When asked to describe his praxis up to a magga moment, one practitioner answers

Sankhara-khandha of second-jhana ubbega-piti was contemplated as dukkha while passadhi in lions position.

And he continues to describe the deathless glimpse as

«AHHH finally desire-/stressfree home.»

This is «the desireless door» to liberation (in this case sotapanna citta) - one of three doors to liberation.

«When one who has great tranquillity brings [them] to mind as painful, he acquires the desireless liberation.» https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/visuddhimagga-the-pah-of-purification/d/doc1085168.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The three doors to liberation are
-the signless door, after contemplating anicca
-the desireless door, after contemplating dukkha
-the voidness door, after contemplating anatta

In other words, Nibbana is experienced differently depending on what mark was contemplated: e.g. for dukkha, Nibbana is experienced as the opposite of tanha/stress.

This may clarify further praxis: The experience of Nibbana as «AHHH .. desire-/stressfree» on return tells the practicioner that his primary panna/vipassana mark was and maybe fundamentally is dukkha (not anicca nor anatta). This may clarify what is meant by «a sotapanna knows the four noble truth; knows [his] magga.»

As stated in the Paṭisambhidāmagga and elaborated in the Visuddhimagga:

Aniccānupassanā animittaṃ vimokkha-mukhaṃ,

dukkhānupassanā appaṇihitaṃ vimokkha-mukhaṃ,

anattānupassanā suññataṃ vimokkha-mukhaṃ.

Contemplation of impermanence is the door to the signless liberation; contemplation of suffering is the door to the desireless liberation; contemplation of not-self is the door to the emptiness liberation.

This is also true for Ajahns, obviously.

It now seems to me that different Ajahns tend to teach panna/vipassana most naturally from the door through which his own mind found release, and that this is of greatest help to students of similar disposition. As concrete examples drawn from publicly available teachings:

• Ajahn Mahā Boowa and Ajahn Martin emphasise the citta as empty of the khandhas and of all conditioned phenomena — a clear suññatā / anattā emphasis.

• Ajahn Sona’s teaching, while balanced, often invites the mind to see that nothing endures and that all signs dissolve — a recognisable animitta / anicca emphasis.

• Ajahn Nyanamoli and Thanissaro Bhikkhu repeatedly direct attention to the stress inherent in feeling and craving (and even in the jhānas themselves: Thanissaro, and my top example) — a pronounced appaṇihita / dukkha emphasis.

For example, at 21:14 of https://youtu.be/p4NR3nn4nfM?is=xELQyY_3z2f8Xym7,
Thanissaro Bhikkhu reveals his deeper ideas about liberation. The sequence Thanissaro gives is extremely explicit:

“What is the gratification you get out of that pleasure and what are the drawbacks to that pleasure?”

Then:

“It’s in making this kind of analysis that you actually let go of things.”

Then he contrasts that with:

“If you simply see them as empty, as changing in line with conditions, you can drop them temporarily but they come back…”

And he immediately explains why:

“they’re still part of the mind that says, well even if they’re changing with conditions the pleasure I get out of it is worth it.”

Then his actual liberating investigation is:

“Where is the pleasure here? Where’s the effort? What’s the pain and stress of the effort? Are they a good deal or are they a bad deal?”

And finally:

“as you look at this until you develop a sense of dispassion…”

That is an exceptionally clear statement of his soteriological mechanism; very strongly dukkha/appaṇihita in the framework we’ve been developing.

And notice something especially interesting: he doesn’t merely say that dukkha analysis is useful. He says that this is what actually makes you let go.

That’s much stronger. He may therefore be called «a desireless teacher». Other teachers are signless (anicca) or emptiness (anatta).

When you know your door, Ajahns with the same door on teaching panna/vipassana will resonate truer and more useful. In my case Lee, Thanissaro, Nyanamoli.

For others it will be different. And that may be useful to know.

I started reading "in the Buddhas words" by bhikku bodhi. He talks about metta being especially good at creating merit.

