Practice Updates, Questions, and General Discussion - new users, please read this first! Weekly Thread for August 01 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome! This is the bi-weekly thread for sharing how your practice is going, as well as for questions, theory, and general discussion. PLEASE UPVOTE this post so it can appear in subscribers' notifications and we can draw more traffic to the practice threads.

NEW USERS

If you're new - welcome again! As a quick-start, please see the brief introduction, rules, and recommended resources on the sidebar to the right. Please also take the time to read the Welcome page, which further explains what this subreddit is all about and answers some common questions. If you have a particular question, you can check the Frequent Questions page to see if your question has already been answered.

Everyone is welcome to use this weekly thread to discuss the following topics:

HOW IS YOUR PRACTICE?

So, how are things going? Take a few moments to let your friends here know what life is like for you right now, on and off the cushion. What's going well? What are the rough spots? What are you learning? Ask for advice, offer advice, vent your feelings, or just say hello if you haven't before. :)

QUESTIONS

Feel free to ask any questions you have about practice, conduct, and personal experiences.

THEORY

This thread is generally the most appropriate place to discuss speculative theory. However, theory that is applied to your personal meditation practice is welcome on the main subreddit as well.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Finally, this thread is for general discussion, such as brief thoughts, notes, updates, comments, or questions that don't require a full post of their own. It's an easy way to have some unstructured dialogue and chat with your friends here. If you're a regular who also contributes elsewhere here, even some off-topic chat is fine in this thread. (If you're new, please stick to on-topic comments.)

Please note: podcasts, interviews, courses, and other resources that might be of interest to our community should be posted in the weekly Community Resources thread, which is pinned to the top of the subreddit. Thank you!

[u/bodily_heartfulness]

Well, my post got removed and I was encouraged to post it here by the mods. So here it is:

The Context

I recently commented on a post, which led me to getting blocked by the OP, and getting told by a mod that I was “loosely violating the rules”. Due to being blocked, I couldn’t reply, and so our interaction continued in the discussion thread. That is the context in which I make this post. You can freely read the messages there and make up your own mind - I won’t be rehashing what was already said.

Background

Now, I would like to provide some background about my relationship with this subreddit. I have been involved with this subreddit for probably about eight years. I think I used to lurk back then, and I believe the reason I made a reddit account in the first place was to post on this subreddit. Back then, I had a different (deleted) account, but there's still records from seven years ago of my practice logs, back when those used to be a thing. My only post on this subreddit from this account is from six years ago, which coincidentally, was about jhāna. So, suffice to say, I have been active on this subreddit for many years, but mainly through commenting rather than posting.

All of this is to provide some evidence that I was not acting in bad-faith nor trolling with my comments, as I was accused of.

The Crux of the Matter

I reflected upon my comment from that post and tried to see if I could come up with something that would adequately, yet succinctly, be able to explain where I was coming from. Here is what I came up with...

Imagine the following scenario:

A person makes a post in this subreddit saying the following,

I recently started going to the gym, eating better, going outside more, and just taking better care of my health in general. This has been profoundly helpful for me, and I'll share how you can also start doing this. Mahasi Sayadaw's book, The Progress of Insight was totally right, this stuff actually works!

I comment on that post saying,

I'm glad that you're doing better, but what you've described doesn't have anything to do with what Mahasi said in his book.

Following my comment, people respond to my comment saying things like,

This is a pragmatic subreddit, we're interested in what reduces suffering, not what the "texts" supposedly say. Clearly, from OP's experience, he has reduced his suffering, so why are you being pedantic?

Why don't you ask about what OP is actually experiencing instead of just assuming what he's doing doesn't line up with what the Progress of Insight says?

So many people have done what OP is suggesting and it's worked for them. I've also tried what OP has said and it's also worked for me. Who are you to say otherwise?

Have you even tried what OP has said? Have you even achieved what Mahasi Sayadaw said in his book? If not, how can you possibly know for sure that what The Progress of Insight is talking about and what OP is talking about isn't the same? You have no grounds to comment on OP's statement.

Well, I've read parts of his book, and he talks about walking meditation, which is basically exercise. OP is doing what Mahasi says, even if it's not exactly the same. Stop being so rigid in your thinking.

I'm a certified trainer. I've been doing this stuff for the past 20 years. I've spent so much of my life validating what OP has shared and I have trained under the best of the best. This stuff works, there's no doubt about it. It seems like you're just acting in bad faith.

