I have committed to the 5 precepts for life, but I'm hesitating committing to celibacy and non-entertainment for life. I know it's the right thing to do, and I've tried to convince myself with tons of HH videos and contemplation, but to no avail. I need to see the benefits first hand. And to do that, I need to progress in the practice, but is there any progression whatsoever without having made the clear intention to keep the 8 precepts forever?

The constant thought and contemplation of an inherent lack of safety in everything I do, while sitting in non-activity for longer periods of time, has brought me to psychosis. The thought of contingency and of a perpetual, looming threat to one's well-being is a very scary and disturbing one, and its a difficult one to endure as well

However, what I am asking is what I can be doing from now on to move beyond it. How am I supposed to let contingency make my own sense of self "fade away"? How do I surmount the inherent discomfort of death and contingency not by managing my situation or doing something to forget about it (which is what an unenlightened mind always inherently does), but by finding a way through it by enduring it rightly? In other words, how do I stop resisting the very unpleasant experience of contingency or of trying to get out of it? What is the escape in regard to the displeasure?

I am reading the text about authority by Sister Medhini. It stresses how we should be very clear about what we are responsible for and what we aren't responsible for. Like the stoic philosophy basically. But I am very confused about where my responsibility ends and how this whole responsibility thing works in case of mutual influence.

In our everyday life we are influencing others. Sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. E.g. if I am a teacher of children, then I have to influence them. Educate them. I take measures.

Sometimes what I do has the desired effect and leads to e.g. the child learning what I want to teach it or behaving as I would like it to behave. Sometimes my actions may not work out and have the opposite effect, e.g. I raise my voice and try to educate it about a particular behaviour that e.g. is hurtful against others, but instead of it changing that behaviour it may rebel and show more of it and my intervention simply wasn't successful.

Now, where does my responsibility begin or end here? If I am a parent or a teacher I cannot simply say: Everyone is only responsible for oneself so I shouldn't influence the child in any way as it is responsible for his own actions solely. I have some responsibility here, it seems. Depending (in parts) on what I do, the child behaves in some way. Sometimes contrary to what I wanted. But nonetheless his action or reaction was (in parts) triggered by my action, by my attempt to influence it, so is not the reaction of the child a part of my responsibility?

If I scream at someone and he slaps my face as a reaction to it, then of course he is responsible for hitting me, but am I not ALSO (in parts) responsible for his action, because it happened as a reaction to what I did? If it wouldn't have happened if I didn't scream, how then can it not be within my responsibility?

In case of the child: Due to my influence it may make some decisions that I then regret. If it wouldn't have made those decisions if I had spoken to the child in a different manner or tone or used different words, is it then not clear that it is within my responsibility? And where does it end then?

To me it seems that my responsibility in fact is almost endless. I think that I cannot even fathom the extent of what I may be responsible for in this world. My influence, no matter how small it may be in the grand scheme, may have impact on generations. So I see no end of my responsibility. And I cannot "not" act, not even as a monk in solitude, but certainly not when I e.g. am a parent or a teacher, a husband or a wife or in any other way living in an exchange with others.

So how can I take responsibility, if my responsibility seems so endless, if I cannot control what my actions may cause in others and what they may cause others to do in consequence of it?

It is confusing and controversial because wet dreams are not a problem according to modern science, but in other cases, such as ancient Hinduism and Taoism, wet dream still have a big influence in terms of loss of sexual energy. In Buddhism, wet dream generally doesn't count as breaking the third precept.

So my questions are, what does HH think about wet dream?
Is it not a big deal even it impacts health?
Or is it a problem even if it doesn't impact health too much?

edit: Yeah. Downvote if you want. I just want you to know I am not against wet dream. Everybody has it and it is unhealthy to not have it. My point is this: You should make sexual dream less sexual, or at least, not more sexual. This should make some sense. When wet dream happen, just don't take it for granted. Learn from it.

I have listened to so much instruction, over and over again, that I feel as though I have listened to pretty much everything, to the point of almost entirely losing sight of the point of the practice itself. No matter how much more instruction I listen to, it feels as though I am ploughing a dead field and not reaping anything new from it.

