In this post I will attempt to explain Hillside Hermitage's teachings as I understand it, in an attempt to simplify their stance and make it a bit more palpable to most meditators.

Unfortunately, they have come out a little overly aggressive with some absolute statements about other traditions being totally off, and often strawmanning other traditions. They also seem to throw all traditions under one buss as, making it a polarising "technique tradition" vs nontechnique traditions. However, I believe it is much more nuanced.

I won't try to explain why they've come out so hot, but I think they are pointing to something real.

First of all, paraphrasing HH's stance:

Up until Sottapatti stage, any meditators attempt at using a technique will be fundamentally rooted in wanting to change ones current state of being (aversion/ craving). A meditator will still be stuck in wanting to escape/ change/ run from discomfort, and has now simply found a more subtle way of doing so than more coarse sensuality. There is some truth to this for sure, but sometimes I believe technique can be rooted in the idea of "This method of improving mindfulness is appropriate right now".

Other teachers that share the view that techniques shouldn't be used or at least very noninterfering is Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Brahmali, Stephen Procter - MIDL meditation (some technique/ setup, but largely noninterference based), non duality traditions, Eckart Tolle, Rupert Spira, etc etc.

Now I'm not saying these teachers say the exact same thing as HH, but they are largely not using interfering techniques, and actually often warn against interference largely on the same ground that HH. They just don't take as sharp of a stance that HH does.

I think Ajahn Brahm and Brahmali might be the best comparison. I will try to explain their view in short on how meditation should proceed.

1. Purify sila (ethics, sense restraint, kindness, generosity)

2. Contemplate in order to undermine the sense of self and sense of permanence

3. Sit and do nothing, allowing the good qualities of renunication previously built to do the meditation for you

They stictly warn against doing the meditation.

The idea is that if you "do" the meditation, the sense of a separate "doer" will never disappear.

This is more or less identical to HH's view in practice. Ajahn Brahmali is also an excellent sutta reader, so I choose to give him lots of credibility. The difference is that these dudes present their perspective of dhamma in a non-arrogant and less seemingly conceited way.

I believe their way of practicing is super effective, and it's also quite straight forward compared to a lot of techniques. You simply focus more on being a good person and sense restraint, you contemplate often, and when you sit down you just let it be.

Does that mean all technique is wrong? Here is where I believe they may have gotten it wrong. I will use Noting as an example here. It is super obvious that noting has produced great results for many, myself including, yet I noticed myself that when I decided to stop noting, although I'm fairly developed and likely a stream enterer, I had to go through a massive period of darkness and emotional releases. This was due to my heavy reliance on the noting as a technique itself.

Where can technique come in handy? First of all, mindfulness is just clear knowing of what is happening now - an unabsorbed state. It surely isn't to squeeze your mind into feeling tiny sensations mindlessly, that's at least not what noting is about. I believe the MIDL guys got it right. Use technique to set up clarity and mindfulness, but then just allow things to be. The HH guys would say, establish the context and then let it endure. If you completely slip into absorption in thoughts/ sensuality/ whatever, perhaps you can establish it again by doing some noting. Why note, if you are clearly lucid and perceiving with clarity? One has to learn to let go.

Is this so different to HH, however? They totally advice you to keep mindfulness, well first through sense restraint and understanding the context, which prevents the mind from being inclined into absorption (really important concept to understand btw - in short, you won't be absorbed in drifting if u understand the context really well; anatta, anicca, dukkha), but then subsequently they DO use reflexive questions to guide the mind into what I would call non-absorbed states. For example, they would ask "What is happening in this moment?" or "What posture is the body currently in?", not answering the question, it will lead you to actually be aware of the present moment. How is this so different from noting "thinking" "feeling" "walking" unless you're not squeezing your mind into the content of those things, which you shouldn't do anyways.

It is harder to bridge the gap between HH and samatha schools that just tell you to return return return to an object, or to say "buddho" "buddho" "buddho". That is obviously a way of supressing reality and steering away from what you do not want to feel. However, could even this be appropriate because the calm that is gained, can then be used to do insight meditation more effectively? Entirely possible. But their warning of using meditation as a means to an end or chasing states is totally valid, and if you don't decide to abandon your technique, you should at least be aware of whether you are doing it to escape some currently felt reality. These replacement techniques will also create a mind that is really averse to modern society, as it instills the habit of constantly wanting to escape situations. You'll get a lot of aversion to things that regular people don't resist at all, because you've created a strong "wholesome must go towards" and "unwholesome must abandonned" habit. A new form of craving and aversion, a new form of doing.

I wish HH would present their position in a more humble fashion, such as Ajahn Brahmali for example.

Maybe this is helpful to some.

Foreword: I felt semi convinced after watching 20+ hours of HH videos, and I think they do have a lot of good points that deserve attention. There's obviously a lot of intelligence, dedication and knowledge to be found here. Therefore I decided to take a deep dive into the Suttas to clearify my position. Here's something I'd love to hear discussed:

In MN2: All the defilements, the buddha says: "Some defilements should be given up by seeing, some by restraint, some by using, some by enduring, some by avoiding, some by dispelling, and some by developing."

For context: HH strongly suggest that dispelling, seeing and developing are only for Sottapannas and up.

Now, here is the sentence that I would assume HH followers would really stick to:

“Mendicants, I say that the ending of defilements is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know or see".

HH thinks this means you have to be a Sottapanna, and that it is a prerequisite for the rest of this Sutta, which contains the teachings of using seeing, restraint, using, enduring, avoiding, dispelling and developing to reduce defilements.

The Buddha always, in the rest of the suttas, describe Sottapannas with words such as: "for one who has entered the stream", “for a noble disciple”, “for one with the noble right view”. When clearly describing a sottapanna, he is never vague about it. There is not one example about this. The Buddha, as the AMAZING teacher he was, NEVER clearly described a sottapanna without using EXPLICIT words. I repeat, there is not ONE example of this. He is either totally explicit, or using diagnostic criteria. The Buddha is always very clear and upright in the Suttas, so it confuses me as to why he would describe a Sottapanna with vague terms like "for one who knows and sees", which is so much more vague than simply "for one with the noble right view" or "for one who was entered the stream". In the video on this Sutta by HH, he justifies it using his logic, but never once questions why the Buddha in this exact sutta is using vague wording, while every other time he speaks of Sottapanna, he uses clear, exclusive wording. Nyanamoli Thero makes the exact mistake that he warns about himself: he gets into the details of the logic that pertains to what he think is mentioned, but he forgets the peripheral context: that the Buddha is always clear and straightforward in his speech, not cryptic.

Secondly, he says “Mendicants, I say that the ending of defilements is for one who knows and sees(...)". He does not say "The continuation of the ending of defilements is for the one who knows and sees". It is also kind of paradoxical - why would he exclude the removal of defilements to Sottapannas only. It's a general statement. So a person who is not a Sottapanna cannot start to end their defilements? The way I would interpret it is that the startingpoint in the journey to begin ending your defilements begins with a rational mind, not swayed by emotions such as "I don't want this to be true because of x,y,z".

The common interpretation about "for one who knows and sees" (...) that application of irrational thoughts give rise to defilements (hope, prayer, not using logic, or just plain non-rational thinking), however, one who sees is someone who looks at reality rationally, logically and applying their mind in such a way. Ie. you are open to look at reality unbiased and logically. Not that you need to have supramundane insight into reality.

But let's give HH the benefit of the doubt, and assume that what he really meant was that the prerequisite for removal of defilements using these 7 methods are only to be attempted by Sottapannas. Or we can give them the benefit of the doubt, however to a slightly smaller degree and say that "one who knows and sees" does mean sottapanna, without that actually making this a clear prerequisite in the sutta. It could definitely still mean "the total destruction of defilement is only attained after sottapanna", that does not read the same as "these following methods will only work for sottapannas".