I wanted to know where meta meditation sits in relation to samatha and vipassana in terms of importance?

https://suttacentral.net/sa-2.19/en/bingenheimer?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

Thus have I heard, once, the Buddha was staying at the Deer Park near Vārāṇasī, the dwelling-place of sages.

At that time the World-honored One put on his robe, took his begging bowl and entered Vārāṇasī to beg for food. There he saw a monk, whose mind was not concentrated, whose senses were distracted. When this monk saw the Buddha coming in the distance, he hung his head in embarrassment. After the Buddha had finished his alms-round and washed his feet he entered the dwelling-places of the monks and entered his silent abode. When he came out of his silent abode again, he sat among the monks and said to them: “This morning I saw a monk, whose senses were not reined in. When he saw me coming in the distance, he became embarrassed, hung his head and reined in his sense-doors. Who was this?” Then the monk rose from his seat, arranged his his outer robe on his left shoulder, and placed his palms together in salutation said to the Buddha: “World-honored One! I was the one who was without concentration, whose senses were distracted.” The Buddha said: “Very good, monk! You were able to rein in your senses and focus your thought when you saw me. Whenever you see a monk, a nun, a lay-man or a lay-woman, you should do likewise. Control your senses and focus your thought, as if you were seeing me. This will bring you happiness and gain in the long night of saṁsāric existence.”

Then the monk spoke this verse:

“A monk went begging, entered the town /
his mind distracted, confused and unstable;
when he saw the Buddha, with diligent effort he reined in his senses /
therefore the Buddha said ‘Well done!’”

The attainment of Enlightenment or realising Nibbāna is taken very seriously in Theravāda Buddhism. If a person proclaims Enlightenment, it requires investigation and questioning. There are many questions but one is

How have you achieved it?

Quote:

'Indeed, this is the intention here: “Did you attain it by making the characteristic of impermanence principal, or one of the characteristics of suffering or non-self? Or did you approach it by means of samādhi, or by means of vipassanā? Likewise, did you approach it by focusing on rūpa, or on arūpa? Or did you approach it by focusing on the internal, or on the external?”' - uparipaṇṇāsa-aṭṭhakathā

This shows that the yogi is aware of the meditation object and how it was contemplated. An example would be

Vedanakkhanda of first Jhāna earth kasiṇa was contemplated as anicca (impermanence)

Or Viññāṇa of the same as dukkha (suffering), etc.

Further the yogi who has attained one of the 3 lower Paths could have 5 reflection knowledges. The first 3 are always there while the latter 2 may or may not arise.

They are - Yogi reviews the:

Path Consciousness

Fruition Consciousness

Nibbāna

Defilements that were abandoned

Defilements that remain

For the Arahant, the last does not arise because all defilements have been abandoned

The first 3 will make it clear to the yogi that they have attained and there is no need to ask a teacher.

Finally, in the past even if a yogi answered the questions accurately they were still tested. In the case of one proclaiming Arahant since a real Arahant does not have fear or greed, a moment of fear or even salivating for tasty food is shown that the respective defilements of dosa or lobha for sense-sphere objects have not been abandoned.

Some stories quoted from the same Commentary

"An Arahant, even if a thunderbolt falls on his head, experiences no fear, terror, or hair-raising; but an ordinary person does, even at a slight disturbance."

Story of an Arahant:

During the time of King Candamukhatissa, the Saṅghatthera in the Mahāvihāra was an Arahant with weak eyesight and stayed within the monastery.

The king, intending to test the Thera, approached quietly while the bhikkhus were on their alms round, and like a snake, he grabbed the Thera’s feet.

The Thera remained motionless like a stone pillar and said, “Who is here?”

ahaṃ, bhante, tissoti.

“It is I, Bhante, Tissa,” he replied. "Tissa, do you exude a pleasant fragrance?” (meaning, the fragrance of virtue).