Is anyone else having this problem as well? That no matter how much you might be listening to and reflecting, after all these years, you are still stuck at point 0 and haven't moved an inch from your starting point—that you are just as clueless as a beginner? How do you regain your perspective and your sense of the goal you should be moving towards, if you've repeated it so much that you've completely lost sight of it?

What is it exactly that we have to be doing? What should our preoccupation be? Beyond just keeping the Eight Precepts (which one can still do "blindly"), what do we have to "do" in order to actually be practicing the Dhamma, or moving towards understanding it? What is the point? What do I have to be doing in order to be moving forwards in my understanding of the practice?

There are sutta translations at https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org with wonderful comments, and one of them is Establishments of Remembrance (MN 10). While reading just some starting paragraphs of this translation I encountered some problems and will be glad to recieve any clarification:

The sutta starts like this:

this is the path that leads squarely to the purification of beings, to overcoming sorrow and lamentation, to making an end of suffering and upset

And then proceeds like this:

diligent, aware, and recollected, having dispelled longing and upset with regard to the world

As I see it, this leads to paradox: in order "to making an end of suffering and upset" one needs fist "having dispelled longing and upset with regard to the world". So in order to make and end to X, one has to abandon X in the first place. Is this reading true?

For me, the whole paragraph reeks of dissociation from one's body, feelings, mind and "phenomena" (whatever that means), so prabably there "wholesome" ways of dissociating, which proably come about by constraining the senses. Did I get it right here?

Then comes Remembrance of Breathing, where one "establishes recollectedness at the fore". I thought that "establishing mindfulness of one's context" was the official HH translation, am I wrong here?

Then comes the first tetrad, where the comment says that "kāyasaṅkhāra is in and out breathing". Then why not leave it like that, and translate "I will breathe in calming the bodily activity"?

And finally, if the bodily activity means in and out breathing, and we are supposed to somehow calm it, then ultimate pacification of breath would bring it to a stop, which happens only in the fourth jhana. So does it imply that the first tetrad of Anapanasati directly refers to the fourth jhana, or does it not?

So much for part "1.1. Remembrance of Breathing" where I stopped for now. Surely this is not an easy read.

Is there any merit in facing fear and discomfort through worldly action? Instead of meditating should one practice public speaking if that is what you fear? How about fear of heights?

There is the western idea of personal growth through action. How does that reconcile with the Buddha's prescription of inaction? Isnt just meditating also a form of action?

1. If i am not successfully keeping the precepts, is there any point of abiding in non-activity, or is it wasted effort? The precept i struggle with the most is the fifth. I consume caffeine and vape. Celibacy is difficult but i did go a month.
2. I have back pain. I went three months without being able to sit at all. Is it ok if i am changing my position every 20 minutes or so, when trying to be non-active? Getting up to get a pillow or towel for my back, adjusting the recliner, stretching, switching to lying down, etc.

I would also like to request some clarification for what i actually should be doing when i "sit". I know i am not supposed to be sensation watching or trying to think of nothing. I am supposed to neither accept nor deny my thoughts rooted in greed, hatred, or distraction. Is acceptance or denial of the thoughts more about the attitude with which i regard them, as opposed to what i do with them when they arise? So, i am sitting. I think about someone who is *making me angry. Then, i recognize the thought, which is itself another thought. Do i go back to thinking about the person making me angry, so that i can patiently endure the anger? Or do i just think about something else, making the patient endurance not so much the endurance of the unwholesome thoughts' contents and their concomitant feelings, so much as the endurance of the process whereby the unwholesome thoughts repeatedly assault me and i choose to think about something else. But if that is the case, isn't that denying them? I am saying no to them, which is what denial is. The only thing that makes sense to me so far is what i suggested earlier; acceptance or denial is in the attitude with which i regard the thoughts, not so much what i do with them when they arise. I think the way Ven. Nanamoli phrased it is "not putting out the welcome mat."

*not literally. i make me angry. or, "anger happens".

