunch of philosophers I've never heard of in an east vs. west philosophy thread. Please give recommendations, commentary, etc

> Dignaga
> Dharmakirti
> Vasubandhu
> Asanga
> Shantideva
> Nagarjuna
> Aryadeva
> Buddhapalita
> Bhavaviveka
> Chandrakirti

>>22761881
>you are disturbed in some way and enjoy feeling uneasy, and relish having anxiety and delusions and never a moment of peace, in which case Buddhism does not offer you much
that was my case, yes, im not personally 100% like that, but like a subject of debate i think is a good way to explain why suffering is the sacred part of buddhism and how, even with the exquisite psychological refinement of buddhist teachings, they are, at its core, just plain self-help to tie up the inevitable suffering of life.
i mean, buddhism is divine only if you accept suffering as a pure bad and, obviously, that leave hangin the questio if the entire buddhist teaching are just another sort of delusion gravitating over the concept of suffering as a fixated reality.

>>22761862
Buddhism leads you to less suffering
Nietzsche does not

>>22761950
>plain self-help to tie up the inevitable suffering of life
it is that way if you completely reject its religious premises, you get a "secular" Buddhism much in the same way Christianity has survived among otherwise irreligious people as a form of gendered ethics

>>22762008
>less suffering= truth
thats the wrong math of buddhism. that was what i was trying to say. not the effectiveness at it, which is pretty good.

>>22761950
>enjoy feeling uneasy, and relish having anxiety and delusions

If you're used to feeling certain emotions then you'll desire them (even if they're unpleasant) simply because they're familiar, and if you keep clinging to these states then you'll crave them more. This is called "emotional addiction".

You can be attached to sadness or anger because it's a habit you've held for a long time.

People get attached to depressing music, movies, or rage-inducing media.

People get attached to physical pain to distract from mental pains, or attached to certain physical pains to mask other physical pains, or attached to certain mental pains to mask other mental pains.

Suffering is "bad" by definition.
>experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).

>>22762027
What do you think "truth" is?
Is there "good" suffering? What is good suffering? Why is it good?
What's your life philosophy?

>>22761950
Over the course of your entire life you can feel

A. Bad
B. Not as bad

>If A
Why?

>If B
Buddhism

How accurate is the buddha manga? And how do I end suffering?

Is reincarnation some kidna skillful means metaphor or are these chuckleheads really saying ima wake up as a frog or some shit after i die?

>>22761787
What Sravaka teachings do you think Mahayana is lacking? What fundamental Sravaka teachings do you think Mahayana contradicts?

>>22761700
>That's just to prevent people from going around and saying they're arhats
If you meet a cat in arhat on the road kill him and skin him the toad.

>>22761787
bodhisattvas are a reaction to the incomplete nature of consciousness, its a recognition of the interpenetration of consciousness within and across cycles. Its also a different recognition of the moment in time.

A lot of people deal with bodhisattva and buddha nature as if the illusion of identity is real.

Obvious for both Theravada and Mahayana the real question is how to enslave peasants to fund a rich lamocracy.

>>22761802
>im saying actual acceptance of real, raw, dirty and old suffering and the shaky aspect of it. the promise of buddhism is that this suffering can end if you want it. but why you should want it?.
''want'' is not tool in buddhism, and most people don't want to end suffering to begin with

My friends. Ive been struggling with porn addiction, alcoholism, procrastination, irresponsibility, no will to live, many bad habits etc. I haven't hit rock bottom yet but I feel my life is going downhill rapidly. My mind just can't be stilled when I stop doing things. How can some words on a piece of paper change my illness? I don't believe in supernatural powers but I would like to, it's just that nothing convinces me. If Buddhism can save me please show me how it is possible

I feel like there's an unresolved tension in Buddhism which is always left unexplained.

On the one hand, Buddhists insist that life is good, and that we can all live in perfect harmony and peace by eliminating craving/dukha. But if we retract into spirituality 100%, the form we take on is essentially similar to non-existence. Gurus, monks, and many others know that death is a place of perfect tranquility and harmony, and there is really nothing to fear in our deaths. Okay, but then what is the point of human life? The Buddha tells us to ignore this question, but I feel that's because the only answer he could give is pessimistic. Under the current Buddhist perspective, there is nothing good or worthy about being in samsara. Like the Book of Ecclesiastes would say:
>"But better off than either are those who have never been born."