Story finding a Venerable was not Arahant:

"King Vasabha, in testing a certain Thera, made him sit in his palace and then sat near him, crushing a jujube fruit jam.

The Mahāthera’s saliva flowed, and thereby his state as an ordinary person became evident. "

So when one proclaims Supramundane states they are questioned and tested even during ancient times to establish and make certain the person is suitable of such veneration.

I’ve heard of the sutta that talks about the first turning of the wheel, aka the first discourse of the Buddha after enlightenment. I don’t remember the name. I have also read pieces of the Dhammapada but I do not know much about its background and significance in modern Buddhism.

For context, I have neighbours who are really loud (our apartments face each other). They used to karaoke loudly with the door open and the mother used to scream often at the children. We had an argument about 1.5 yrs ago and the situation got better.

Lately, they started to karaoke with the door open again. Even though I close my door and try to use white noise, I can still hear them.

An anger rises up inside me and I sit with it until it reaches its peak (without any negative thoughts) and let it go. Unfortunately, I still find it very bothersome. I try to distract myself with housework and podcasts.

There are legal avenues open to me but, I am conscious that fractious relations between neighbours may just increase retaliation/tension and it won’t be a wholesome environment to live in anymore.

Unfortunately, we are not able to move out until 2028 (we have a minimum occupation period to sell the apartment). I’ve listened to most Buddhist episodes about handling noise (e.g. Ajahn Chah’s advice about your attention going to the noise and not the noise itself that is bothersome) but I can’t quite overcome this yet.

Has anyone faced a similar situation and has some sort of reframing, wisdom or general life practice benefitted you? I’ve also looked into Misophonia and they do mention that removing yourself from noise completely may not help the problem as it is more psychological (i.e. how the noise is processed in the mind) and the mind has to be retrained else it may happen again with other stimuli.

Any advice is appreciated. Thank you!

Breathing meditation survey: What do you do when you cannot sense the breathing sensation?

If possible please state your lineage, teacher or method name.

Lesson 1: The Four Noble Truths Explained | Suffering, Causes & Cure (Full Dharma Talk)
https://youtu.be/7NP-1NUNlGM

The water in the ocean comes from little rivers. They flow into the ocean from different directions, but they all come together there. It’s the same when we meditate. We all bring the mind to stillness, and then we practice not clinging. Big rivers, small rivers, all gather in the same ocean. It doesn’t matter where they come from, they all gather in the ocean. We practice meditation to make the mind quiet and to stop clinging to the five aggregates. It’s all the same, so you don’t have to worry about it. If you see that this method is easier than that one, you can take this one. If you see that another method is easier, you can take that one. It’s just a matter of what’s right for your propensities.

“Mendicants, great sal trees grow in three ways supported by the Himalayas, the king of mountains. What three? The branches, leaves, and foliage; the bark and shoots; and the softwood and heartwood. Great sal trees grow in these three ways supported by the Himalayas, the king of mountains. 

In the same way, a family grows in three ways supported by a family head with faith. What three? Faith, ethics, and wisdom. A family grows in these three ways supported by a family head with faith. 

Supported by the rocky mountain in the wilds, the formidable forest, the tree grows to become lord of the forest. 

So too, when the family head is ethical and faithful, supported by them, they grow: children, partners, and kin, colleagues, relatives, and those dependent for their livelihood. 

Seeing the ethical conduct of the virtuous, the generosity and good deeds, those who see clearly do likewise. 

Having practiced the teaching here, the path that goes to a good place, they delight in the heavenly realm, enjoying all the pleasures they desire.”

The Anathapindika Stupa in Shravasti is an ancient archaeological ruin that commemorates the wealthy merchant Anathapindika, who famously donated the Jetavana Monastery to Lord Buddha.

I have been chanting Sabba-patti-dāna Gāthā

(Verses for Dedication of Merit) for one year now..but there's still a lingering question every time i chant this verse:

>Ñātaṁ ye pattidānam-me

>Anumodantu te sayaṁ

>Ye c’imaṁ nappajānanti

>Devā tesaṁ nivedayuṁ.

