Відео

I think this is all too much intellect.🥸

Interesting conversation. So being established in the perception of body, mind, mood and phenomena as being there beforehand, not being created by us , enduring there on their own , being unreliable and uncertain in its nature would automatically result in dispassion towards all sense objects. Leading up to the full arahantship by liberation through understanding- panna vimutti by the means of knowledge of the endurance of things- dhammathittinana. For how could one engage with sense objects ,reacting to them out of greed ,aversion or desire for distraction if one has established that perception of those things enduring there on their own and being ultimately unreliable ? What sense would it make to be aversed to anything or to crave for anything and taking as the basis for your craving/ aversion a body , a mind, a mood or a phenomena in which you basically have no say in ? How can we derive pleasure on account of things that precede our sense of self and in relation to which our sense of self is secondary? It is and it was always impossible. Only by overlooking the nature of those things that we are paired with was the pursuit of pleasure possible. In my experience that perception is not lost through committing a coarse breach of virtue,( that would have been already the outcome of loosing sati) but rather through carelessly engaging in small acts of distraction and those then build up until one finds themselves proliferating. What seems to work for me is that when i catch myself ,,going for" a enticing sense object, i stop for a moment and ask myself if the underlying feeling is a pleasant one or a unpleasant one? As it turns out all the time, i happen to discern a underlying unpleasant feeling, a feeling of lack of contentment, a feeling of being kind of agitated , in need of something external to fix that internal discontent. As soon as i discern that , disenchantment and dispassion for that formerly enticing sense object arises.

There are ads like every ten minutes. Kinda annoying tbh

Very good talk, thanks Bhantes

Good morning dhamma family

Thank you 🙏

Thank you Bhantes! A practical question- if one has the desire/intention to contemplate the body as a container for the present experience, existing peripherally to that experience, and one recognizes that there may be some desire for a special meditation experience as a background to the intention to recollect the context of being within the body, should one: 1) contemplate the present experience, with the body as the container existing peripherally, and include the desire to have a special meditation experience within that contemplation, or 2) not actively recollect the context of the body and just stick trying to see the sings of the mind, not acting out of that unwholesome desire? or 3) something else? Thanks again, this talk was extremely helpful :)

Well said, Bhantes, 🙏🏽

Can I ask what is the sutta that the Buddha outlines the 5 things that can strengthen mindfulness please?

Thank you Bhantes for sharing this talk and clearing obstructions from understanding Buddha dharma.

Thank you, Bhantes

Mindfulness is not about doing, it's about being.

Thank you 🙏

Thanks Bhantes

🙏🙏🙏

Much Appreciated. A real mind boggler?

Few of today's Buddhists have any idea about the issue of "seeing the body within the body"

The teacher / answerer sounds to have a Dutch accent. Groeten uit Nederland. I subscribed. Please no ads

Excellent, sadhu 🙏

Another excellent, well-explained inspiring Dhamma teaching.

Wonderful video! In future videos similar to this, would you be willing to include the name of the bhikkhus in the video description so we may reference them later?

Venerable sirs, thank you so much for sharing such clear instructions and guidance on the practice. It has been an invaluable help for me. My deepest gratitude. 🙏

Thanks Bhantes

Sadhu 🙏

It seems to me that anytime a sotāpanna recollects his responsibility he would simultaneously be recollecting his freedom. Is this accurate?

Thank you for the specificity and generous intent. An enormous boon to deep practice.

24:40 - 25:55 Venerables, if you could please answer this question, I would be grateful. You mention here in this part of the video that which seems to be a contraction, in my understanding, as to what was presented before. Here, in this part of the video, thoughts rooted in the hinderances are to be “destroyed” - in the first part of the video, the unwholesome intention with regards to a state of mind occupied with hinderance(s), was simply to not be followed - to simply not “jump into” that state of mind, the mood, the thoughts, but simply to endure their arising, presence and subsiding. How can these two things be reconciled? Have I misunderstood what you have said in the first part of the video? Yet it seems to me the first part of the video was quite sensible, quite true, that just as a state of mind, whatever it may be, moods or thoughts, need no be “acted out upon” with regards to body and speech, just so, with mind. We need not “jump into” unwholesome action, whether by body, speech or mind, we need not “take up” those options or follow them at all. Thus, we truly abide peacefully, as a mountain in a rainstorm, because no rainstorm, in relation to any of the aggregates, affects us. But how is this the same as “destroying” thoughts connected with the hinderances, as mentioned in the time stamp? For previously, you had said the “destroying” refers only to destroying our unwholesome intention - not to anything the mind can present at all, but our choice to indulge it. Thank-you, for this is a very important topic that many seem to have different answers towards.

Thanks Bhantes, that's another important talk

Crucial distinctions! Btw, this talk reminded me of Anupādisesa and Saupādisesa Arahants, could you maybe talk more on that sometime ? (or write it here).

Thank you 🙏🙏🙏 So would anagami still have ill will and sensuality arising as part of the 5 hindrances in citta? But, there's no mano or intention to act out of those? Or have those states actually ceased in the citta for anagami?

Thanks 🙏

Thank you, this topic really is a struggle in laylife 🙏

Thanks Bhantes

Thanks Bhantes How lucky we are to have access to people being able to explain so clearly such a subtle teaching as the Dhamma and the Middle Way is

Thanks Bhantes

Fyi, you have ads on your channel

So insightful 🙏

🙏🙏🙏

It is very interesting listening to you monks rationalize what YOU believe or want to believe. Funny how ALL religions do the same chest beating. There is no buddha; just like there is no god(s). No heaven or hell realms. Just life then death. Very simple to understand without all this nonsense. PS: I have practiced the path daily for five years in semi-seclusion. I have kept the five/eight precepts.

Awakening is gradual not sudden

Thank you! 🙏

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu 🙏🙏🙏

Another question: all five of these monks was created out of sensual desire and passion (through sex). To be reborn as a human is as likely as the turtle coming up every 10 000 year and hitting the flouting cirkle on he surface with his head. This is the chance. But, if every human was to become totally free from sensual desire, in one generation there would be no dhamma practioners left, no buddhism, monks or nothing. Only animals. There is something in this equation that I really cant grasp...

Thx for a great topic and discussion. This is also my problem as a lay man: how do I know that getting rid of attachments and cravings isnt just me "trying to be good", or perhaps distansing myself from others, being the "good guy" in a world full of people following their cravings? How do I know that this isnt my ego wanting to be something special, better, purer and different? I feel like its constantly there, this thought...

Wonderful

I need to listen to this 20 more times… awesome stuff Venerables

Well said, Bhantes, well said 🙏🏽

Good morning Dhamma friends, love seeing new teaching to dig into

Thank you !

It’s helpful to emphasize this gradient nature of the training. It’s the same all the way down, to the most subtle.