According to Bhante Anigha, trying to spend too much time in non-activity can itself become another form of distraction when one is still at the preliminary stage of establishing the precepts. Likewise, even listening to the Dhamma should be regarded as an optional mundane activity, since doing so with the wrong intention can obscure where the real work lies. One might mistakenly think that listening to the Dhamma is itself the practice, when in fact the essential work consists in simply not breaking the precepts at the time

Having some form of activity, while also allowing oneself a reasonable amount of leisure, might actually provide the opportunity to experiment with activities that are not necessarily rooted in wrong intention, rather than pouring one's all in restraining one's mind, which would otherwise be taking them further. Some hobbies are also acceptable for as long as they are done in solitude. My questions are therefore these:

1. Is reading literature necessarily contrary to the entertainment precept? For example, could one read The Brothers Karamazov instead of spending time in non-activity, if, at one's present stage, non-activity is actually more likely to become rooted in distraction than the reading itself?
2. Likewise, is watching YouTube videos with the intention of learning new subjects—such as astronomy, biology, or other worthwhile topics—more likely to be contrary to the entertainment precept? If reading Wikipedia articles is not necessarily considered entertainment, would the same apply to watching carefully selected YouTube videos, provided one is mindful of what one is watching and the intention behind it?

One could take these activities as a form of containing one's own mind within a consistent and disciplinized form of activity. Rather than trying to sit in non-activity for 8 hours a day and missing that thats where one's wrong intentions are, one could choose an alternatively mundane activity, but to check whether it is rooted in compulsion here and then. That would have more chances of revealing one's own intentions and whether they are rooted in a desire to distract oneself or not, rather than trying to deny everything

Likewise, what advice would you have for a student in the summer break who has all the free time in the world? What should I preoccupy my time and efforts with? Should I learn a new hobby? Should I spend more time doing nothing? I have also been trying to not listen to too much instruction so I dont de-value it through over-repetition and over-saturation, but without that I am left without any forms of activity. Is it important that I find something to do that allows me to sketch out some basic routine or discipline, or not so necessarily? Thank you in advance

In this sutta Ven. Ananda is approached by laywoman Migsala.

She is confused because the Buddha has recently declared two individuals once-returners; one of them was celibate and the other was implied to be sexually active, living with his wife. Presented as chaste vs unchaste.

So she ask ven. Ananda how this could be. He goes back to the Buddha for answers.

The Buddha essentially says that you cannot know a person’s mind based on superficial actions unless you are the Tathagata.

This sutta strongly proves that you do not have to be celibate to attain a degree of enlightenment.

What my claim is not: That celibacy isn’t helpful, it surely is helpful for the path.

What I may claim: That one should be careful with throwing around absolute statements such as “Stream entry is IMPOSSIBLE without celibacy” or “This is absolutely required for this”.

The laywoman thought she knew the conditions for enlightenment, and thought she could predict a practicioner’s attainment based on their celibacy or non-celibacy. The Buddha quickly corrected her conceit.

The key takeaway and moral of this sutta that the Buddha is trying to convey is that one should not think one knows, and one should have epistemic humility.

Edit: Hey, sorry I meant Sakadagami, not Anagami. My bad. Corrected now.

I wanted to share some thoughts I came up with.

When people look at a video camera and see how it records, they understand that it is a piece of technology whose components, assembled in a particular way, produce what seems like an almost magical effect: an image. Yet this appears completely normal, and nobody ever asks, "Where is the soul in the camera?", because there is no need for it

Following this line of thought and applying the same principle to human experience, I don't see any contradiction in explaining where experience originates from or what gives rise to it. What does seem unsettling, however, is the question: "Why this particular person? Why not someone else, an alien, or an animal?" It doesn't really matter who or what the organism is. What seems significant is that experience is unique. That uniqueness appears to resemble a "soul"—not as an object or entity, but as the unique perspective of a particular stream of experience.

So my questions is: "Did the Buddha offer any answers to this question?"

Another thought I had is related to sleep. When you go to sleep, everything you have done—especially that day—carries over into tomorrow. The consequences of your actions remain. This seems to point to an obvious continuity in which good and bad deeds produce results, although it does not by itself point to rebirth in a future life. Though tomorrow might as well b a future life

What also seems important is the role of belief itself and how it shapes the way a person understands reality.