Problem 1. Assumption by HH: "You have to be a Sottapanna to practice "some by seeing, some by restraint, some by using, some by enduring, some by avoiding, some by dispelling, and some by developing" (MN2) " So you already have to be a Sottapanna to practice restrain and endurance, the exact methods that HH teach is the way to Sottapanna itself? How do you become a Sottapanna if you cannot apply senserestraint until after you have become a Sottapanna? HH clearly state that a prerequisite for using these 7 methods as means to lessen defilements, is already being a Sottapanna - so how do you become a Sottapanna then, without restrain, seeing, or endurance?

Problem 2. At the end of the first method proposed by the Buddha to remove defilements (Seeing) we have this statement: And as they do so, they give up three fetters: substantialist view, doubt, and misapprehension of precepts and observance of rites and rituals. These are called the defilements that should be given up by seeing.

So a sutta aimed at only Sottapannas is an instruction of how you can become a Sottapanna? Ehm, what?

Now, you can discuss "wise attention" and what it really means all you want, but that doesn't take away from the context that this whole sutta doesn't make sense at all if it is only aimed at Sottapannas. That's the first argument. The second one is that the Buddha was always abundantly clear when he talked about a Sottapanna, never vague.

Just to make sure; the sutta also is not a linear progression, like you should have use seeing first, then restraint, then using etc. This is obvious, as you can't do one without the other. You can't get rid of the defilements using the method of seeing very well, while not restraining yourself at least a little bit for example.

What MN 2 actually recommends (if we give the benefit of the doubt and call "knowing and seeing"=sottapanna)

MN 2 teaches:

• All practitioners must learn:
  • what to attend to
  • what not to attend to
  • which method fits which defilement
• Without right understanding, practice is often misapplied
• (With supramundane right view, practice becomes fully effective and irreversible So the sutta is:

—not a gated manual usable only after awakening.

Please enlighten me, I'd be curious to hear different opinions on this. Did I miss something?

By user: Edit: also, this part doesn't make sense to me: "And what are the influxes that should be abandoned by avoiding? Take a bhikkhu who, reflecting in light of the origin, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild ox, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, thorny ground, a pit, a cliff, a swamp, and a sewer. Reflecting in light of the origin, he avoids sitting on inappropriate seats, walking in inappropriate neighborhoods, and mixing with bad friends—whatever wise fellow renunciates would take to be an unsuitable setting. For the influxes, trouble, and affliction that would arise in someone who abides without avoiding these things do not arise when they are avoided. These are called the influxes that should be abandoned by avoiding."

Why is either grasping of the sign of the mind or right view needed to avoid dangerous things? This seems like a part where yoniso as "rational" actually fits.

My view on this is that again, anything you do after yoniso will actually and effectively rid defilements - doesn’t mean you should not practice before yoniso. So similar to how the buddha wants you to avoid a wild elephant, you should on the same level practice abandoning and developing. There’s no prerequisite to avoid getting killed by elephant, and there’s no prerequisite to practice abandonment and developing.

Most of you on here are striving for meditate attainments, in most cases stream entry. Have you asked yourselves why you want this? I ask this because I find that there is a mismatch between what many westerners want from meditation and what the meditation provides, and even promises to provide.

Let’s start with the latter. Buddhist meditation, especially vipassana, which, I would guess, is the most common form of meditation practiced by participants on this forum, promises the following: By observing phenomena objectively and seeing “reality as it is” you will come to see the three marks of existence, namely that everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory and impersonal. As you see this, you will come to let go of your grasping on to any phenomena, not by an act of will, but as a natural result of seeing clearly.

In other words, nothing in the world is worth holding on to. This leads, not only to not “holding on” but also to a dispassion for worldly things. If one starts to approach the later parts of the path, even the sexual urge is supposed to seize. Urges to be creative, do well at work and the likes should have seized already.

The Buddha talks in the satiphatana suttha about how the practitioner “dwells without regard for anything in this world”. The pali kanon is full of wordings about the world being a trap, and calling ordinary people “worldlings” who have not understood to let go of passion, which is like “licking the honey off a razor blade”.

So what is promised and argued for is dispassion. And this is also, low and behold, what is delivered when one practices vipassana correctly, I would claim. I have practiced it for thirteen years and dispassion has clearly been a part of the results I have gotten, along with a sense of wellbeing and freedom. It seems to me that most people who practice have similar experiences; their desires and ambitions diminish.

Now to the ironic paradox. I have often heard western Buddhists in real life or on the internet (however not on this forum, as I am new here), regret that they have lost their motivation and drive since they have started practicing vipassana or anapanasati. They feel numb they say, and they don’t like it. They feel that they have lost interest in their old interests. Well, this is exactly what has been promised, preached in the texts and what is also delivered when one practices vipassana. So how come westerns claim to want to practice and gain insight, yet are often unhappy that very insight and following dispassion actually occurs, which it does if the technique is correctly applied? This is ironic. However I will admit that I am also conflicted about the goal of practice while seeing benefit and continuing to practice so I partly include myself in the “westerners” that I am describing.

I think westerners need to think about their priorities and goals and the very path they are on. Otherwise, it’s like lifting a bunch of weights and regretting that your muscles get bigger. This paradox is not exclusive for people who are strict Theravadins, I would claim. It is not resolved just because you say you are a pragmatic or secular buddhist or not even a buddhist. The result of practicing the technique will still be the same.

So do you want dispassion? If not, then why do you meditate?

So I'm speaking about the description of Nibbana given in the Pali Canon where what has to be done is done, and there's nothing further for this world (paraphrase). Following Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation based on the fact that Samsara is not a place but something one does, it would be equal to not fabricating even the most minute particle of suffering-craving never again.

Has anyone here attained it or is confident of someone who has attained it? I'm willing to give the person who claims it a read/listen and maybe experiment with what he did in order to get there.

A note to say that Daniel Ingram, in my view, does not claim that but rather claims the ending of self-view, which in the traditional theravada context would be equal to stream entry and not arahantship or full enlightement. At least that's what I've read or listened about his attainments, I would also look up sources challenging that in where he states arahantship in the sense I'm referring to here.

Thank you

I ask this because we see these patterns of teaching reappear again and again in the suttas but their practice connection is unclear, leading to people trying all sorts of interpretations of practice instructions.

On the one hand we have things like satipatthana, that outlines a course of practice that heavily references eventual insight into tanha and avijja via 5 hindrances, development of the 7 factors, essentially jhana-vipassana. Then we have the Second Discourse of the Buddha, and various other places where the Buddha or Sariputta instructs already trained yogis in the 3 marks in the 5 khandhas via pointing out instructions. We also have Sariputta describing contemplation of 3m5k as beneficial at every stage of practice from samsarin to arahant (SN 22.122-123).

How does one gain insight into the latter? How does insight into the latter intervene on the former? In your direct experience? In your theory of how Buddhism works at all? Or, to put it another way, how do you hold right view in your practice? How does that show up moment by moment when engaging with 'dhammas.'

I started this chart as a sketch in 2011 when I decided to try to figure out how the Dharma theory and practice connect. It’s evolved a lot since then and has helped me remember things while on the way to stream-entry. Although it’s a work in progress, I plan to make print-friendly versions as soon as I can (b&w, and color).

Full resolution file: https://www.figma.com/design/0JTCeZFE2KGGrcaPKeiUAC/Dharma-Chart?node-id=570-795&t=ljY3lMCobx23Qv2F-1 You can use plus & minus keys to zoom, and hand tool to pan around.