Lately, I've been reading about near-death experiences and intravenous DMT trips. As you know, there's many similarities between this stuff & meditative insight experiences. Stuff like "death-rebirth", timelessness, losing the fear of death, realizing all of us are one, reincarnation is real, our waking lives are an illusion is common. Yet there is one thing you see on DMT trips which is unique: A focus on human emotion. This will sound far-fetched, but whenever people speak with "entities", the latter always take a huge interest in human emotions. Then it hit me: annihilation is peaceful, but it's also emotionless. The death-like states of "peace" and "euphoria" are commonplace in meditation -- in fact, they are fairly easy to reach & not taken seriously. The real aim is liberation. But this is ironic to me, because like the others, liberation feels closer aligned to non-existence, to death. You are simply aiming for a state of non-existence, and scorning corporeal life. And I find the idea of "mandatory reincarnation" strange too, as if all these souls in one of the last bardos are forced back into existence.

What if there is a real reason to "become human"? Something possible as a human, which is impossible in other realms? I am talking about emotions. People often mention Metta as one of the most powerful tools, but is it just a tool? Have we truly explored love to the nth degree? Maybe there's a world of unexplored depth to love, to Metta, which would justify our birth as corporeal beings. If so, we would no longer regard our birth as an unfortunate disturbance in the blissful state of annihilation, but rather find something which rivals the deathless state, and gives the context to our reincarnation. Has anyone in here practiced Metta to a deep level, and if so, do you sense there's unexplored depth to it? This will sound pretty schizo but I hope it reaches somebody.

>>22762939
>buddhists are wrong about their own doctrines and i like drugs
very cool story

>>22762944
But Buddhists *are* wrong about their own doctrines, and he *does* like drugs. t. Buddhist.

>>22762944
I know most thinkers are deathly afraid of interdisciplinary studies, and maybe 1 in 100 intellectuals won't go REEEE and panic when you bring it up, but the links between insight experiences of various disciplines are profuse and dumb to ignore. Meditation, near-death experiences, and psychedelic drugs all provide accounts of reality that are extremely similar, so it would be weird to pick only one and disregard what the other says. NDEs in particular are 100% natural, and yet people who have experienced NDEs say things like "reincarnation is real but it's optional" as opposed to the compulsion of Buddhism.

>>22762989
Just read Robert Graves White Goddess and Bicameral Mind bro and fuck off out of this thread.

>>22763006
Tell me, why are you a Buddhist as opposed to some other religion? Most Buddhists I know, accept it on the basis that it is experiential: You do not have to take anything on faith. What you learn is directly experienced. What I have said doesn't oppose this mentality -- these other phenomena, which give experiences near identical to Buddhist insights, can be experienced yourself.

By picking one and disregarding the others, you're turning Buddhism into a faith like Christianity. Feel free to do that, I guess. I'm only here because I want to actually understand reality

>>22763035
Tell me why you haven't cut all your toes off and eaten them. Its an experience of being. EAT YOUR FUCKEN TOES.

>>22762939
>death is a place of perfect tranquility and harmony, and there is really nothing to fear in our deaths.
The intermediate state is terrifying and it's far easier to end up in the three lower realms than the three higher.
>You are simply aiming for a state of non-existence, and scorning corporeal
The Buddha achieved complete liberation from samsara. He still hung around in a corporeal body to benefit beings.
>What if there is a real reason to "become human"? Something possible as a human, which is impossible in other realms?
There is, it's achieving liberation from samsara, which is only possible as a human.
>Maybe there's a world of unexplored depth to love, to Metta
There is, it's bodhicitta, the compassionate aspiration to achieve Buddhahood to liberate sentient beings from the suffering of samsara
>blissful state of annihilation
Nirvana isn't annihilation