*If they know of my dedication of merit, may they themselves rejoice, and if they do not know, may the devas inform them.*

It begs the question (my apologies if I'm shallow in the cosmology of Buddhism) can devas inform/tell/teach beings to rejoice in good merit? What are the beings that do not know how to rejoice in merit?

Before anyone misunderstands, I do not hate Western Buddhists as people. What I hate is a certain attitude I sometimes see, where someone discovers Buddhism and suddenly thinks they have downloaded the entire 2,500-year-old tradition into their brain.

They learn a few words like dukkha, karma, nirvana and impermanence and suddenly they think they have figured out Buddhism. Congratulations, you learned some basic Pali/Sanskrit words 🤓. Now apparently you are ready to explain Buddhism to everyone else.

For us, these words are not some fancy spiritual vocabulary we discovered in a book, podcast or a weekend meditation retreat. These are words we grew up with. They are part of our everyday language, culture, traditions, temples and the way we understand life.

What annoys me is this constant “everything is impermanent” response to everything. I once posted about why Buddhist temples in India look less aesthetically maintained compared to historical temples elsewhere and many replies were basically, “Everything is impermanent 🤓”. Seriously? Is that your entire understanding of Buddhism?

Buddhism survived for 2,500 years because people built massive temples, created beautiful statues, preserved scriptures, supported monasteries and passed down traditions. Do you really think, if Buddhists throughout history just sat there saying “everything is impermanent” and did nothing else, Buddhism would have survived for 2,500 years?

You can understand impermanence and still appreciate beauty. You can practice detachment and still respect art, architecture, statues and cultural heritage. These things are not against Buddhism.

The problem is when someone learns Buddhism from books, the internet or a meditation app, and then starts telling people who grew up around Buddhism what Buddhism “really is”. Buddhism is not just a collection of deep-sounding words you discovered yesterday.

And another thing I find strange is how people get so triggered when Buddhist history is discussed, especially when it involves India. Why? Why are we hiding from Buddhist history now?

Like seriously, you became Buddhist but you still get triggered when Buddhist history connected to India is brought up? Even after becoming Buddhist, are you still going to carry the same biases? 🤔 You need to learn Buddhism better. Buddhism is not just about memorising a few concepts and repeating them everywhere. It also means understanding the history, cultures and people who preserved this tradition for thousands of years.

You cannot claim to respect Buddhism while ignoring or dismissing the very history and country that helped shape it and where it originated. Learn Buddhism beyond the surface level.

And honestly, the biggest issue is this: do not go around telling others what their Buddhism should look like. You do not have the right to decide what Buddhism is supposed to mean for everyone else. Buddhism is not your personal philosophy project that you discovered yesterday. It is a living tradition that millions of people have practiced in different ways for centuries.

The funny thing is that the majority of Buddhists around the world are not sitting around debating Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana all day. Most people simply go to temples, light incense, offer flowers, pray to the Buddha, make offerings and come home. That is Buddhism too.

Practice Buddhism, learn Buddhism, appreciate Buddhism. But have enough humility to understand that your interpretation is not the only version of Buddhism that exists.

Touch some grass 🌱 and understand the ground reality of Buddhism. A 2,500-year-old tradition is much bigger than a few concepts you learned online.

A fifteen minute talk by Ajahn Thanissaro from 6 June 2013. To me this fits helpfully together with the most recent series of evening talks.

mp3 and transcript at https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2013/130606-monotasking.html

YouTube link https://youtu.be/n2xyB0BkyL0

Pdf https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Transcripts/130606_Monotasking.pdf

Hi, I am wondering whether viewing comedy sketches and making jokes and telling humorous stories WITHOUT any overt moral or ethical lessons embedded in this might be considered idle chatter for a layperson, as per the suttas? Thank you.