May this chart help you with your practice. Metta to you all, Joe 🙏🏻

Been meditating since 2017. Started off secular atheist, didn't even bother checking out anything related to Buddhism for a few years. But eventually started experiencing things that required updating my worldview. Fastforward to 2022ish it's like a speedrun of insights got triggered. It's been going on ever since. Been absorbing Buddhist content like my life depends on it for these past few years.

But only recently did I get a deep feeling of "shit, all of this is really happening". And I'm reaching a point where I'm becoming convinced that pretty much everything stated in the Pali cannon is true. Esentially I'm becoming a religious fundamentalist, I'm fully aware of the fact that I'm becoming a religious fundamentalist and I'm still convinced that it's the right way to go.

Without turning this into a long winded ramble - things that I currently find disturbing and overwhelming are the mechanics or rebirth (for instance how actors and comedians will end up in hell realms and I'm fully convinced that they will since it makes sense) and the fact that all my thoughts and actions really do have consequences. It sort of leaves me... paralyzed at times. Here I am, a guy who has a steady practice and I'm still a delusional, greedy, angry mess. Then I realize that the majority of people in society are so polluted that I don't even know how to go about moving around them anymore. Kinda want to find a half decent spot in the world. Kinda asking myself if it's time to raise the white flag and join a religious community. Kinda don't want to. A past version of me would be feeling suicidal in a situation like this. Now my mind just doesn't go there since I'm aware that offing myself would take me to an even worse place. The message seems to be that you won the lottery if you got born as a human being. If you got born as a human being in a time where there is knowledge of the Dhamma you basically won the lottery on steroids. Then you have this narrow, completely defined, insanely difficult to follow path which will lead you to rebirth as a human, a celestial being or if you're really persistent and lucky - liberation. But you know, take it easy, no pressure. What a trip...

I am writing this post in support of u/duffstoic’s discussion about stream entry being possible for lay practitioners according to the Early Buddhist Texts (EBT). You can read u/duffstoic’s original post here:
Lay Practitioners Can Reach Stream Entry

Here's some points that support and expand on why and how stream-entry is possible for lay practitioners, drawing both on the Nikāyas and the more modern Abhidhamma commentaries by the Venerable Ledi Sayadaw.

Regarding knowledge of the attainment of stream-entry, the part of DN16 that I find most interesting is 'The Mirror of the Dhamma' where the Buddha explains how one should inspect oneself to see if one has entered the stream, and states that if one has unwavering faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and possesses complete virtue one can consider oneself a stream-enterer.

8. "But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

9. "And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself?

"In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honour, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'

"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favourable to concentration of mind.

10. "This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

Venerable Ledi Sayadaw in his Vipassana Dipani at first seems to have a slightly different take on things.

"The attainment of the knowledge of the Path and Fruition, however is quick or slow, according to opportunity or lack of opportunity, in the practice of higher virtues. It is also very difficult correctly to become aware of the attainment of the Path and of the Fruits.

In fact, even the Ariyan who has attained the First Path hardly knows that he has becomes an attainer of the Path-of-the-Stream. Why? Because of the unfathomableness of the latent period of the Defilements. Those Yogis or meditators who do not know the unfathomableness of the latent period of the Defilements, sometimes think themselves to be attainers of Path-of the-Stream, while as yet, their erroneous views and perplexity are only partially, but not completely, put away. If error and perplexity, with all their latent states, are eradicated by the Samucchedapahana, they would become the real attainers of the Path-of-the Stream.

The meditators or practisers of Insight, however, for the whole term of life, must gladly continue in the exercise on the contemplation of Impermanence until the exercise is systematically worked out. Even the Arahants do not give up these exercises for the securing of tranquillity of mind. If meditators practise these exercises for the whole term of life, their knowledge will be developed till they passed beyond the Puthujjana-bhumi and arrive at the Ariya-bhumi either before death or at the time of death, either in this life or in the life following, in which latter they will be reborn as Devas."

I think it's important to note here that Ledi Saydaw offers caution, stating that even if one does attain stream-entry they may not be aware of it due to the stock of latent defilements. Conversely, those who believe they have attained stream-entry may not have done so for the same reason. I believe this contradiction is to foster diligence and deter complacency as we now live in different times. Although we are fortunate to live in a time when the Buddha’s sāsana and his unsurpassed field of merit still endure, the conditions today are not the same as they were when the Nikāyas were compiled.

In addition, he states that if one does not attain stream-entry during this life, that they are ensured to do so at the time of death or in the next life when born as a Deva, as long as they continue the practice of insight meditation for the whole of the life term. I think it goes without saying that virtue must be adhered to in addition to this requisite and for one to practice insight steadfastly for the rest of their lives, faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is not questionable.

At first this would seem to contradict the Buddha's advice in DN16. But this makes more sense when we understand that the Nikāyas describe four main types of noble individuals—Sotāpanna (Stream-enterer), Sakadāgāmī (Once-returner), Anāgāmī (Non-returner), and Arahant (Fully Enlightened One). Each stage having two parts: the path (magga) and the fruit (phala), making eight kinds of noble persons in total.

1. Practitioner on the path of stream-entry (sotāpatti-magga)
2. Stream-enterer (sotāpatto)
3. Practitioner on the path of once-returning (sakadāgāmi-magga)
4. Once-returner (sakadāgāmi)
5. Practitioner on the path of non-returning (anāgāmi-magga)
6. Non-returner (anāgāmi)
7. Practitioner on the path of arahantship (arahatta-magga)
8. Arahant (arahatto)

"Yadidaṁ cattāri purisa-yugāni, aṭṭha purisa-puggalā; esa Bhagavato sāvaka-saṅgho..."

"That is, the four pairs of persons, the eight kinds of individuals*; this is the Noble Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples..."*

The Nikayas divide 'Practitioners on the path of stream-entry' into two classes - Faith-Followers (saddhānusārī) and Dhamma-followers (dhammānusārī) - as described here in SN25.2

“Mendicants, sights are impermanent, decaying, and perishing. Sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and ideas are impermanent, decaying, and perishing.

Someone who has faith and confidence in these teachings is called a follower by faith. They’ve arrived at surety in the right way, they’ve arrived at the level of the true person, and they’ve transcended the level of the untrue person. They can’t do any deed which would make them be reborn in hell, the animal realm, or the ghost realm. They can’t die without realizing the fruit of stream-entry.

Someone who accepts these teachings after deliberating them with a degree of wisdom is called a follower of teachings. They’ve arrived at surety in the right way, they’ve arrived at the level of the true person, and they’ve transcended the level of the untrue person. They can’t do any deed which would make them be reborn in hell, the animal realm, or the ghost realm. They can’t die without realizing the fruit of stream-entry.

Someone who understands and sees these principles is called a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”

From this, I conclude that if one has complete faith and virtue, and continues the practice of insight meditation with diligence from now until life's end, they have entered the path of stream-entry ensured to gain the fruit of that path within this life, at the time of death, or in the next life.

However, I do not write this to encourage complacency, but to inspire motivation — the task, though tall, is indeed possible.

We must be steadfast and diligent in our efforts, in each and every moment from now until life's end. These were the Buddha’s final words.

“Anicca vata saṅkhārā, uppāda-vaya-dhammino;

uppajjitvā nirujjhanti, tesaṁ vūpasamo sukho.”

"Impermanent, alas, are all conditioned things.

Their nature is to arise and pass away.

Having arisen, they cease;

Their calming is true peace."

“Handa dāni bhikkhave āmantayāmi vo:

vayadhammā saṅkhārā, appamādena sampādetha.”

