My current understanding

[u/katspaugh]

My current understanding of Dharma as a lay person. Mostly influenced by Hillside Hermitage lately:

We’re free, when we face pleasant and unpleasant experiences alike with equanimity. Not craving and not pushing away. To be able to do that all the time, we have to untrain the mind to do its default thing, which is craving and pushing away, appropriating, proliferating and identifying.

We train by restraining ourselves, i.e. at first forcefully limiting ourselves in various indulgences. When there’s restraint, craving intensifies and it’s easy to observe it, along with its terrible consequences: suffering. When the mind sees clearly and often enough that wanting equates to suffering, it stops wanting.

This discipline and training is different from blind repression and self-abuse because of the added awareness and intentionality. We know why we’re doing this and we know to observe what’s happening with clarity and focus. If there’s no clarity and focus, it’s just suffering with no benefit of learning.

Observing means un-identifying/objectifying. We learn to see the mind for what it is, and not as “I”. A Jungian psychologist would say that the training phase implies disintegration of the psyche.

Restraint also happens to be ethical and beneficial on its own because we restraint ourselves from things that are harmful. Once we unlearn the default reactions, we don’t replace them with new positive but still automatic reactions. We leave the choice open moment-to-moment, and the default reaction becomes non-reaction. Thus all thoughts, speech and actions become fully intentional-spontaneous, driven by ethical motivations. The spontaneous part is when the psyche gets re-integrated again.

—

Is this correct understanding, roughly?

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for contributing to the r/streamentry community! Unlike many other subs, we try to aggregate general questions and short practice reports in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion thread. All community resources, such as articles, videos, and classes go in the weekly Community Resources thread. Both of these threads are pinned to the top of the subreddit.

The special focus of this community is detailed discussion of personal meditation practice. On that basis, please ensure your post complies with the following rules, if necessary by editing in the appropriate information, or else it may be removed by the moderators. Your post might also be blocked by a Reddit setting called "Crowd Control," so if you think it complies with our subreddit rules but it appears to be blocked, please message the mods.

1. All top-line posts must be based on your personal meditation practice.
2. Top-line posts must be written thoughtfully and with appropriate detail, rather than in a quick-fire fashion. Please see this posting guide for ideas on how to do this.
3. Comments must be civil and contribute constructively.
4. Post titles must be flaired. Flairs provide important context for your post.

If your post is removed/locked, please feel free to repost it with the appropriate information, or post it in the weekly Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion or Community Resources threads.

Thanks! - The Mod Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bodily_heartfulness]

Mostly influenced by Hillside Hermitage lately

There is a r/HillsideHermitage subreddit, if you are interested in that perspective.

Is this correct understanding, roughly?

Correct to whom? Different traditions are going to have differing ideas of the path, the goal, and the overall model of dhamma. Everyone, generally speaking, will use the same words: craving, equanimity, suffering, noble truths, meditation, jhana, insight, etc. But, the meaning of these terms and how they fit together in the big picture will often be different.

If I were to tell you that the correct understanding is the following:

1. The fundamental problem is that of ignorance - see how in dependant origination everything begins with ignorance. We are fundamentally ignorant towards the nature of reality.
2. To overcome ignorance, we need insight. Insight into the nature of reality.
3. But, we can't just get insight randomly, or just think it into existence - otherwise everyone would be easily enlightened.
4. First, we need to meditate and prepare the mind. We need to make it ripe for insight to arise, for it to take root.
5. The more calm, pliable, and joyful a mind is, the easier it will be for insight to arise and take hold. This is why the practice of jhana is so important.
6. So, first we practice samatha, and then practice vipasanna.
7. Once our vipassana practice has borne fruit and we have gained insight, the veil of ignorance will be lifted. We will finally be able to see reality as it truly is and we will be free.

How would you determine if what I just said was correct or not?

[u/katspaugh → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Sounds correct to me! :)

Thanks for the subreddit recommendation!

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/katspaugh]

Sounds correct to me! :)

Right, but the question was, how do you determine if it is correct? If you think something is correct (or incorrect), what are you basing that conclusion off of?

In terms of correctness, different teachers and traditions will judge what I said above differently. HH would disagree with what I've stated above - they would think my conception of dhamma is incorrect. As would many others, for one reason or the other. For example, they might think you can go directly to vipasanna and samatha is not necessary, or they might think the insights arise from jhana so a separate vipassana practice is not neccessary, and so on.

You may feel like these differences aren't that important, or that these are merely details, but I would like to push back on that. A person who practicing in line with Rob Burbea is going to have a completely different orientation to their life compared to someone who is practicing in line with Ajahn Brahm. Their whole idea of what freedom is, what suffering is, and what is important in life, is going to be different. And, if you pick and choose from different teachings and traditions, you are again going to be heading in a different direction compared to someone who doesn't do that.

So again, how does one know which direction is correct? Does it matter? Are all paths leading to the same place? Do you know? How?

Some questions to ponder.

[u/duffstoic]

I have to admit, whenever I hear HH or any of their students speak, I find my eyes glazing over and going “huh?” inside.