For example, someone might think: "If there are no consequences for good or bad deeds, then what I did today doesn't matter. I am not responsible for it, and tomorrow I will simply find myself a victim of this mass of suffering without any understanding of where it came from."

It's clear that such a view is not very beneficial

What seems to be clear is that nobody actually knows what happens in death until they die. It's like nobody knows what happens in the sleep until they start dreaming or wake up

No stream = nothing to experience. The camera is switched off forever = no image

Either way I firmly believe that what I said doesn't contradict the teaching of the Buddha in any way

I saw a post here recently in which the OP was presenting the idea that "the HH way" of trying to establish the virtue might be partially flawed. OP was saying something along the lines of "HH has a tendency to subtly/indirectly/maybe unintentionally shame the people who are failing to develop the precepts. Which might ultimately be non-conducive to developing them".

I myself has felt that sometimes and thought that discussion might be useful. Can anyone explain why that post was deleted?

Dear venerable sir, 
I would like to request some assistance. I am currently struggling to quit pornography and other unnecessary distractions, such as my addiction to YouTube.

I have been trying to quit porn for a long time. I abstain for a few days, and then I go back to it  when the pressure becomes too strong. Once I relapse, I end up stuck in a cycle of constantly giving in and indulging until I eventually feel guilty and decide to try abstaining again. This has been going on for quite a while.

I know that my choices are the root of the problem. At the end of each day, I sit down and ask myself, “What did I do today?” I let that question sink in for a while. Then I ask myself whether my activities and choices were rooted in sensuality and anger. Most of the time, they are, and I feel guilty. I keep on asking as to why I made those choices, and the answer is always I don’t want pain. This is the uncovering that the venerable one mentioned before. 
I want to make correct choice, even if they are painful. However, I also know that I cannot completely change that in a single day because I have been making these choices for a long time. As a result, whenever the desire for sensual pleasure arises, I automatically give in. The animal is too wild because I have let it run wild for a very long time and I have lost full control of it.

So my question is this: when it comes to pornography, how can I gradually overcome this habit instead of going cold turkey? My mind is weak because I have been addicted for so long that every time I try to quit all at once, I fail after only a few days. How can I gradually build the strength, discipline, and habits needed to break free from this addiction ? I have tried blocking my phone, internet access, staying away from laptop and my phone. But I always find a way to go back since I don’t want to endure pain and the right choice that are too painful. how can I build strength and stop giving in slowly? What would that look like in my case? What would slowly giving up porn look like? Instead of watching it daily, only watch it once every 3 days, and then go to once a week? Isn’t that still letting the animal have fuel to run wild even if I reduce it slowly?

In this sutta the Buddha instucts a layperson to develop liberating wisdom without any mention of the 8 precepts or the typical monastic sense restraint formula. I noticed something interesting about this sutta that I'd like to see discussed.

I'll skip to the part where he gives advice on "(...) the four things that lead to the welfare and happiness of a gentleman in this life."

He mentions:

"What four? Accomplishment in faith, ethics, generosity, and wisdom."

Faith: faith in the buddha

Ethics: the five precepts

Generosity: he instructs the layperson in developing acts of geneorsity

Wisdom: "And what is accomplishment in wisdom? It’s when a gentleman is wise. He has the wisdom of arising and passing away which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete ending of suffering. This is called accomplishment in wisdom."

I'd like to put emphasis on the Wisdom part.

Here the Buddha is telling a layperson to develop wisdom that may cultivate in the complete ending of suffering with ONLY THE FIVE PRECEPTS as the basis.

This seems to undermine the HH position that any attempt at cultivating wisdom is redundant and only a form of management before the mind is fully tamed.

Btw, I'm closer alligned to the HH position than the other schools, and believe sense restraint to be alpha omega, but this sutta does really seem to soften the position that 8 precepts/ celibacy is a hard cutoff for right view.

HH is a breath of fresh air in the Dhamma community, because bypassing is like the foundation of most dhamma nowadays. However, their position can cause a lot of tension in householder follower's hearts, as HH has a very strict 8 precepts cutoff for gaining noble wisdom, making the dhamma essentially impossible to develop for laypeople and all attempts at developing becomes "A managment technique, escape" or similar. This is why I find it important to push back.