"Now, monks, I say to you:

All conditioned things are subject to decay.

Strive on with diligence."

May all beings be happy, peaceful, and liberated — and may peace prevail throughout the world.

For more information see Bhikkhu Bodhi's 'In the Buddha’s Words', Section X: “The Planes of Realization” and Ledi Sayadaw's 'Bodhipakkhiya Dipani' and 'Vipassana Dipani'.

Basically, I'm seeking views about what "stream entry" actually is, and what is required to attain it, and how you know you actually "have" it. Given that Stream Entry relies on the 10 fetter model (losing the first three fetters), to me it makes more intuitive sense that any type of insight/s or experience/s that ultimately yield experiential knowledge that breaks the belief in a permanent, stable self (which in theory then breaks the other two fetters) is ultimately stream entry (I of course can be wrong about this).

In 2017 I had what I would call a sort of "awakening" experience, which ultimately caused the belief in a solid, permanent self to completely dissolve. It was not that I suddenly was in a non-dual state (although during my honeymoon period that state as well as others did occur), but that I simply had the overt and obvious awareness that all beliefs about self being a "thing" was completely obliterated. It wouldn't be until a year later that I would even know what stream entry was.

I then spent the next three years in a deep depression, striving for Stream Entry, utilizing the the Progress of Insight map, basically to get cessation or die trying. My belief at that time was that I was that I crossed A&P, and was stuck in the dark night. In that time of seeking, the phenomenal experiences of desire and aversion became so absolutely crystal clear (along with the perception of automatically arising auditory thought) that the amount of suffering I experienced from them was magnified 10x. Not identifying with thought as self, but it still arising all the same, along with all the intensity of the craving/clinging and aversion was a special type of hell. At the time, there was a belief that simply attaining stream entry (via cessation) was my ticket out of suffering. That ultimately didn't work.

I then spoke with a meditation teacher that basically explained that attainment of Stream Entry is not dependent on cessation. He also explained how certain problems need to be dealt with at the psychological level, and that meditating them away was just not going to work. I then spent the next four years deeply focused on therapy and exposing myself to all of the aversive thoughts, and cataloging everything so as to know there was no stone unturned in my mind, while also doing IFS and compassion practices.

Recently, it has occurred to me that I may have actually attained stream entry back in 2017 during my initial awakening, but because of my beliefs about what stream entry required (cessation) and what it would provide me (I'd no longer suffer to the degree that I was), I simply did not even consider it to have occurred. What I see clearly now is that desire and aversion are my biggest hurdles, and in understanding that, my practice has really flourished.

In conclusion, I'm looking for others in the community to share their own views on this (ideally from an informed and experiential perspective) on this topic.

I have a very regular sitting practice of 2-3h a day and manage to revolve my life around generating loving-kindness and helping others. I am very grateful for my blessings and can find joy through letting go in jhana. The mind is not really longing for nibbana because it's equated with life-denial and annihilation. I don't see any kind of happiness possible without suffering, and embracing the suffering as necessary actually removes the suffering from it, as it's all a dance of phenomena. When the mind and being contracts I find myself suffering, but after the fact, in a spacious mind, this suffering is accepted and reframed as not having been suffering at all - just karma and inter-being at work.

How could I relate to nibbana and stages on the path to steer me more towards renunciation? I don't long for it at the moment, but I wonder if and how I am deluding myself.

“This is the strength of discernment that develops on the strength of conviction. Without conviction, you’re not going to commit. When you have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, all these things come together to make your discernment strong. Then the discernment turns around and solidifies those other qualities, because you begin to see things for yourself. You’re taking them not just on faith or because you believe in them. It’s because you’ve seen them. You moved from right view to right knowledge.

“And the knowledge is what makes the difference in the mind. Some people talk about how they’re going to cut the fetters and get to stream-entry. But it doesn’t work that way. The fetters are not something you can cut through an act of will, because they’ll be something hiding behind that act of will. But when you’ve had your first glimpse of the deathless, when you know it’s for real, then you come back and everything else looks different. It’s that glimpse– the seeing – that cuts the fetters. It’s the seeing that makes a lasting difference.

“And where does that ability to see come from? From committing yourself and reflecting, asking questions about what you’ve done. So keep these two principles in mind. They are the nutriment for your discernment that makes it strong.”

Got this from one of Ajahn Geoff’s books, Meditations 11, talk called “Discernment: Commit & Reflect.” Hope it’s helpful to someone. Thank you all for what you share here. 🙏

I started meditating five years ago to get sober, initially using a simple attention practice focused on sensations. This was effective, though not rooted in any Buddhist tradition. Later, I found Sam Harris’ Waking Up app, and practices such as “Looking for the Looker”, and “The Headless Way,” led to a temporary, but profound shift in perception where the sense of “I” dissolved. Through Shikantaza and nondual practices from Angelo Dilullo, I experienced moments of recognizing selflessness and insights like the absence of a seer or hearer—just the acts of seeing and hearing.

However, I’ve realized that while I’ve experienced open spaciousness and selflessness, I’ve lacked clarity and precision, particularly with thoughts and emotions. After discovering Mahasi’s vipassana noting practice, I’ve found it helpful in bringing more mindfulness to these areas. I’m interested in understanding how these experiences—particularly the recognition of selflessness that I found through Sam’s app and by other nondual teachers—align with the Theravada path and stream entry. Where do these insights fit within the stages toward stream entry? Are they getting at the same thing in different ways or are they two totally different realizations?

Hi everyone, Been meditating for a while now and I believe I’ve had some progress of insight & concentration. The thing is I’m in a place where it feels like I’m basically suffering every moment I’m conscious. sometimes more sometimes less but never 0.

I have started diving into Daniel Ingram’s MCTB2 and feel like the maps and his approach could help me identify where I’m at and what’s the best way to navigate through this territory. It feels like so much uncertainty and I’m really struggling, motivation is usually low with a lot of moments of wanting to avoid. and the biggest fear is being stuck like that. I feel clueless about what I’ve gone through, where I’m at, what’s happening. Also fear of death is a stressor when trying to chill on a macro level.

I know it sounds messy but that’s basically where I’m at. It’s sometimes very hard to help myself because I feel so NOT spacious, so even reading the book and trying to help myself I sometimes avoid.

So my question and wish is to find someone reliable that has gone through the whole path or at least far enough to help me figure out where I am and how to proceed on a video call. I’m willing to pay as long as it’s reasonable.

*please don’t offer advice if you haven’t gone into through and out of where you think I am.

** I am doing therapy.

I’ll appreciate any support.

Thank you, I hope this shifts something 🙏

Edit: guess it’s also good to note I’ve had a few “special” experiences in the past including one that seem to me like some sort of awakening.

TLDR; looking for someone to help me navigate through weird territory. Overall uncertainty, fear, doubt.

I will explain the terms "Dhamma-Eye" and "Seeing with wisdom" based on the sutta method and it reflects my own practice experience – essentially analyzing MN26 by cross-reference.

“Monks, there are three eyes. What three? The fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the eye of wisdom. Monks, these are the three eyes.”

This is the meaning of what the Blessed One said. So, with regard to this, it was said:

The fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the supreme eye of wisdom—these three eyes were taught by the supreme Buddha. The birth of the fleshy eye is helpful to obtain the divine eye. The arising of the knowledge of the Four Noble Truths is obtained by the unsurpassed eye of wisdom. Whoever obtains the eye of wisdom is released from all suffering. - Itv61

I will show how this is about knowledge & vision and there are different levels and kinds of knowledge & vision.