>>22762989
Let me know when someone who's had an NDE or done DMT composes something comparable to the Abhidharmakosha or Mulamadhyamakakarika

>>22762022
you are right. i was talking about "philosophical" buddhism. i think the religious have grow from the same ideas, but i understand it need another kind of critique.
>>22762173
>>22762125
i dont know what truth is. but suffering and impermanence i think is a vital part of life. rejecting it is rejecting some vital and "good" aspect of it. just that.
>>22762844
i dont know what you refer to most people. if you mean normal people somewhat agree with you, but if you mean buddhists you are just wrong or tricky. remember the four noble truths. they are pretty explicit about it. they really want it, dont need half-lies about it.

in general what i want to say is that buddhism is a possibility of the mind when you are completely serious about ending suffering, and you see new constelations of experience if you are serious about it, but still is a mental world who is created from a fixated idea where suffering is the only thing important in the entire experience of life. its, to me, some sort of deluded and enlargement experience that is the consequence of eliminate suffering not about the final end mistery of life.

>>22763314
>but still is a mental world who is created from a fixated idea where suffering is the only thing important in the entire experience of life.
it's not. Buddishts are focused on suffering just like participants in other fields are autistic about other topics.
It turns out suffering is a big topic and it overlaps with a few other big questions. Then the intellectuals and autistic spergs in the other fields don't like that the buddhist answers to the other big questions destroy their work. Then they whine the buddhists are not super precise and treat other questions with wavy hands, whereas it is normal since those topics and the answers are only adjacent to buddhism. So they are mad about the answer by buddhism and they are and that buddhism downplays the importance of their whole field and endeavor.

>>22762341
Follow the path and see for yourself.
>>22748973

>>22762469
rebirth*
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhasTeachings/Section0003.html#sigil_toc_id_2

>>22763314
>but still is a mental world who is created from a fixated idea where suffering is the only thing important in the entire experience of life.
it's not. Buddishts are focused on suffering just like participants in other fields are autistic about other topics.
It turns out suffering is a big topic and it overlaps with a few other big questions. Then the intellectuals and autistic spergs in the other fields don't like that the buddhist answers to the other big questions destroy their work. Then they whine the buddhists are not super precise and treat other questions with wavy hands, whereas it is normal since those topics and the answers are only adjacent to buddhism. So they are mad about the answer by buddhism and that buddhism downplays the importance of their whole field and endeavor.

>>22762939
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhasTeachings/Section0003.html

>life is good,
Life just is.

>death is a place of perfect tranquility and harmony
No one can know what death actually is because no one alive has experienced it.

>what is the point of human life?
The default programming of every living thing is to survive and reproduce, and to do whatever to fulfill that.

Buddhism aims to alter the code by following the path to liberation.

>there is nothing good or worthy about being in samsara
Which is why the goal is to free ourselves from it.

>>"But better off than either are those who have never been born."
That's a biased take from a living being.

>Yet there is one thing you see on DMT trips which is unique: A focus on human emotion.
Drugs affect neurochemicals which affect emotional states.

>You are simply aiming for a state of non-existence, and scorning corporeal life
"Scorning" a life where one does not see reality as it is, which leads to much suffering.

>People often mention Metta as one of the most powerful tools, but is it just a tool? Have we truly explored love to the nth degree? Maybe there's a world of unexplored depth to love, to Metta, which would justify our birth as corporeal beings.

What most people call "love" is really just desire/passion which leads to attachment and suffering when one loses that which they are attached to.

"Metta" has been said to be non-ill will. Not having any negative thoughts towards anything. Not "loving" in the typical sense of liking something a lot, which leads to clinging and suffering.

check out
>>22748973

>>22762951
Wrong about what? What do think is right?

For the past forty years, doctors at the University of Virginia Medical Center have conducted research into young children’s reports of past-life memories. Dr. Ian Stevenson, the founder of this work, has always written for a scientific audience.

Now, in this provocative and fascinating book, Dr. Jim B. Tucker, a child psychiatrist who currently directs the research, shares these studies with the general public. Life Before Life is a landmark work—one that has the potential to challenge and ultimately change our understandings about life and death.