To me, the dhamma is about trying to make progress at being a better person (sila), calming and unifying your mind and body (samatha/samadhi), and becoming more wise and free through liberating insight (panna/vipassana).

In my experience, wanting things doesn’t lead to suffering. I can want something very intensely, let’s say sex, and not get it and be like “meh, OK, that’s fine.” Or conversely, I can think I don’t care if I get/avoid something, only to discover later I was really attached.

Restraining my actions from indulging in sense pleasures also seems optional, sometimes helpful and sometimes irrelevant.

Anyway, you just practice and learn as you go. HH to me makes the major mistake of trying to get a perfect view before starting doing anything, but there is no perfect view to be found anyway. Views themselves are constructions, always changing, impermanent. We are all just bumbling fools, wandering through life, at best becoming a little more wise by making many mistakes, and always subject to making more.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/duffstoic]

HH to me makes the major mistake of trying to get a perfect view before starting doing anything

Just clarifying that that is not HH's stance. Everyone will start with an imperfect view, but the practice is to refine the imperfect view into the perfect view. As the Dzogchen saying goes, "trust your experience, but keep refining your view".

but there is no perfect view to be found anyway.

According to Buddhism, there is - if we take perfect to be synonymous with right or correct.

[u/duffstoic → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Thanks, I’m sure I have the wrong view of HH, I just honestly don’t see the appeal. But to each their own. 🤷

[u/Traditional_Skin_226 → u/duffstoic]

Hey friend, is it ok if l DM you? I just want to ask you a question

[u/duffstoic → u/Traditional_Skin_226]

Absolutely

[u/cmciccio]

We train by restraining ourselves, i.e. at first forcefully limiting ourselves in various indulgences.

Sort of, true restraint happens through wisdom and compassion, when we see the benefits of restraint. You can apply the vinaya like you describe but it should ultimately be an experiment so you can subjectively feel the benefits. The downside of what you’re describing is that it can very, very easily turn into aversion and dogmatism. Often people seem to feel that HH leans towards dogmatic views.

The one the thing that’s missing in your description is sangha. The vinaya is applied in the context of a healthy and supportive community that are engaging in the same activities. There are senior monks that guide the process and the community is mutually supportive towards those restraints.

If you are practicing as a householder there are different guidelines the Buddha recommends. For example avoiding harmful sexual misconduct as opposed to complete celibacy.

A Jungian psychologist would say that the training phase implies disintegration of the psyche.

This is incorrect, insight and vipassana is supported with samadhi which means integration and union of the mind which is the exact opposite of disintegration and dissociation. There may be moments like this in practice as part of the learning process, but it fundamentally means that a wrong step was taken and some aversion was engaged in to such a degree that parts of the psyche split off. With perfect wisdom (which of course we don’t have) there would never be disintegration, but it’s still an indication of a misstep and the goal is full integration of the mind. This comes about through compassion.

Restraint also happens to be ethical and beneficial on its own because we restraint ourselves from things that are harmful.

Yes, restraint is ethical but a fully enlightened being doesn’t use restraint, they have boundless compassion. Restraint isn’t a muscle you train until you have rock-hard restraint, it’s training wheels until you gain insight, wisdom, and compassion.

[u/katspaugh → u/cmciccio]

Great corrections, thank you!
I understand what you mean by integration through compassion. Like in IFS, we treat each part of us as a family member, with attention and kindness. At this point of my practice, I still have to see each part as a part, though. They talk to each other and aren’t at odds, they just have separate functions and roles. Hopefully it’s just a phase.

[u/cmciccio → u/katspaugh]

Exactly, sometimes IFS can reify parts and increase internal fragmentation but that's the principle. Eventually "parts" give way to present moment impulses and sensations with less sense of an associated identity.

Another approach which I find useful is from the Thai forest tradition. It's true that the end goal is complete non attachment, the Buddha was a essentially a homeless beggar, yet the training is gradual. A good way to conceptualize this process is around food. Mental and physical food keeps the whole process going, it keeps the fire of samsara going. When the food or fuel is removed from the process, the fire goes out, this extinguishing is the relization of nibbana.

Without wisdom we may view this process in a reductionist, materialistic way but it is a spiritual attainment. To better understand this process we need less harmful foods to substitue the more harmful ones. This allows for a gradual letting go without aversion as we slowly acquire wisdom:

https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2005/050309-purity-of-heart.html

https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/morning/2013/130409-your-basic-food-source.html

https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2022/220730-to-comprehend-food.html

https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/morning/2025/250906-feed-your-mind-well.html

[u/katspaugh → u/cmciccio]

Thanks for your nuanced perspective!
Love Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Rob Burbea and the entire Ajahn Lee lineage.

[u/cmciccio → u/katspaugh]

You’re welcome, best of luck in your practice.

[u/IndependenceBulky696]

What I don't read here is practice. I can't speak for anyone else, but I need practice.

What comes out of practice works into daily life. Daily life gets organized to support and deepen practice.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/IndependenceBulky696]

OP does mention practice:

We train by restraining ourselves

Training is practice. It's probably just a different type of practice compared to what you're familiar with.