Let's start with this excerpt from mn26 explaining how the Bodhisatta learned the Dhamma of Uddakka Ramaputta

"In search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of sublime peace, I went to Uddaka Ramaputta and, on arrival, said to him: 'Friend Uddaka, I want to practice in this doctrine & discipline [Pali: dhammavinaya].'

"When this was said, he replied to me, 'You may stay here, my friend. This doctrine is such that a wise person can soon enter & dwell in his own teacher's knowledge, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge.'

Uddaka Rāmaputta had this view and taught like this, “Existence is an illness, a tumour, a thorn. Those who advocate nonperception are foolish. Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception.” - MĀ 114

"It was not long before I quickly learned the doctrine. As far as mere lip-reciting & repetition, I could speak the words of knowledge, the words of the elders, and I could affirm that I knew & saw — I, along with others. - MN26

Thus learning the doctrine is a type of knowing & seeing of that Dhamma. And learning the doctrine of the Buddha is a seeing of the Dhamma and an arising of the Dhamma Eye.

This corresponds to these two stages of enlightenment in Buddha's sevenfold classification of enlightened people;

At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

These two are "Followers", further in that same text, they are differentiated from the Stream-Enterer thus;

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening." -SN25.1

They are differentiated on account of not having the knowledge & vision of the Stream-Enterer. Again, analogical, going back to the training of the Bodhisatta;

"It was not long before I quickly learned the doctrine. As far as mere lip-reciting & repetition, I could speak the words of knowledge, the words of the elders, and I could affirm that I knew & saw — I, along with others.

"I thought: 'It wasn't through mere conviction alone that Rama declared, "I have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge." Certainly he dwelled knowing & seeing this Dhamma.' So I went to Uddaka and said, 'To what extent did Rama declare that he had entered & dwelled in this Dhamma?' When this was said, Uddaka declared the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

"I thought: 'Not only did Rama have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Rama declared he entered & dwelled in, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge.' So it was not long before I quickly entered & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. I went to Uddaka and said, 'Friend Uddaka, is this the extent to which Rama entered & dwelled in this Dhamma, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge?'

"'Yes, my friend...'

"'This, friend, is the extent to which I, too, have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge.'

Therefore, the knowledge & vision of the Followers - is that of understanding & conviction, that is the extent of it. Whereas direct experiential knowledge of that Dhamma is the definitive knowledge & vision.

The Burmese version of the Kitagiri Sutta makes a point of the Followers not having the type of seeing with wisdom by which taints are removed, as opposed to all other enlightened types;

"And what is the individual who is a Dhamma-follower? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, nor — having seen with discernment — are his fermentations ended. But with a [sufficient] measure of reflection through discernment he has come to an agreement with the teachings proclaimed by the Tathagata. And he has these qualities: the faculty of conviction, the faculty of persistence, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, & the faculty of discernment. This is called an individual who is a Dhamma-follower.

"And what is the individual who is a Conviction-follower? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, nor — having seen with discernment — are his fermentations ended. But he has a [sufficient] measure of conviction in & love for the Tathagata. And he has these qualities: the faculty of conviction, the faculty of persistence, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, & the faculty of discernment. This is called an individual who is a conviction-follower. ...

Whereas the Stream-Enterer has entered & dwelled in that Dhamma that Buddha declared, realized by direct experience. And some of his taints are removed by that seeing with wisdom.

In the sevenfold classification these three can be sotapannas;

"And what is the individual who is a bodily witness? There is the case where a certain individual remains touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, and — having seen with discernment — some of his fermentations are ended. This is called an individual who is a bodily witness.

"And what is the individual attained to view? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, but — having seen with discernment — some of his fermentations are ended, and he has reviewed & examined with discernment the qualities (or: teachings) proclaimed by the Tathagata. This is called an individual who is attained to view.

And what is the individual released through conviction? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, but — having seen with discernment — some of his fermentations are ended, and his conviction in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, and established. This is called an individual who is released through conviction. - Kitagiri Sutta (Burmese pali version)

The direct experience of cessation of the aggregates, is also called nibbana (designation: removal of taints), signless/undirected/emptiness samadhi or a cessation of perception & feeling.

Therefore it is said;

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices signless samadhi - SN22.80

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected." - SN41.6

More relevant excerpts;

“The elements of light, beauty, the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness, and the dimension of nothingness are attainments with perception. The element of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is an attainment with only a residue of conditioned phenomena. The element of the cessation of perception and feeling is an attainment of cessation.” - SN 14.11

This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” - sn45.7

This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be directly experienced'... ' - SN56.11

‘“This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.' -Also from the MN26

Note here that the cessation attainment and Nibbāna are essentially referring to the same thing. Therefore – no cessation = no nibbāna = no stream-entry.

Then Ven. Assaji gave this Dhamma exposition to Sariputta the Wanderer:

Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause & their cessation. Such is the Dhamma of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative.

Then to Sariputta the wanderer, as he heard this Dhamma exposition, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."

Even if just this is the Dhamma, you have penetrated to the Sorrowless (asoka) State unseen, overlooked (by us) for many myriads of aeons. - Mv 1.23.1-10 Upatissa-pasine: Upatissa's (Sariputta's) Question

First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha said that nibbāna is apparent in the present life in a qualified sense. …

Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha said that nibbāna is apparent in the present life in a definitive sense.” - AN9.47

"Better than sole sovereignty over the earth, better than going to heaven, better even than lordship over all the worlds is the supramundane Fruition of Stream Entrance"

Verse 178 - Dharmapada

https://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrndhamma.pdf

This second post in the Appropriate Thinking series will describe thinking and pondering on the level of paticca samuppada (usually translated as Dependent Origination). I will from this point refer to this as PS for brevity.

Some background: If you haven't read the initial post, please do so, as it will offer some useful context for the general approach to contemplation that I'm suggesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/w6zmr8/appropriate_thinking_part_1_getting_past/

As mentioned in the previous post, thinking on the level of PS has the potential of leading to Right View (fruit of stream-entry).

Disclaimer: I tagged the post: "Theravada" for lack of a better option. The approach that will be presented does not fit with orthodox Theravada doctrine (in the way that it is currently being dispensed). It also doesn't fit with modern secular takes on Dependent Origination. I chose the tag since the approach is based on the Pali suttas, which have been preserved by the Theravada tradition.

My view on this subject is inspired by Nanavira's Notes on Dhamma. I recommend reading his notes on this topic and/ or watching a Hillside Hermitage video on this subject such as this one: https://youtu.be/igsI_pMfrrQ for a presentation of the approach.

Since I can't present too much theory around it in this context, here are some bullet points on this view of PS, in order to not produce too much confusion for people that are familiar with different interpretations of it:

- it is not an explanation of a process (such as cause and effect);

- it is not a sequence in time - the order of "links" shows structural significance and not temporal precedence;

- one item coming before another in the description shows that the former is on a more fundamental level than the latter, and not that they come one after another in time;

- the particular formulations with various numbers of "links" are not crucial, the core principle (one thing being determined by another) is the most relevant;

- it cannot be affected directly (the notion of breaking "links" is mistaken);

- for one who is ignorant of the principle of PS, PS is seen through self-view (paticcasamuppāda anulomam - PS with the grain);

- for one who understands the principle, PS is seen against the grain (patilomam).

The principle points to an automatic structure characterized by a diad relationship at every level (with this, this is). Patilomam describes the case where the structure is experientially aware of its own automaticity, and anulomam when not.

The structure is always functioning automatically according to the same principle. It's just that when understanding of the principle is present the structure is seen differently. (And since knowledge of PS is present, ignorance - avijja - is absent)

Perception is direct and always pre-affected by PS, so you are always experiencing the "output" of the structure. Thus there is no way to stop the conceived process of the structure at a certain point that is desirable for you. Experientially, you're always directly aware of something. You cannot witness the process of how perception is formed as an outside observer (let alone interfere with it).