Children who report past-life memories typically begin talking spontaneously about a previous life when they are two to three years old. Some talk about the life of a deceased family member, while others describe the life of a stranger. They may recount details about previous family members, events in the previous life, or the way they died in that life. The children tend to show a strong emotional involvement with the apparent memories and often cry to be taken to the previous family. In many cases, parents have taken their children to the places they named, where they found that an individual had died whose life matched the details given by the child.

During the visits, some children have recognized family members or friends from that individual’s life. Many children have had birthmarks that matched wounds on the body of the deceased individual.
Researchers have studied more than 2500 such cases, and their careful investigations have produced an impressive body of work. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated in a review of one of Dr. Stevenson’s scientific books that, “in regard to reincarnation he has painstakingly and unemotionally collected a detailed series of cases . . . in which the evidence is difficult to explain on any other grounds.”

Life Before Life explores the various features of this world-wide phenomenon, describing numerous cases along the way. We meet a boy in Michigan who, after being born with three birthmarks that matched wounds on his deceased brother, begins talking about events from the brother’s life; a boy in Turkey who gives a number of accurate details, including the name, of a man who lived 500 miles away and died fifty years before the boy was born; and a girl in Sri Lanka who is able to recognize the family members of a deceased stranger as they are presented to her one by one, giving specifics about their lives that she could not have known from their appearance.

Dr. Tucker presents this material in a straightforward way, relating extraordinary stories that have been amassed with a scientific approach. He then considers how best to interpret the evidence, and he lets readers reach their own conclusions—which, for many, will be profound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswerable_questions

The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2[11]) also mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self.[12]

What am I?
How am I?
Am I?
Am I not?
Did I exist in the past?
Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past?
How was I in the past?
Having been what, did I become what in the past?
Shall I exist in future?
Shall I not exist in future?
What shall I be in future?
How shall I be in future?
Having been what, shall I become what in future?
Whence came this person?
Whither will he go?

The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self. Any view which sees the self as "permanent, stable, everlasting, unchanging, remaining the same for ever and ever" is "becoming enmeshed in views, a jungle of views, a wilderness of views; scuffling in views, the agitation (struggle) of views, the fetter of views."

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:[8]

The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma (Karma in Sanskrit);
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about (SN 56.41 develops this speculation as the ten indeterminate).

Pondering over the four acinteyya is a hindrance to the attainment of liberation. Sacca-samyutta, "The Four Noble Truths", Samyutta Nikaya 56:[web 4]

Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna, etc.[13]

And the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, "Discourse to Vatsagotra on the [Simile of] Fire," Majjhima Nikaya 72:

Vaccha, [any of these views] is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.[web 3]

The Buddha further warns that

Whoever speculates about these things would go mad & experience vexation.

>>22763035
>I want to actually understand reality
Why?

>>22763446
i dont know if you are trying to say that im butthurt because buddhism diminishes some topic i hold dear.
dont know exactly what to say about that. specially when your whole response can be seen as the same exact thing about being butthurt because what i say diminishes your beloved buddhism. its a cheap argument anyway.
>It turns out suffering is a big topic and it overlaps with a few other big questions.
what other questions?.

The value of the path is self-evident. It feels sort of like being a drug addict and realizing that your attempts to increase pleasure only increase misery and angst. So you decide to deal with it. Even though it's hard to give up the drugs, one increasingly sees that they don't bring pleasure. So one begins to cultivate a more sane approach to life -- to cultivate simply relating to experience properly -- not constantly looking to get something more or looking to avoid displeasure

>>22760513
>>22760891
I think the point is more that even the highest highs are unsatisfactory, and at some point you'll wonder if there's something else.
I agree though I'm not cut out for Theravada austerity

The Buddha gave the simile of the leper in one of his discourses. In this, he describes a leper severely afflicted by sores and living in constant discomfort. The only time he gets some relief is when he scratches his itches and especially when he basically roasts his sores over fire.
One day someone gives him a cure. He takes it and is fully rid of leprosy. For this person, the pleasure and joy in roasting his sores over fire is now permanently gone. Yet the healthy existence he leads is incomparably superior, pleasant, happy etc. compared to his leprous state.