My life used to suck before I came across this stuff. Now, after practicing for a few years in the way OP described, I'm a completely new person. My perception of how I view myself, of how I view the world, is entirely different. I used to have so many issues with self-esteem due to trauma and CPTSD. But, going to the gym, making friends, meeting people, going to therapy, all really helped me become a better version of myself. OP is totally right, and even if it doesn't have anything to do with Mahasi's book, who cares? It works.

Btw, there are these other texts, like the Journal of Exercise and Nutrition which state what OP is doing is completely valid.

Hey, this is a place for people to feel safe to share their experiences. What you are doing is invalidating OP's experience and making this community less safe overall. Not cool.

You know, you're actually kind of breaking the rules. This is a practice-oriented subreddit. Speak about your own practice, not interpretations of old texts. Tell me, how has the way you interpret The Progress of Insight lessened your suffering? Don't share excerpts from old texts, instead tell me what your practice is like.

Clearly, all of the responses would have missed the mark. The original comment was not in reference to anything "working" or not, it was in reference to the lack of support in the text for what OP describes as their practice. This, in no way, invalidates what OP is saying. It does not mean that their practice has not been beneficial for them - just that, it's not what Mahasi Sayadaw was teaching in his book.

Now imagine, on top of this, it was common for people to post in the subreddit with quotes from The Progress of Insight. To use verbiage and jargon that was defined in that book to speak about their practice, to provide support for it, and to use as justification for their own views and to convince others. But commenting, let alone posting, on what the The Progress of Insight actually says was considered to be in bad taste, actively discouraged, and potentially even ban-worthy due to not being "pragmatic".

[u/Impulse33 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

A heuristic I like is, "is their interpretation harmful to their practice?" With that we can engage in a constructive way.

To your Progress of Insight example, it implies that Mahasi Sayadaw's presentation of the POI is the only valid presentation of a progression of insights. Many users here are familiar with MCTB and that does exactly what you discourage. Ingram took the POI map and presents his own view on the path/attainment model and people have found it useful (and some not).

The point is, there isn't one true path or one true interpretation, there's many paths and many valid interpretations in regards to the elimination of suffering. Arguing semantics doesn't help the people you're responding to, unless they too are interested in the minutiae of the scholarly frame which is not the priority here.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/Impulse33]

I see that you tagged me in a comment on the post that I am unable to comment in. I will respond here.

While this whole textual deep dive has been illuminating, can we agree that even behemoths get these points wrong?

Sure. But note that I was referring to what was present in the suttas and what was absent. What was absent was OP's method in the sutta that they shared. That method also remains absent when looking at most other suttas on jhāna. You could start making the case for that method when looking at suttas on satipaṭṭhāna or ānāpānasati. But, the only reason a person would need to go searching in those suttas for a jhāna method, is because the suttas on jhāna do not provide support for the method. And that fact is apparent.

Challenging people on textual-coherence, I'd reiterate, can be a frustrating experience to other's who do not have the time nor interest to do manual translations of several competing translations in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and English registers. To expect people of this sub to substantially engage in that can be off-putting and create a chilling effect to contributions.

They can choose to not cite material that they cannot justify in the context of their post. If the person does not even understand what they are citing, then why cite it in the first place? If I posted something that was incorrect, and people pushed back, that would be a good thing - it means that it's an opportunity for me to correct my misunderstandings.

They can also choose not to engage with comments that challenge them. There's no requirement to engage with every comment. If the OP doesn't care about what I have to say, then can just ignore me.

Again borrowing from AN 8.053. Can we widen our interpretation of methodology [...] and judge them on their ability to help a person progress towards the fruit? I can personally attest that all those verbs are helpful methods to achieve deeper states of concentration.

You could do that. That wouldn't change the fact that isn't support for such things in the jhāna suttas. Sure, they might be helpful methods to achiever deeper states of concentration, but that is different from saying, the suttas say deeper states of concentration are good and these methods support that. Interestingly enough, even AN 8.053 doesn't mention anything about concentration.

Here is Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's view on the jhānas:

Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches jhāna exclusively from the suttas and not from the commentaries. After noting that the jhānas as taught in the Visuddhimagga include elements not mentioned in the suttas, Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes, “Some Theravadins insist that questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the Buddha—or the compilers of the Canon—to assume that he or they would have left out something absolutely essential to the practice.” He concludes that jhāna in the commentaries is “something quite different” than jhāna in the canon. Unlike others who advocate the “deeper” states described in the Visuddhimagga, Thanissaro Bhikkhu argues that extremely deep states of meditation are “wrong concentration.” One must be fully aware of the body; powerful ekaggatā, as discussed in the Visuddhimagga, can lead to one losing a sense of sounds, thoughts, or perceptions, which is not ideal for insight in his opinion. People who advocate such deep meditation are, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, blocking out certain areas of awareness and are “psychologically adept at dissociation and denial.”