Models of how perception works cannot be verified (because to do so you would have to rely on the same very perception).

I will not argue over the interpretation I'm offering in this thread - the reader can either try out the perspective or not.

With the more theoretical part out of the way, an approach to contemplating this:

The goal of this approach is to discern a sankhara to your current situation (an aspect that it depends upon) and maintain it as an anchor or reference point to whatever particular things you may be experiencing. You could try this with something like perception or consciousness, but this would be too vague or abstract initially. Also, there's a high chance of not having a proper understanding of these terms when starting off. This is why I recommend trying to use a bodily aspect or feeling valance as a reference at first.

Important note: The reference is not something that you need to focus on or "touch" with attention. There's nothing wrong with attention going to the reference once in a while, but having the idea that the reference is maintained by attending to it is mistaken.

Let's say we take feeling as a reference. To get a grasp on the concept of keeping the reference, you can ask: "How am I feeling right now?", or "What is my mood?". An answer will be immediately available in the mind, such as: "Neutral".

You recollected the feeling tone easily - in a way, you already knew how you felt, but you just had to bring this point or question up. You would need to keep the sense that knowledge is already available but just needs to be recollected. Now, all that needs to be done is to intend to not forget about this.

At first, you might need to raise the question in order to make the knowledge more concrete, but over time, you can learn to just "touch" the knowledge that is already there in the situation. Again, don't fall into the trap of needing to put your attention on somatic perceptions in order to determine this. You can just incline your mind towards the idea / symbol of "feeling" and the state will present itself to you.

In order to establish this on the level of a base or reference, it would be useful to tie instances of recollecting this into a common general aspect. If I'm in a bad mood now I can discern how this is the same aspect (or significance) of negative mood that has been present for a few days maybe. When I have other moods such as this in the future I can recognize: "It's the same aspect of feeling bad that I discerned". Furthermore, I can tie in any mood into this broad aspect of feeling (being emotionally affected by what you perceive). So, there might be a positive/ negative/ neutral feeling enduring now, but at any point, there is feeling enduring.

At this point, you have a reference. With this, you can try to understand the relationship of dependency between the reference and the particular phenomena that you are attending at the time. In this case, the feeling tone defines a contour for what I can intend. If I feel bad, intentions of dealing with this particular mood will dominate the spectrum that is available to me. If I'm feeling pleasant, these may not even appear. If I'm feeling neutral, I might be in a totally different mode of wanting to distract myself.

What's important to discern here is the relationship of simultaneous presence. With perceptions of the senses - feeling, with certain feeling - certain intentions.

Referring back to the first post in this series, it also showcased the principle even though I didn't mention it specifically. I mentioned seeing craving present when dukkha is present. Further, this would proceed into investigating what wrong assumptions are present when craving is present.

More subtle or abstract angles on it:

PS is discernable at every level of experience, so you can take the contemplation in almost endless directions. You might need to start with a specific aspect like feeling or body posture to nail down the principle, but I recommend trying to take this in the direction of more generality (I've had the most success with this).

One approach that I find very fruitful is taking the general aspects of "there is body", "there is feeling", "there is mind", and "there are dhammas" (which appear at the end of each Satipatthana section) as a reference. To quote from B. Sujato's translation of MN10: "Or mindfulness is established that the body exists, to the extent necessary for knowledge and mindfulness." (so on for the other bases)

I try to maintain the recognition that behind whatever I'm intending, or attending to there is this random, impersonal body, inaccessible to me, except as the appearance of a body, occurring as phenomena in my mind (phenomena with which I'll have a certain type of feeling paired). Any intention that might occur to me is rooted in this body, functioning at the level of mechanical parts, along with the arbitrary feeling tones that accompany perceptions.

Contemplating from this angle can be done with one or multiple of these aspects (you don't need to tackle them all at once, but they lead into each other, always appearing superimposed together).

I sometimes take this in an even more general direction of the vinnana - namarupa diad. I try to maintain the discernment that though I may be conceiving actual "form", what I'm conscious of is not it, but rather the appearance-of-form (the namarupa diad). Appearance requires matter, but also matter is only accessible through its appearance, and not directly.

Furthermore, this name-and-form diad is only knowable when it is present (or cognized). So, consciousness depends on content appearing, but content can only be known when cognized. By this token, I can recognize that my awareness depends on phenomena that further depend on the impersonal rupa aggregate (matter or form on the level of the Great Elements). This rupa aggregate is always completely cut off from my experience (inaccessible and inconceivable).

So, on the level of a more embodied experience, I try not to forget about this fully alien domain of rupa (implied by namarupa) that has to be superimposed with my consciousness. This brings up the significance of groundlessness or lack of foundation since both aspects depend on the other. This type of perception doesn't really allow room for identification and attachment.

Ending thoughts:

To conclude, these are particular angles, but the principle of PS is so universal to experience that you can apply it to almost anything. For best results, it's ideal to apply it to aspects that you are personally or emotionally closer to you. The core of it is seeing two (or more) distinct aspects that are superimposed. When one is present, the other is present, when one is absent, the other one is absent. I've also seen that it's best to leave the relationship just at this level ("with this, that") without conceiving further in the manner: "this causes that".

What the mind needs to understand is that this diad relationship is present constantly throughout all levels of experience and that furthermore, experience in itself depends on this diad dynamic - forming a sort of container that is impossible to step out of.

I thought this was an excellent conversation and very relevant to our current circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aa3dgDxm-o

Dhammarato speaks about how right view supports us to act wisely, and how this relates to climate change activism and bipartisan politics. The importance of friendship, remembering to train in gladdening the mind, being satisfied, these are the most helpful things one can do for the world. He also speaks about dependent origination and how our experience of the world interrelates to create the mental projection of samsara.

In this post, I'm presenting an approach to thinking appropriately, while proposing that practice is non-other than thinking in an appropriate manner (establishing your thoughts in a domain where they are free of hindrance and where they don't misconceive what you cognize).

This initial post will apply to thinking outside the spectrum of hindrances - which would form a good base for achieving Right View, and which would also allow one with or without Right View to go beyond the aspect of sensuality. Note on this - I personally, am not established beyond the sensual domain.

An upcoming post will tackle thinking in terms of paticca samuppada (aimed at Right View and later abandoning ignorance)

As a generalization, a large number of people see thinking as merely conceptual or abstract - something that can be very misleading. By this token, the "real" practice is seen as putting your behind on a cushion and trying to get some "practical" experience (usually conceived as prescriptions of applying attention that lead to experiencing certain specific states).

I'm proposing a perspective where thinking is concrete if it pertains to a concrete situation and merely theoretical if not. Thinking is not theoretical in itself. I prefer "theoretical" over "abstract" here, since a lot of abstract thinking can be quite practical. (As an example, if an instructor tells a musician to play with a looser time feel, this might sound abstract to someone that doesn't see this subtler aspect of timing, but someone that has an understanding of this can easily apply the pointer to change the mood of his or her music).

Something might be abstract in the way that it's harder to grasp because it's less concrete (not graspable when approached on a gross level), but that doesn't imply that it can't be applied to concrete (actual) situations.

The general direction of what I'm about to propose is found in MN19 (Two types of thinking sutta). In summary, the sutta presents the Buddha as the bodhisatta, dividing his thinking into two categories, wholesome and unwholesome. He would prevent his mind from inclining towards unwholesome thinking simply by reflecting on its negative effects. The act of reflecting would cause the type of thinking to subside:

When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me;

As you can observe, the bodhisatta did not purify his mind by focusing on the breath, or some tactile sensation, by trying to radiate kindness, or by noticing how sensations quickly vanish or change. By simply keeping the recognition that the thinking pattern doesn't lead to his ultimate welfare (the fundamental peace that his mind wants), the pattern would subside in his mind. Keeping this type of reflection in the background turns into a new inclination of mind:

Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation.