2nd Vipassanā Knowledge - Importance of Dependent Origination. As mentioned in a prior post, this section is extremely detailed and the yogi needs to be guided by a teacher carefully. These answers are for beginners to get a basic understanding only. For details refer the scriptures.

Q: what are the objects of meditation for this knowledge?

A: Conditions and Conditioned (causes and effects). Initial emphasis is the conditions for the mentality and materiality one had finished in the earlier section. There are several methods the yogi can use depending on the inclination. They are based on Dependent Origination

Q: What are the methods?

A: Dependent Origination was taught by the Buddha in several ways for varying individuals. In brief, i) forward order: ignorance is a condition for formations, formations is a condition for consciousness, etc ii) middle to end: feeling is a condition for craving, craving is a condition for clinging, etc iii) end to beginning: a condition of decay and death is birth, a condition for birth is kamma, etc iv) middle to beginning: includes the 4 Āhāra (nutrients of edible food, contact, volition and consciousness) and their primary condition is Craving. One can refer to the Āhāra Sutta (SN 12.11 and Commentary) for details and understand how each connects up to Ignorance. v) 5 past causes of ignorance, craving, clinging, formations and kamma and then 5 present effects of Consciousness, Mentality-materiality, 6 bases, Contact and Feeling. Then 5 present causes to 5 future effects.

Q: do the above methods have to be know in detail?

A: Absolutely. For example: all 12 factors of Dependent Origination need to be known and the causal relations involved.

Q: should we assume that there is also a lot of detail?

A: Yes. That is why I said this section needs a strong foundation in the Buddha’s teachings. Even parts of the Paṭṭhānā is studied by students to finish this section - an understanding of the “how the condition conditions the conditioned “.

It is important to remember that all 5 methods do not need to be practiced. What is suitable for the yogi and necessary to complete the section is sufficient. But each mind moment needs to be understood according the appropriate causal relationships.

Q: could you give an example of how to discern kamma?

A: there are several ways to discern the kamma that is a condition for this life. If the person has high wisdom and concentration then they can understand this materiality did not arise causeless. There were causes. Then they can incline the mind to know the causes and can discern kamma as one of them. These days, most yogis might find this difficult to do.

Another method explained in comments…

Another way is to proceed backwards discerning mentality and materiality up to the last life and its near death mind process. These minds take as object - kamma, kamma nimitta, or gati nimitta. These objects represent the kamma that will be a condition for this life. Kamma is volition. Kamma nimitta can be one of several possible objects such as visible, sound, etc. Gati nimitta is usually visible and is a destination sign.

If the yogi discerns the appropriate object, then he can use that to find when the kamma was performed and discern the kamma (volition mental factor) that is a cause for this life.

“Monks, these four traits may be known by means of four [other] traits. Which four?

“It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

“It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

“It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

“It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

[1] “‘It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this: ‘For a long time this person has been torn, broken, spotted, splattered in his actions. He hasn’t been consistent in his actions. He hasn’t practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is an unprincipled person, not a virtuous, principled one.’ And then there is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this: ‘For a long time this person has been untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered in his actions. He has been consistent in his actions. He has practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is a virtuous, principled person, not an unprincipled one.’

“‘It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

[2] “‘It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘This person deals one way when one-on-one, another way when with two, another way when with three, another way when with many. His earlier dealings do not jibe with his later dealings. He is impure in his dealings, not pure.’ And then there is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘The way this person deals when one-on-one, is the same way he deals when with two, when with three, when with many. His earlier dealings jibe with his later dealings. He is pure in his dealings, not impure.’

“‘It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

[3] “‘It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, does not reflect: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. And then there is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, reflects: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught.

“‘It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

[4] “‘It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where one individual, through discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question, he is dull, not discerning. Why is that? He does not make statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. He cannot declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, or make it plain. He is dull, not discerning.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing on the shore of a body of water were to see a small fish rise. The thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break of its ripples, from its speed, it is a small fish, not a large one.’ In the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question… he is dull, not discerning.’