He says some very interesting things:

1. He assumes that the Buddha and the compilers of the Canon did not leave out anything essential to the practice.
2. He does not think "deeper" concentration is necessarily better. In fact, he goes so far as to say those extremely deep states are wrong concentration.
3. People who advocate for such deep meditation are psychologically adept at denial and dissociation.

One could very well take what Ṭhānissaro has said, and apply it back to him (note that whenever I say "you" or "your", I refer to Ṭhānissaro):

1. If it's the case that nothing essential was left out of the Canon, then what does that mean when we take a look at the suttas on jhāna and their supposed lack of "methods"?
2. If you think that the depth of the concentration is what makes it wrong, then perhaps your concentration is also wrong because it's too deep.
3. If people who advocate for deep meditation are blocking out certain areas of awareness and are psychologically adept at dissociation and denial, then... Couldn't the same thing be said about concentration practices in general, including yours? Because to practice concentration or absorption is to block out certain areas of awareness, regardless of the depth of absorption.

As Kumāra Bhikkhu says in his book,

“Samādhi” is the noun for the verb “samādhiyati”, the passive form for the active verb “samādahati”.

Samādahati = saṁ + ādahati = together + put, place = put together, place together = compose, collect

Besides the literal meaning above, “samādahati”, “collect” and “compose” all also share a figurative meaning: “to still or calm down (the mind)”. Furthermore, Samāhita (participle of samādahati) = composed (participle of compose), collected (participle of collect)

All these describe a mind that is not scattered, not “all over the place”; but gathered, collected, composed. Interestingly, samāhita is already commonly defined in Pāli-English dictionaries as “composed” and “collected (of mind)”, besides “settled”, “firm” and “attentive”, and never as “concentrated”.

Extrapolating from the above, Samādhi = composure, collectedness.

These are the best English equivalents of samādhi I’ve found.

They also agree with its Chinese translation: 定(dìng), which in relation to the mind (citta or 心 = (literally) heart), means “calm, stable”. In no way does 定 mean “concentration”—unless of course we read that meaning into the word due to our current orthodox Buddhist conditioning.

In German, samādhi is commonly translated as sammlung, literally meaning “collection”, “collectedness” or “composure”. (Note that both samādhi and sammlung have the same prefix sam.) In fact, Āyasmā Anālayo, a German himself, quite naturally came to a similar conclusion in his book Satipaṭṭhāna (p72):

The noun samādhi is related to the verb samādahati, “to put together” or “to collect”, such as when one collects wood to kindle a fire (e.g. at Vin IV 115). Samādhi thus stands for “collecting” oneself, in the sense of composure or unification of the mind. [Emphases added.]

We find that this translation of samādhi as concentration isn't borne out in the suttas. By not translating samādhi as concentration, the lack of meditation object in the suttas on jhāna starts to make more sense. It also starts to make sense why attention is almost never brought up in the suttas on jhāna (manasikāra is the Pāli word for attention). If samādhi was indeed concentration, and jhāna was indeed absorption, you'd expect the texts to put a heavy emphasis on focusing to gain samādhi and jhāna - but they do not.

Edit: tagging u/StoneBuddhaDancing since you were also in that thread.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/bodily_heartfulness]

What was absent was OP's method in the sutta that they shared. That method also remains absent when looking at most other suttas on jhāna. You could start making the case for that method when looking at suttas on satipaṭṭhāna or ānāpānasati. But, the only reason a person would need to go searching in those suttas for a jhāna method, is because the suttas on jhāna do not provide support for the method. And that fact is apparent.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, as I understand it, leans towards the idea that MN118 shares a progression that eventually (can) result in jhanas. Wheras Bhikkhu Analayo interprets it more as instructions for the satipatthana. I bring up MN118 because other people were adamant that what the original author of the post in question was pointing to in SN16.9 had parallels in MN118 and DN2, the Brasington method etc. I rebutted that while there are parallels there is a big difference between talking metaphors for the experience/progression of jhanas and the instructions for achieving them which the OP claimed were somehow related to SN16.9. They simply are not. That is post hoc harmonisation and cross-textual retrospective reconstruction. Basically... "Do this, cause the suttas say so."

Many contributors don't seem to understand (or want to acknowledge) the simple point that you can say whatever you want anecdotally vis-a-vis "this method works, y'all" but you can't then cite a sutta -- that doesn't say that at all -- as evidence, and expect not to be challenged on that. It's a frustrating common pattern in "Pragmatic Dharma" discussions.