The Buddha describes samsara as the leprous state, even when it feels like it's not so bad. It's a state where your happiness is bound to factors beyond your control and which will end up going away. The end of samsara is true happiness, not dependent on anything. It's a state of sovereignty and freedom rather than one of bondage where you're sometimes given the stick and sometimes the carrot.

Ontologically, what happens to liberated beings after death is not a question that has exactly been answered. One thing is clear, however, and it is that it's not "just nothing" (if you're familiar with the concepts of anātman and emptiness, it should be a bit clear why). This is something to be experienced for oneself, as the teachings say; it isn't something we can conceive of, just as how the fish, who has known nothing but water, cannot conceive of walking on land by taking watery existence as the frame of reference.

Within the six realms, there are three lower realms. Not all animal births are the worst, but most are not very good, and being a ghost or a hell dweller is really terrible. Unless one has made a very strong connection with the Dharma, entered its stream, it is guaranteed that we will be born into such stations and circulate among them for a long time. Even the human realm, which isn't part of the lower realms, can accommodate hellish experiences. Most of us are lucky this time, but there are certain events going on right now, which should tell you that this luck and comfort are not guaranteed or unshakable.

So, quite pragmatically, we first want to escape the parts of the fiercely wavy sea that is full of sharks, razor-sharp rocks and so on. Then we want to get out of the wavy sea altogether because it's really not that great. We can rest a bit, at least. If we master the way to deal with all these hazards and not be controlled by the waves and currents, then we could also get back in to help others who are stuck as we were and don't understand what they should do.

>>22763574
Although I understand the urgency of our predicament I really much prefer the Vajrayana way of explaining reality and Samsara, just resonates with me much more

>>22762989
>things like "reincarnation is real but it's optional" as opposed to the compulsion of Buddhism.
you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about, for starters buddhists don't believe in reincarnation in the sense of the formal transmigration of an eternal individuated soul from body to body, and secondly, even if they did, it would indeed be "optional" given that we have an opportunity to stop the cycle of birth and death according to Buddhism... take fewer drugs and attempt to do more reading, wikipedia does not count

>>22763701
How is Buddha nature, Dharmakaya and other concepts not a soul? Buddhism is just autistically apophatic

>>22763705
both of those reflect brahmin influences on the presentation of buddhism but the core is unchanged

>>22763711
Anatta means not self, not no self
The point of Buddhism is realizing that nothing you can observe is your self. Not that there is no self

>>22763579
>Vajrayana way of explaining reality and Samsara
How do you think Vajrayana explains samsara?

>>22763705
Buddha nature is just the emptiness of the mind

>>22763749
I like Longchenpa. The treasury is the best explanation of nondualism I've come across

>>22763732
ok brahmin

>>22763762
Fresh zoomer "converts" are tiresome.

>>22763766
what is even the point of an atmavadin buddhism? you don't like the vedas but want to do vedanta anyway? you want to distance yourself from the other guenonists? is the chariot real too, specifically because it can't be found in experience? show me where buddha taught platonic forms>>22763766

>>22763796
Why are you strawmanning everything I said? My only statement was that not self is not equivalent to no self. Nothing more
Stop the conceptual proliferation

>>22763803
>Stop the conceptual proliferation
you first atmavadin, or are you going out to the gandharva city tonight too?

>>22763825
You're being disingenuous and arguing for the sake of having the last word instead of actual discussion so this is useless. Have a good one

>>22763866
>when buddha said there was no atman he meant there really was an atman because i like theosophy/perennialism/guenonism
>also the bible doesn't actually say odin and thor aren't real so you can be a christian and worship them
>the shahada doesn't restrict you from praying to visnu and shiva as long as you pick one or the other
any other hot takes you'd like to offer?