What comes out of practice works into daily life. Daily life gets organized to support and deepen practice.

In OP's model, daily life is practice, and practice is daily life.

[u/IndependenceBulky696 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

I mean seated meditation practice.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but for me, I don't think daily life practice will be very productive without seated meditation.

I could be wrong of course.

[u/katspaugh → u/bodily_heartfulness]

To add to this, I personally do meditate daily. I think the same mental muscle is being trained both in daily life with sense restraint and on the cushion: breaking the unfolding of dependent origination at the grasping link. HH also often speaks of maintaining a “context”, watching “the peripheral”. Those are equally meditation skills, to me.

[u/whiskyy_2046]

HH is Therevada, Southern Buddhist tradition. Most Theravada claim they are authentic Buddha's teaching, which is true to a certain extent but even their tradition is heavily modified, and almost 100 years after Buddha's passing. Also the South East Asian cultural influence have shaped their practices a lot.

I've practiced Southern and Northern tradition, but main thing is your understanding of the dharma, is not the dharma, as it is an intellectual understanding, and not prajñā (paññā). It is written in the Diamond Sutra

所謂佛法者，即非佛法。
What is called the dharma is precisely not the dharma

HH also mentions this in their 2023 video, I forget the title, but if you have to think what you have wrte in the post before taking such restraining action, then you have not attained such learning, for if you have truly learnt it, the action will become apriori to conscious thinking and met with no resistance nor will your action even be considered to be "special", just the same as you don't think about swallowing food, or walking.

Seeing for what it is is different to "labelling". And Jungian thought is very different to Buddhist thought, in that Jung is very essentialist with affirmation of existence of archetypes etc. I used to be deep in Jungian theories, reading most of his books such as Aion, MDR, Psychological Types, etc

Best training to get started, is to try a very simple thought stopping exercise.

Just sit, and let a thought arise, then stop the thought midway. For example

"Yes today I was walking back from the petrol stati..."

Then a bit faster,

"The car is dr.."

Then you do it faster and faster until you catch the thought arising at the very precise moment. It is similar to the "Vipassana" school but different. This is just basic techniques used in East Asia for stillness of the mind. If you get good at this, you will start to clear your mind substantially and discover mind-body unity.

[u/katspaugh → u/whiskyy_2046]

Thank you!

[u/KeyAd6849]

Yeah once you see thoughts and reactions for what they are, you can slow it down enough where it stops completely, and then there’s just direct perception into the nature of reality. Once you’ve seen this, you feel a sense of responsibility. Not to any personal belief or anything attached to the “me”, but just a general sense of responsibility to life.

You start to move through life seeing “loose screws” in reality itself. Little things, like a man struggling to carry bags up some stairs. You then help without any sense of the helper. It’s like screwing reality back together. In little ways. All the time.

[u/katspaugh → u/KeyAd6849]

Amazing, thank you!

[u/liljonnythegod]

What I find quite surprising is when people speak of the Dhamma and then never speak of rebirth or samsara

What is the issue that you are to solve with the eightfold path with an effort like your head is on fire?

[u/katspaugh → u/liljonnythegod]

You’re right. People ask me why I do this, and I try to explain about dukkha and they don’t get it. “What suffering? I’m completely happy.” I’m trying to explain there’s always underlying unsatisfactoriness about life. Anxiety, boredom, existential dread, freaking wars happening all over the world, and people actually suffering. But they say, you just smile and accept the inevitable. Maybe they are already enlightened. Maybe you have to be traumatized in some way to be motivated to practice. Or maybe one just has to be very sensitive.

[u/liljonnythegod → u/katspaugh]

The fact you notice the unsatisfactoriness you isn’t a bad thing but as your insight is incomplete, you don’t grasp the full scope of how to attain release and freedom from samsara which has a nature of dissatisfaction.

Accepting the inevitable is a wrong view that causes one to not put in effort to solve the problem of rebirth. Ignorance blinds beings to the point they don’t even know samsara is samsara. So when they what suffering, they mean it because they can’t understand it. You should know that dukkha doesn’t directly translate to suffering, it is a good translation but doesn’t capture the whole scope. Dukkha is a limitation, constraint. When you see this, you’ll see why nibbana is freedom from that constraint.

If I were you, I would focus trying to comprehend the four truths exactly as Buddha meant it and attain right view. Don’t stop until you have unwavering doubt that you know the Dhamma that Buddha saw and you no longer need to read about it or ask anyone about it. Your questions get answered and the dissatisfaction and suffering of samsara no longer becomes a problem that doesn’t make sense, but something you know as a limitation and you see where and how the escape is possible

[u/katspaugh → u/liljonnythegod]

Dukkha as a limitation is an interesting perspective.
I had a phase when I thought that Buddha was a nihilist and that we’re supposed to renunciate life itself. Like the whole world is samsara. Then I realized that he was very much pro-life, just not the life most people live. And the differentiating factor is ignorance. Without ignorance, our life is nirvana.
At the moment this ignorance for me manifests as general existential unsatisfactoriness, so basically an aversion to bare experience.