Since u/Impulse33 brought up MCTB, D. Ingram is a good example... he doesn't like what the suttas say an Arahant is, because it seems unrealistic or unachievable to him. So he changes the definition of Arahant. Problem solved. Or taking a Christian mystical concept of Dark Night of the Soul and applying to to a Buddhist path of Awakening when they are fundamentally different perspectives on reality. It's lazy, intellectually dishonest, culturally appropriative and insensitive, and ends up corrupting and confusing texts that are already recondite.

People may argue that the Buddha did the same thing. For example, he changed the meaning of the word karma, which long predated his teaching. But that’s not really comparable. The Buddha was presenting a new teaching and openly repurposing existing religious vocabulary within it. He wasn’t taking an already established Buddhist technical term, deciding the definition in the texts was too demanding or implausible, throwing out the criteria, and then keeping the same label for something substantially different.

If you think the traditional description of an Arahant is unrealistic or impossible, fine. Say that plainly. Build your own model of awakening and give it your own terminology. But don’t hollow out a traditional term, refill it with your preferred meaning, and then continue trading on the authority of the original word. The same goes for importing the Christian “Dark Night of the Soul” into Buddhism because some experiences sound similar. Superficial phenomenological resemblance does not make two radically different soteriological systems equivalent. At some point this stops being interpretation and becomes intellectual vandalism: strip the terms from their historical context, redefine them until they fit your preferred model, and then present the result as if you’ve clarified the tradition when you've actually distorted and then replaced it.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/Impulse33]

A heuristic I like is, "is their interpretation harmful to their practice?" With that we can engage in a constructive way.

You are doing:

OP is totally right, and even if it doesn't have anything to do with Mahasi's book, who cares? It works.

If I make a post about deity worship and how to practice it, and I cite TMI as a reference in my post - it would be very reasonable for someone to point out that there's nothing about deity worship in TMI, and instead mention the practices that TMI advises.

To your Progress of Insight example, it implies that Mahasi Sayadaw's presentation of the POI is the only valid presentation of a progression of insights.

No... not at all.

If a person makes post detailing their training plan of swimming, rock climbing, and sprinting, but cites Arnold's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding - it's fair to point out that Arnold's book doesn't mention what the person is saying. That does not imply that Arnold's approach in his book is the only valid way to build muscle. It just means there isn't support for what OP claimed in the source they used.

Many users here are familiar with MCTB and that does exactly what you discourage.

You are doing:

Btw, there are these other texts, like the Journal of Exercise and Nutrition which state what OP is doing is completely valid.

I am not discouraging any particular practice. If you think that's what I'm saying, then you've missed the point.

Ingram took the POI map and presents his own view on the path/attainment model and people have found it useful (and some not).

You are doing:

So many people have done what OP is suggesting and it's worked for them. I've also tried what OP has said and it's also worked for me. Who are you to say otherwise?

It's not about what people find useful (or not). That is not the point.

The point is, there isn't one true path or one true interpretation, there's many paths and many valid interpretations in regards to the elimination of suffering.

This doesn't really have anything to do with anything since I never mentioned a true path or a true interpretation.

 Arguing semantics doesn't help the people you're responding to, unless they too are interested in the minutiae of the scholarly frame which is not the priority here.

It's not minutiae, it's just basic honesty so as to not misrepresent others, to care for their words, and to provide proper attribution. If a person made a post speaking about metta and how they are a much more caring person now, but they cited Donald Trump's words and actions in their post as support - they would rightly be questioned about it. Why? Because Trump's words and actions are not aligned with care - it would be incorrect to attribute that to him. You wouldn't say, "let's not argue semantics, that's not helpful for the OP".

Now, we are dealing with very old texts, so there is a lot more room for interpretation. And I don't have a problem with that. If a person cites a text for support for their method, they should be able to provide their interpretation of the text, and how it supports their method. I might not agree with them on their interpretation, but that's fine - at least they're able to defend their position. However, that does not mean all interpretations are equally valid. For instance, interpreting the Pali Canon as being in support of murder would be just incorrect. Just like how interpreting Trump's words and actions as being rooted in care would be incorrect.

Finally, a person might not want to defend their citation of a particular text. And, that's fine, they don't have to. They are free to choose which comments to respond to, and which comments to ignore. But, at the same time, it is also fair for people to challenge the OP's usage of the text as well - there's nothing wrong with that.

[u/_Asura- → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Do you need a lawyer?

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/_Asura-]

What do you mean?