>>22763758
If you haven't received direct introduction and the upadesha instructions from a Dzogchen teacher, I guarantee you are misunderstanding Longchenpa

>>22763732
The Buddha never denied a conventional self, but it is a mere imputation upon the five aggregates

>>22764153
No, it's fairly straightforward

>>22764171
I'm not talking about a conventional self, nor about the skandhas. But when this starts to make sense through direct experience, language breaks down, so we might as well say that there is no such thing as a "self", in a way. But there isn't such a thing as an absence of self, either

>>22763732
There's no absolute unchanging self(the buddha explicitly denied it), but a relative self interdependent with everything else

>>22764451
The language is straightforward, but it is very profound and means nothing without direct experience. What do you think the Basis/Ground is?

>>22764655
I had an experience of the ground at some point, when I tried to talk about it it was always wrongly interpreted. It's too difficult to explain.

>>22764487
>(the buddha explicitly denied it)

The Buddhist term Anatman, or Anatta is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).

Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman), such as passage (SN 1.169).

Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane, consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism. The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/nonattha+atta’Soul), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if there “was no- soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada).

http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

>>22764846
What about in Mahayana sutras?

>>22764874
There is a million different interpretations of it in Mahayana/Vajrayana, some schools adopt an explicitly "no soul or no self or no one's 'true being' exists" model and others don't. Some posit the Absolute or the One Buddha Mind to already be identical with one's own being or one's own mind or one's luminous awareness but they just don't call it a 'self'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

>>22765001
>no soul or no self or no one's 'true being' exists
Shentong?

>>22764846
>Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates).
that doesn't mean there is a permanent soul outside of the experience of reality, unless you are doing orthodox brahmin theology, and many of those people did not then nor do they now approve of Buddhism, so what makes your sola scriptura grammatical analysis more accurate than both the Buddhist version of Buddhism and the Hindu criticism of Buddhism?

https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/NobleStrategy/Section0014.html

No-self or Not-self?

So, instead of answering “no” to the question of whether or not there is a self—interconnected or separate, eternal or not—the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between “self” and “other,”
>the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress.
This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no “other,” as it does for a separate self: If you identify with all of nature, you’re pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely “other” universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness—your own or that of others—impossible. For these reasons,
>the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as “Do I exist?” or “Don’t I exist?” for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of “self” and “other,” he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four noble truths of stress(dukkha), its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. These truths aren’t assertions; they’re categories of experience. Rather than viewing these categories as pertaining to self or other, he said, we should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they’re directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed.

These duties form the context in which the anattā doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the noble truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not “Is there a self? What is my self?” but rather
>“Does holding onto this particular phenomenon cause stress and suffering?
Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it’s stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?” These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging—the residual sense of self-identification—that cause stress, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that’s left is limitless freedom.

In this sense,
>the anattā teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness.
At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there’s the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what’s experiencing it, or about whether or not it’s a self?

>>22765001
>>22765018
for the tibetan doxographers this is a question of expedient vs definitive teachings, if you consider the tathagatagarbha literature definitive rather than expedient you are shentong and if you consider them expedient rather than definitive you are rangtong; there is also some muddling that has happened in the transfer from India to Tibet since (1) as far as we can tell there was no actual Tathagatagarbha school in India the way Yogacara and Madhyamaka were done, just a collection of texts in circulation, and (2) shentong Tibetans also consider a bunch of Yogacara works to be definitive, e.g. Dolpopa, who calls his system Great Madhyamaka
for background see Brunnholzl, C. Stearns, S. King, the introductions to the Padmakara Translation Group editions of Mipham's commentary on Shantaraksita

>>22764846
1 this bizarre text is confusing the anatta doctrine (no self) with the anicca doctrine (no substance of phenomena)
2even if i follow this logic the only way for an atman to exist is if there's "another world" outside of phenomena, wich the buddha also refutes
3the buddha explicitly call any doctrine that sells you an eternal unchanging self a" foolish teaching" so this text is worki g undrr misguided assumption (i assume perennialist vedantic assumptions) and never provides any kind of proff to back these claims

>>22765586
For reference:
But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: “Not actually found” renders saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne.‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”

“How could it not, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”

MN:22

>>22765143
This is similar to the strategy articulated by Nagarjuna, the rejection of the self as a category, since even by denying it you still maintaning the category in your mind creating stress, the idea is not that the self doesn't exist but that "it doesn't need to exist" is not a negation of the self but the realusation that such cayegory is not usefull at all

>>22765662
Nagarjuna's point is that any idea of inherent existence makes no logical sense

>>22765721
Yes and you can apply it to the category of a soul

>>22765586
Nta but people who argue for Self don't think it's outside phenomena, if I understand correctly an advaita vedantist would say there is only brahman.