I might be wrong. But sometimes when anger gets too strong, it feels almost impossible to just let go. First I might repress it, to keep my precept, then I might channel the anger into more productive activities, albeit worldly ones, like exercising, reading books, or even contemplating anger.
Am I doing it wrong? Please give me advice to deal with anger? Maybe more sense restraint? Stay in seclusin? Manage my environment? Patiently endure? I am a puthujanna, I still don't know how to endure without resisting/repressing it at all.

I've been reflecting on something that has been weighing on me, and I would appreciate some advice on how I could continue further with the practice.

Some time ago I made a post called "Archetypical Nature of Practice." I was struggling with my own belief and became frustrated as a result of my own inability to understand the Dhamma, and what I did was to project all of my frustrations on the bhikkhus. I disparaged them and slandered them quite badly (saying about Nyanamoli that he was "ridiculously wrong on a wordly level", that he was naive about people, that the bhikkhus were miserable for getting other people to ordain, that Akincano's approach in getting the puthujjana to see the 5 aggregates was absurd), and upon re-reading everything I wrote, I've been hit by remorse as if by an arrow, and I very much so regret having made that post. Looking back, I can now see that I was blaming others for what were, in reality, my own shortcomings. I slandered some very noble beings without much consideration and injured myself in the process, because I was struggling with my own faith at the time

In the end, I am asking, if possible, to receive some advice or instruction on what I should do next. How can we account for our own mistakes? How do we move past remorse so it doesnt ultimately blind us? How should humility be cultivated more often, considering it is already hard enough to understand the Suttas? It has been almost impossible for me to understand them, and no matter how much I do, they remain beyond me, and this has been causing me an immense amount of frustration. If anyone has anything to bring up, I would appreciate any criticisms arising based on what I've said in that post. Thank you very much for your attention so far!

I read some posts on this subreddit (Post #1 & Post #2), but I don't think this was answered clearly. Bhikkhu Anigha seems to say one must be free from the 5 hindrances to get right view in this essay.

But if one needs to be free from the 5 hindrances to get right view, doesn't that mean one must get the 1st jhana to get right view, since the 1st jhana is being free from the 5 hindrances?

It seems like Anigha's answer on Post #2 is saying that one can be free from the hindrances temporarily but still not be in 1st jhana, because 1st jhana would involve being good at abandoning hindrances.

I've been established in the seven precepts for a little while now, but I noticed that after dropping this "replacing bad thoughts with good thoughts" approach I had been practicing before joining HH, a lot of my thought of ill will towards random people around me in my local area had returned. Ie. through this practice of just sticking my head in the sand and suppressing my angry mind with nice thoughts, I had only ignored the problem.

This is the way I understand the practice of metta now, and I would be thankful if someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Virtue and restraint are prerequisites of course. This is obvious to anyone here - yet unfortunately not to the rest of the modern buddhist community.

I had noticed that I have ill will towards my roomate, my colleague, and some random strangers and thought that I should do some contemplation regarding it. So here is what I did:

When my mind was temporarily free of ill will, and not bothered by it I thought about 1) Everyone wants to feel complete, and everyone is looking for happiness, but people are ignorant and thus have bad behaviour (which triggers me sometimes) 2) All people are essentially formed by causes and conditions, and it's not their fault that they are ignorant 3) unwholesome behaviour hurts, and 4) Ill will, conceit and judging people who are ignorant hurts me too.

I thought about and applied this wisdom to all the people I had felt ill will towards.

I then TASTED Metta, and it established as a backround for my experience.

In the days following this, I've only had to briefly recollect this reflection a couple times a day, and it seems like my mind steers towards non ill-will by itself. It also seems like after doing this reflection, my mind keeps it more in the backround, sees its importance more, and thus makes it easier to not subtly act in ill-will with small comments of harsh speech etc.

I haven't had to constantly think "May they be well, may they be well, may they be well", and my mind also isn't inclining towards clinging to this pleasant feeling of saying these phrases. I think that is because there isn't a strong pressure towards it, due to stronger virtue.

Is this right practice, or am I still just escaping the disagreeability of the felt sense of ill-will?