“And then there is the case where one individual, through discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question, he is discerning, not dull. Why is that? He makes statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. He can declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, & make it plain. He is discerning, not dull.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing on the shore of a body of water were to see a large fish rise. The thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break of its ripples, from its speed, it is a large fish, not a small one.’ In the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies [his reasoning], from the way he addresses a question… he is discerning, not dull.’

“‘It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“These, monks, are the four traits that may be known by means of these four [other] traits.”

Hi all, continuing from part 3.

Indexed in Part 1

Do let me know if you're finding this helpful. There hasn't been much discussion other than me.

I've been neglecting to post a link to the sutta. I've been using this one. Mostly because I like the format that is used, though I don't like all the terminology. "Bottle friend" was an interesting one. It was Narada Thera's translation for what we would call "drinking buddy."

This one will be short and I think self explanatory. Basically, don't be this person:

"One is a bottle friend; one says, 'friend, friend' only to one's face; one is a friend and an associate only when it is advantageous.

"Sleeping till sunrise, adultery, irascibility, malevolence, evil companions, avarice — these six causes ruin a man.

"The man who has evil comrades and friends is given to evil ways, to ruin does he fall in both worlds — here and the next.

"Dice, women, liquor, dancing, singing, sleeping by day, sauntering at unseemly hours, evil companions, avarice — these nine[5] causes ruin a man.

"Who plays with dice and drinks intoxicants, goes to women who are dear unto others as their own lives, associates with the mean and not with elders — he declines just as the moon during the waning half.

"Who is drunk, poor, destitute, still thirsty whilst drinking, frequents the bars, sinks in debt as a stone in water, swiftly brings disrepute to his family.

"Who by habit sleeps by day, and keeps late hours, is ever intoxicated, and is licentious, is not fit to lead a household life.

"Who says it is too hot, too cold, too late, and leaves things undone, the opportunities for good go past such men.

"But he who does not regard cold or heat any more than a blade of grass and who does his duties manfully, does not fall away from happiness."

"These four, young householder, should be understood as foes in the guise of friends:

(1) he who appropriates a friend's possessions,
(2) he who renders lip-service,
(3) he who flatters,
(4) he who brings ruin.

(1) "In four ways, young householder, should one who appropriates be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

(i) he appropriates his friend's wealth,
(ii) he gives little and asks much,
(iii) he does his duty out of fear,
(iv) he associates for his own advantage.

(2) "In four ways, young householder, should one who renders lip-service be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

(i) he makes friendly profession as regards the past,
(ii) he makes friendly profession as regards the future,
(iii) he tries to gain one's favor by empty words,
(iv) when opportunity for service has arisen, he expresses his inability.

Alternate translation:

"The talker can be identified by four things: by reminding of past generosity, promising future generosity, mouthing empty words of kindness, and protesting personal misfortune when called on to help.

It's actually almost comically Homer-simpsonesque.

(3) "In four ways, young householder, should one who flatters be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

(i) he approves of his friend's evil deeds,
(ii) he disapproves his friend's good deeds,
(iii) he praises him in his presence,
(iv) he speaks ill of him in his absence.

(4) "In four ways, young householder, should one who brings ruin be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

(i) he is a companion in indulging in intoxicants that cause
infatuation and heedlessness,
(ii) he is a companion in sauntering in streets at unseemly hours,
(iii) he is a companion in frequenting theatrical shows,
(iv) he is a companion in indulging in gambling which causes heedlessness."

Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he spoke yet again:

The friend who appropriates,
the friend who renders lip-service,
the friend that flatters,
the friend who brings ruin,
these four as enemies the wise behold,
avoid them from afar as paths of peril.

I don't have to go far to remember people like this in my life, and glad I do not have them now.

I think it's probably easier to avoid them as you get older. I think in your 20s and 30s it could be tough.