Couldn't it be that two sages coming upon the truth of the "self" could describe the same realization using opposite terminology?

Couldnt the same experience of "no self" also be construed by a different person as the experience of an unchanging ultimate "self".

In the same way that a space of absolute darkness could be referred to as being devoid of light OR as having the property of never changing light (never changing cause there is none). In both cases the "space" is the same but it can be described either in the positive or the negative.

I know the metaphor is complicated because buddhist would take issue with the very claim of a "space" but I think it's worth seeing past that point.

Like maybe anatman is saying "there is no self" and atman is saying "the thing you refer to as self is illusory and the true self has the properties of eternal unchangingness". Imagining something with total unchagingness might be the same as imagining something that doesn't exist.

I'm not a expert and I'm not trying argue it just seems like with these extremely subtle ideas that two people might use opposing terminology to describe what is ultimately the same.

>>22765983
Yes, they are the same imo. If you logically arrive to a fundamental reality you realize how paradoxical it is, and I think people who have direct experience of it say the same thing. Here's the conclusion that I'm usually led to, the "ground" of reality so to speak has to necessarily be timeless, spaceless, etc., in other words it can't be a "thing", if it really isn't a "thing" then it can't be a "ground"either. So if there is a fundamental reality, it has to be no-thing, I could just as well say the ground of reality is no ground. Take another example, non-duality is also a duality, so if we say non duality is ultimate reality we can just as well say there is only duality. My point being is that when you arrive to a fundamental reality metaphysically, through logic, it becomes paradoxical. Logic breaks down and refutes itself on the fundamental level.

>>22765847
Phenomena is ever changing, if the self is part of phenomena (buddhism don't deny a phenomenological self) then this self can't be eternal, unchanging and partless, so is not an atman

I was meditating and reading a lot of buddhist stuff for a while and I had an experience that I know it wasn't enlightenment, but I'm wondering if it is one of those ones that is cataloged in buddhism or if it was just a some kind of dissociation?

When it happened I suddenly had an overwhelming sensation that I was just "happening" and the only reason I felt like "me" was because there was a "me" feeling happening along with the other things happening. But the "me" feeling wasn't any more special or different than the rest of the feelings happening in tandem with it. I felt like the wind blowing in the trees and the other people doing things were also just happening and there was no separation between "my" happening and theirs. For like 2 minutes I had no sense of separation from them and then it passed when I started feeling scared that I was losing myself.

After that day even though the feeling of it passed I feel like I know what is meant by "one hand clapping". The phenomenon happen, but like the one hand they don't "hit" any "self", they just happen. They don't make a noise.

I don't have any history of dissociation episodes and that experience was very powerful.

Anyway not trynna make this a blog post I'm just wondering if that is a known experience that happens at a certain point of meditation?

>>22766627
maybe mindfulness, before the jhanas

you can check if it was the jhanas by comparing the experience with the jhana factors
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch3

>>22763475
>Wrong about what? What do think is right?
Doctrines are Maya man. Except when they're not. Perceiving doctrines is perceiving what is maya and what is not maya, like all things. Doctrines are an object of the world of senses. The nature of the world of senses is: illusion?

D'ya get it? Its like the Marxist argument about ideology versus praxis: Marxism itself is bourgeois ideology according to Marxism.

>>22765983
>Couldn't it be that two sages coming upon the truth of the "self" could describe the same realization using opposite terminology?
That's mahayna and hinduism from their dogmas that teachings are customized.
In buddhism and maybe jainism, there isnt any customization of the teaching, or rather the path. The teaching can be adapted to a foreign audience. For instance the buddha may not speak the same way to brahmins , to jains and to random lay people. However all gloves are off when the buddha just speaks to his followers, ie the monks.