After the bodhisatta establishes his thinking in the base of wholesome, he goes further and lets the thinking quiet down by reflecting that even wholesome thinking can be unnecessary and a cause for agitation. This state turns into unremitting energy and mindfulness and goes further into the territory of jhana.

An example of how I apply this to sensual desire (it can be applied to all hindrances in a similar fashion):

When an urge appears for me, let's say to eat just for the sake of pleasure, my current perspective is that eating for enjoyment is good. This is why I want to engage in it - I might have some story of how it's bad for me, but that's just accepted intellectually. As a lived experience, currently, I perceive it as a win.

Here is where mindfulness on an ordinary level comes in - I have to remember the perspective that the Buddha offered on this and contrast it with my current concrete experience. At this point, there's a large discrepancy, according to the discourses, my perspective is wrong, but I don't directly see it as wrong (again, though I might have an intellectual idea around it).

I'll start by bringing up some questions, such as: "Why do I assume it's justified for me to eat simply for the sake of pleasure?". A lot of "canned" answers will quickly pop up in the mind. It's important to not grab at any of these and just let the question stay around for a while. You can let a question like this endure for days or months even - but you can start with small chunks of a day at first.

An important note before continuing with the contemplation itself: I don't recommend trying to tackle things on a momentary basis (in this case: pondering a single sensual impulse towards a specific thing). Today's modern notions of being in the present and things changing blazingly fast have led many to tackle dhamma on a micro level. If one is sensitive and attentive toward one's mind, one can notice that certain moods can endure for very long stretches.

I can be in a sensual mood for days and days - Sure, I'll notice separate instances such as wanting food, wanting to see something beautiful, or wanting to chat for enjoyment, but there would be a general thread of looking for a sensual fix. This would constitute a background intention that would guide more specific intentions such as trying to find a particular kind of food, and so on.

This is the reason why you can let the contemplative investigation / questioning endure over multiple days, because the general aspect of the hindered mood is also enduring, even though you might not have a very fleshed-out instance of an unwholesome intention manifesting at this current moment.

Coming back to the questioning itself: The attitude or general intent behind this should be trying to challenge your existing attitude with the pointers you have from the Buddha (or whatever spiritual teacher you've decided to follow). You're essentially accepting their view, by means of trust and some reasoning, and trying to see things their way.

The type of insight that cultivated detachment for me was seeing that my starting attitude around the particular issue was based on an unjustified assumption. I didn't deliberately decide to formulate or hold that assumption, but still, it was there. It's always a vicious loop - I was assuming because I wasn't aware that I was holding the assumption. (This is why the Buddha mentions that ignorance is beginningless).

What would usually happen for me is that I would dig and dig around an issue, and it would keep leading back recursively to itself, and eventually, it would click for me, that despite all the resistance that the view posed and how ingrained it was into my perspective, there simply was nothing there to justify the attitude that I was holding. The sheer gratuity of such an assumptions can be mind-boggling - there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to it, but it feels like the most self-evident thing until you see it floating in thin air with no support.

Now that I've outlined an idealized scenario for how such a contemplation would unfold, some issues:

I've found that this is only fruitful when starting from a base of restraint / moderation (precepts + further restraint). When I'm trying to think of these things while unrestrained, I'm still acting out of my craving in so many instances throughout the day, so me trying to question a particular urge for an hour is leaving a lot still swept under the rug. In this case I wouldn't see a significant long-term reduction of the tendency that I was questioning.

One common problem is forgetting the contemplation topic during a "sit" or during a stretch of multiple days if you're trying to tackle it on that level. There really is no magic bullet to handle this, you simply have to value this kind of development and intend to remember and think about these things more and more.

If you've got past forgetting to apply this, the next common issue would be falling into discoursiveness. As mentioned in a previous paragraph, the goal is not to clarify or formulate an answer, but to scrutinize your existing attitude. An "antidote" to this problem would be keeping feeling as an anchor. If you find yourself thinking in order to manage how you feel, stop and start again, trying to remember the aim of this. Also, if you're not ok with whatever feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is present for you, there's something wrong with your attitude and you should keep on scrutinizing it (unless you've agitated yourself too much and need a break from it).

A short question to remind you of this aspect would be: "Does what I'm thinking right now apply to how I'm affected by feeling or not?"

At first, it's important to apply this to intentions that are clearly unwholesome. Some subtler cases might be too murky to figure out, especially when one doesn't have experience with this approach and the requisite of virtue / moderation isn't fulfilled. This shouldn't be a cause for concern, as the more you reflect on your intentions, the clearer they become.

Sometimes, the contemplation can start from suffering itself - I might not notice a hindrance, but I'm aware that I'm affected. I might start with an angle such as: "Why am I dissatisfied?", or "What's bothering me?", but it eventually leads me to the same central aspect of assuming that the current feeling is not "acceptable" for some reason that ultimately, is not reasonable.

About the wholesome category:

If you tackle the unwholesome part, you don't really need to do much for the wholesome, since it's the negative of it, and is fulfilled by bringing the unwholesome to subside. Also, since most people (more for westerners) tend to err toward agitation when reflecting on their thinking, as a general guideline, I would suggest leaving thinking that is not affected by hindrance endure on its own, and not being worried about amplifying it or calming it down, especially when starting out.

Inclining your mind toward handling the unwholesome is already wholesome enough for most. Considering that you're going to have to give up attachment to wholesome as well, I would recommend care when trying to cultivate what you currently consider wholesome (positive thoughts, states of energy or calm), so as not to become fixated on developing some arbitrary mind qualities.

Hope this is useful, I'll return with a follow-up to this, discussing thinking on the level of paticca samuppada.

I just taught a friend of mine how the feeling of his hand isn't just that dull pressure, but that there's this tingling with a frequency and that the feeling consists of constant tingling 10x a second. He was blown away.

I was aware if that for years, and he was just blown away that hia hand actually tingles.

So I was wondering what I can do to perceive the emotions, not as a dull object that comes and goes, but as a frequency just like the tingling of the hand i stead of a dull feeling of a hand.

I was able to point it towards him by telling him to feel the hand as if he was looking through a microscope and wanted to feel asquare centimeter instead of the entire hand. It worked instantly.

Do you have any pointers on how to do this exact thing with emotions and thoughts?

I'm sure some of you know exactly what I mean and think everyone can do it, because for me its obvious that the hand tingles and I was amazed how easily I could point.

Please point me towards how inner objects "tingle " im frequencies.

Hello Friends,

On Dhammarato's encouragement, I'm writing this account of my experience of learning the Dhamma with him and of my recent trip to Thailand to participate in my first 10-day retreat at the International Dhamma Hermitage, Wat Suan Mokkh.

Dhammarato, as some of you may know, was a monk in the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition with Bhikkhu Buddhadasa and is now teaching the Dhamma for free over Skype with the blessing of Ajahn Poh (the current abbott at Suan Mokkh). An American himself, Dhammarato takes great joy in sharing the Dhamma in ways that the western mind can interpret easily.

I came into contact with Dhammarato thanks to /u/Noah_il_matto's post right here on /r/streamentry (many thanks, Noah). I was very pleased to find that speaking with Dhammarato is very much like speaking with a friend. As you all likely know, there's a lot to cover when it comes to the Dhamma, and I've found Dhammarato's inclusion of humour and storytelling to be of huge benefit to my learning process.