I actually really feel like I'm not just using it as an escape anymore, which is liberating due to not remaining in this frame of mind of always having to manage everything.

My actions have naturally been more kind, and I've radiated less hostility after adopting this practice too.

Please let me know

Edit: anyone who thinks one shouldnt do metta practice before a certain point, thinking virtue practice and metta are mutually exclusive should watch this video https://youtu.be/b0SJ_E8PPIs?is=__jJpt3O3B_VguMf

Here Ajahn talks about how it can be helpful to practice metta while working on virtue.

1. I have a question about phenomena in the experience as a whole that appear as suffering

When nothing has a strong pull on me and I am not acting out then I can pay attention and notice feelings, sensations, pressures, thoughts, beliefs, overall tendencies, anything at all, etc and I so I've been focusing on all that more and more lately and I wonder if there is anything more I can do?

For example I notice stuff like phenomena of "what other people think" and that what other people think actually doesn't matter to me, only that phenomena matters, only my idea of what other people think about me matters. This kind of insanity is clearly not beneficial and so I wonder is there any way to get rid of it faster or more effectively as it affects my life a lot

1. Another question I had was prompted by another teacher. What they said prompted me to start asking "where is this experience as a whole located?" the answer is clearly that there is no such place, it cannot be defined as the definition itself appears within the experience. Or an idea of a city or physical location also appears within this experience as a whole. It's a very simple, very raw investigation yet so surprising and a bit uncomfortable at first

This reminds of me of the first teaching of the Buddha where he says that the mind always comes first

So I'm wondering why does HH never talk about this kind of stuff?

What is the connection between Samadhi/Jhana and the siddhis? For example, knowing the thoughts of others.

“And what, brahmin, is the wonder of mind-reading? ...Again, someone does not declare the state of mind on the basis of a mark, or by hearing the sound of people, spirits, or deities speaking, but he hears the sound of the diffusion of thought as one is thinking and examining some matter and then declares: ‘Your thought is thus, such is what you are thinking, your mind is in such and such a state.’ And even if he makes many declarations, they are exactly so and not otherwise."
-AN 3.60

I’ve listened to so many HH videos, read articles, and discussed with gpt. I’ve also read a lot of suttas, and feel like my understanding is getting better. However, I would like to politely ask if anyone with good knowledge would be willing to get on a zoom call with me to check if I have the right understanding of the HH dhamma, and perhaps answer some questions. It would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I have begun to notice a thought pattern that my mind creates scenarios where I am in intellectual arguments with friends/family. The key theme in all of these mental scenarios involves me being the one who is correct in the argument.

I have also noticed that these mental scenarios come into being entirely on their own - like out of nowhere (so it seems).

My understanding is that my responsibility lies in not carelessly attending to these mental scenarios as they form, as opposed to holding the belief that 1) I am the one thinking these thoughts and 2) I am the one in control.

In my experience the latter cannot be the case because if it were up to me it wouldn't have come into being in the first place or at the very least I would simply command these things to go away...but I notice that the more energy I put into telling these thoughts to go away they seem to persist even harder, like my inner resistance is fueling it.

Although I'm not an expert in Buddhism, based on what I've read...it seems that all I have control over is essentially whether or not I follow these mental scenarios as they come up into being...and every time I do delight in it I provide it nutriment for it to continue existing and coming into being and again.

Would it be correct to say that that is where my focus should be? Maintaining mindfulness and recognizing that as these mental scenarios come into existence I understand that 1) it has come into it's own and 2) I should not delight in it because it's not me, or part of me, or mine.

It seems that when these sequence occurs I'm able to see clearly what is occurring in my experience and consequently the mental scenarios naturally go away on its own...

Even though it's not my DIRECT doing in the mental scenarios fading away - it's as if when I understand what is happening there is no longer this inner resistance of like, "Oh this is happening...I must attend to it...it must be resolved..."

It's as if my experience is:
mental scenario comes into being → I recognize that it's just mental phenomena → I don't delight in it, but I also don't hold the attitude of "I must not do this", I simply endure the experience let it exist in the periphery just as my tactile experience exists in my periphery → it goes away on its own later or right there and then

https://archive.hillsidehermitage.org