>>22764874
>>What about in Mahayana sutras?
Mahayana isn't taught by the buddha so they have no insight into anatta

Read Buddhadasa for Pete's sakes

>>22765586
>2even if i follow this logic the only way for an atman to exist is if there's "another world" outside of phenomena, wich the buddha also refutes
Where?

>>22766048
That's why you have to rely on direct introduction from a teacher to understand these things. Dzogchen is not based on reasoning, it's based on direct experience.

>>22767076
What do you think emptiness is?

>>22767501

The Buddha uses the word '' empty" of a self, ie anatta, way more frequently than ''emptiness''. If emptiness was the jewel of Buddhism, the frequencies would have been the opposite.

The jewel of his teaching is not emptiness applied to the universe, but anatta applied to the senses.

>>22767510
Ok hyperprotestant

>>22767510
>sabbe dhammā anattā
Sure sounds like he meant anattā about the universe. Now I see why people think Theravāda is protestant, when people like you try to read Hume into the scriptures

>>22767510
Emptiness isn't about some noumenal universe that exists apart from our sensory experience. It isn't some abstract ontology, it directly applies to our experience of reality.

>>22767958
>>22767644
>>22767535
yep the buddha never used the word emptiness as in mahayana and the buddha never said his teaching is about the universe. he said his teaching is about the world of senses


I love how you hate your dogmas are destroyed by simple suttas

>>22766627
>if that is a known experience that happens at a certain point of meditation?

Yes.

Check out this book for stories of progress down the path.

https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/emptiness-in-theravada-buddhism

Q: In the Mahayana schools, such as Zen, emptiness, or the realization of emptiness seems to be an important part of the path, less so in the Theravada tradition, am I mistaken? And having trained in both traditions how do you reconcile the two?

Gil’s response:

>Emptiness is as important in the Theravada tradition as it is in the Mahayana.
From the earliest times,
>Theravada Buddhism has viewed emptiness as one of the important doors to liberation.
Two key Theravada sutras are devoted to emptiness: the Greater Discourse on Emptiness and the Lesser Discourse on Emptiness.

When I was practicing in Burma, I gave a copy of the Heart Sutra to my Theravada meditation teacher. Ignoring the opening and closing, he was happy with the emptiness teaching in the core of the text. He gave a profound dharma talk on the Heart Sutra, saying that this insight is what Vipassana practice aims at.

Over the centuries, emptiness came to have a range of meanings within Buddhism. The greatest change in meaning was in the Mahayana tradition where some quite diverse teachings on emptiness emerged. Even so, the great Indian philosophers of the Mahayana wrote that the standard understanding of emptiness within the Mahayana and within the earlier Buddhist traditions is the same. It is not emptiness which differentiates these traditions.

Though emptiness is important in the Theravada tradition, it is usually not taught as often as in the Mahayana. This might lead some to assume it is absent in the Theravada.
>One reason it is not taught as often is that emptiness is seen as a liberating insight rather then a philosophical view one needs to understand intellectually.
Theravada’s gradual approach to awakening, includes extensive teachings on the functioning of the mind and the foundational practices that allow for the deep penetrative insight into emptiness. Emptiness is sometimes not taught until the student is ready for it.

>Another reason Theravada contains fewer teachings on emptiness is that this is not always labeled “emptiness.”
For example, Theravada will teach that all things are insubstantial and without essence without calling this an emptiness teaching, even though it is. The frequency with which the Mahayana talks about emptiness is probably matched by the frequency with which the Theravada teaches impermanence and not-self; in practice, both traditions are often pointing to the same thing in these teachings.

>A final reason may be that the goal of Theravada practice is not emptiness. The goal is liberation.
Emptiness is a means to liberation. While liberation comes with a deep understanding of emptiness, emptiness is secondary to Awakening.

>>22767510
The buddha explicitly said that all dhammas are empty of a self, that clearly goes beyond only the senses

https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/wiki/emptiness-crash-course
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ShapeOfSuffering/Contents.html
https://dharmaseed.org/retreats/1044/

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html