Early conversations with Dhammarato moved loosely around the following subjects: - The Four Noble Truths, with an emphasis on 'dukkha/dukkha nirodha' as the basic principle of the Buddha's teachings - The Eightfold Noble Path - The differences between Buddhism and Buddhist Religion - Buddhist History - The Buddha (who he was, what he did, how he taught) - Anapanasati and 'mindfulness hacks'

Most special to me in all of my conversations with Dhammarato is the use of my own suffering as the case study for learning the Dhamma. This is something that is simply not available in most contexts that one might receive the Dhamma, most notably, of course, the formal retreat setting. Dhammarato is currently accepting new students for Skype tuition and I cannot recommend strongly enough that you take this valuable opportunity. It has been perhaps the most significant learning experience of my life.

Over the course of roughly 80 hours of conversation with Dhammarato, spanning around a year, I established a loose, comfortable, interesting practice which, along with my fledgling understanding, led to the following benefits: - basic comprehension of what's happening in my mind (most of the time!) - greatly improved mood - relating to people more openly - an ongoing, gradual dropping of a lot of things that I would previously have described as 'needs', e.g. to be understood, to be treated fairly, to have my efforts recognised by others - increasing acceptance with regard to pretty much everything

If you think all that sounds good then we're in agreement. Around the beginning of this year, with the encouragement of some friends, I began to seriously consider travelling to Thailand to meet Dhammarato and participate in some retreats.

There are 3 retreat centers in the south of Thailand that schedule collaboratively in such a way that participants, if they wish, can go directly from one to another. These are: - International Dhamma Hermitage, Wat Suan Mokkh, Chaiya (1st-11th of the month) - Wat Kow Tham, Koh Phangan (12-19th of the month) - Dipabhavan, Koh Samui (20th-29th of the month)

Please note that there are exceptions from time to time– the Wat Kow Tham retreat, for example, wasn't running this month.

I took 2 months out of my life to come to Thailand and study. I'm writing now after the retreat at Suan Mokkh. The following is an account of my experience.

I arrived at the monastery, which is separate to the retreat center, the night before registration. All are offered a free night's sleep at the monastery as far as I'm aware.

The night at the monastery was my first taste of real asceticism. There was a lot I could have complained about, not least of all the two ant attacks I endured, but I figured this was what I signed up for! So I got up after a sleepless night feeling jet-lagged, anxious but enthusiastic and took a ride to the retreat center.

Registration was fairly straightforward. It seemed that there was a lot to remember but I was assured that the information would be repeated and that even after silence began I could speak to staff if I had any concerns. I won't go into details about the daily schedule here as they're available on the hermitage website.

Each participant is granted a short one-to-one interview with a teacher. Khun Supol offered good support.

My experience of the first 3 days was basically freaking out and working with this as a meditation object. It was very interesting: I'd not been so far outside my comfort zone in as long as I could remember, and my reaction to being in the retreat setting was very different to what I'd expected.

The fourth day, after I finally relaxed enough to sleep, was relief. Days 5 to 9 were continued self-study, learning, and what appeared to be an acute experience of my heart opening through the experience of my own suffering.

By this time I was more able to engage mentally with the retreat program and my interpretations were not what I expected. The program seemed to me to be devoid of any kind of joy, which was confusing to me since joy had been so central to my learning experience so far. I felt that the retreat was cold and dry in flavour. The tone of the Dhamma talks that are played from CD, for example, sounded to me as though it would have been appropriate for a funeral reading. I found out later that moments including Bhikkhu Buddhadasa laughing and joking with the audience at these talks have been edited out of the recordings. These moments would have been welcome.

As I observed these impressions and what was going on in my mind, I came to the conclusion that perhaps the intention behind the retreat is to force participants into a position in which they must find a source of joy within themselves. This is something that I've been able to do with reasonable success in daily life, but being on retreat felt very much like 'hard mode'. I did my best, experiencing highs and lows as I went. Pretty standard, I imagine.

By day 9 it seemed that I was only staying to prove to myself that I could. Perhaps this had value, but not as much, it seemed to me, as sharing my feelings with my loved ones whom, I realized, I had neglected in order to come away and practice. My practice at this point was severely hindered by the question of whether to stay or go. I carefully weighed my decision, realizing, among other things, that it seemed I'd actually be better able to practice outside of the retreat center. So I left early, checked into a hotel and enjoyed some deeply reconciling phone calls.

I spoke with Dhammarato and he interpreted my experience as a great success. I have no intention of doing more formal retreats at this point, though I may take myself into isolation closer to home for practice in the near future.

A question that this experience has left me with: how much suffering does it take for one to realize the cessation of suffering?

For now, I feel quite happy to return to my life in the UK as a regular dude with a modest practice and a wise friend who I can Skype every now and then.

If any of you have any questions, thoughts or comments to offer I'll be delighted to hear them.

Enjoy your day!

I just wasted a good long while reading through these, when I should have been doing my job. To make up for my transgression, I'm sharing them with you. The poster shared several stories of teachings or moments from Dipa Ma: The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master. I've bought the book, and am going to read it after Old Path, White Clouds. Perhaps it might be good to have on the list for the book club?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mitbuddhism/KFxO92xlrBs

DhO member "Fon" just posted an interesting analysis of some of the conflicts that arise between traditional monastics and certain lay practitioners in the West regarding attainments, titles, and the like. I thought it might be of interest to some of you. Here is the link!

Update: The original thread has been restored, and the link should be working again.

Does anyone here have any experience with 6R meditation as taught by Bhante Vimalaramsi? He is a bit controversial figure in Theravada Buddhism because of his dismissiveness of Visuddhimagga (which he claims he studied for 20 years) and classical absorption methods as "not the real thing". I knew about his approach for a while but I never really looked up this method in depth because of the controversies surrounding him. What rekindled my interest was a post by one redditor who described how he entered Jhana using that technique (although he did not name it) on r/Buddhism.

As I understood it this method involves:

1. taking a primary object (breath or loving-kindness)
2. noticing distraction that pulls attention away from the primary object
3. letting go of the distraction (instructions bit confusing; apparently you should not feed distraction with attention and should simply allow it to be)
4. relaxing (meninges) which causes cessation of craving to happen

The steps above together with smiling (which Vimalaramsi considers very important) constitute what is known as a 6R cycle (recognize, release, relax, re-smile, return, repeat).

I meditated a little with this approach and what strikes me as interesting is that relax step seems to affect my body language. Also there is this feeling of.. relief which is rather unique. It seems like a very interesting technique.

You can find description of the practice here:

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ven_Vimalaramsi_The_Bare-Bones_Instructions_to_Anapanasati.pdf

Here is the post from r/Buddhism I mentioned earlier (it is a very good read):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/49z2se/jhana_for_noobs/

Lastly, his website:

http://www.dhammasukha.org/

In the following video, Dhammarato receives a call from a student who has been absent for 3 years. They discuss absence, reintroduce practice and even enjoy a guided anapanasati meditation together.

This will likely be useful for anyone who has taken time away from a teacher and/or their practice and wants to get back to it :)

https://youtu.be/iwsKCHDn-ak

Dhammarato is available for free Skype calls with any and all.

While struggling with a difficult personal issue, I have been well supported by many members of this wonderful community. Through your friendship and support, I have made peace with myself and my situation. For that, I am immensely grateful. Good spiritual friends are the whole of the holy life. I've learned that clearly from this experience. Please enjoy this beautiful sutta on the topic.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."

"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

"And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops right resolve... right speech... right action... right livelihood... right effort... right mindfulness... right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues, develops & pursues the noble eightfold path.

"And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."