I was wondering if arisen uneasiness is actually a valid indicator for a contemplation hitting the right spot. For example, if I contemplate the inaccessibility and impermanence of the senses (or the impermanence of my dear ones, possessions, etc.), would a level of anxiety be a sign that the contemplation is earnest, or can Mara trick one by "inducing" that unpleasantness, while one's assumption of ownership hides untouched in an obscured spot? If so, how would one be able to discern if one is tricked? Can this even be done while contemplating, or only inferred by honestly questioning oneself in day-to-day life if the overall level of pressure due to attachments is decreasing?

I would also like to expand that question to the broader scope of the practice as a whole. I am currently under the assumption that a subtle level of uneasiness is the natural emotional state for a puthujjana finding out about his situation and even useful for being more alert and authentic. So the same question applies here: are such emotions a valid measure for being on the right path? Or would it be better to refrain from any idea of "measuring" one's practice and instead acknowledge the uncertainty regarding ones notions about practice—which in turn would give rise to new uneasiness and, of course, could thus again be taken for granted as being a correct idea.

Useful to know for development purposes. Thank you.

Question about wholesome and unwholesome activities, in particular entertainment. I am not holding the precept now, but looking into the future I will have to take it on at some point, so I'm thinking then "what is allowed?". Is art allowed? It is still fun to do art and such. Is gym allowed? It is also fun. What about sports? I also have a project to create a video-game :(

Hello,

I would greatly appreciate any help in better understanding the idea of Right Livelihood, especially this part of the wiki on virtue:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HillsideHermitage/wiki/virtue/#wiki_right_livelihood

Laypeople should not obtain their income from certain avenues, and this extends to any form of financial profit directly derived from these avenues even without physical participation (e.g., investing in stocks of weapons or alcohol producers, or animal farming companies).

It seems clear that if I buy shares in a company that sells weapons or alcohol, that would go against the precept.

Also, if I invest in an index fund that includes such companies, even if it’s not direct, it would probably still go against it.

But what if I invest in a fund that only buys shares of banks, and those banks then support or finance weapons companies? I’m not sure, but it’s very likely. Would that also break the precept?

In short, does Right Livelihood mean that I must avoid any form of financial support for those industries, even if it’s very indirect? Or is it only about direct investment?

Thanks in advance.

edit: another example that I have thought of and about which I have doubts is that of investing in a textile company, which does not slaughter animals, but buys leather to make clothes.

Of the five daily recollections, the fifth is the following:

I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.
Bhikkhu Bodhi

But I find it to be fairly abstract now; at least for me. In the past, my daily reflection of this would involve contemplating what "owner of kamma" meant and so for rest of the phrases, never really attending to the day-to-day implications of it.

What are the practical implications of the above recollection? What attitude should it induce?

My current "translation" of that in practical and tangible terms would be as follows:

My mind learns from my actions. I and I alone teach it what it values; whether it is good (not valuing what is unstable) or bad (valuing what is unstable) for it. I experience the results of what I have taught it, whether good or bad. If I have taught it to value what is unstable, then when that unstability presents itself to the mind and infuriates it, I am subject to it. At any point in the day, my actions can be either good or bad and there is no one besides me preventing me from acting in what is good for it apart from myself.

The above almost instantly induces a sense of responsibility and vigilance for whatever I will be doing throughout the day. Could such a reflection be regarded as being along the right lines of what the Buddha expects us to reflect on for this recollection? If not, how can I improve it?

I am not very proud of it, but I indulged heavily in lots and lots of sugar and fast food, also pornography and a ton of videogames and so at some point I got fed up somehow and now I want to keep the precepts. I deleted videogames, but not to avoid playing them but because I cannot handle playing videogames, it's painful. Also porn just seems disgusting and there is less and less pleasure in it, sugar makes me feel sick and so my conclusion is that this method is valid and it works.

The only downside to getting fed up is if person uses heroin, because then they might die. Otherwise it works

So it is an easy path of less resistance, because I'm so fed up I can't even do it anymore. I woke up and started doing something "hard" with interest, because as soon as I think "maybe play videogame?" I feel "agh, please don't do it"

Also I feel the need to do something, but the options are suddenly much more limited, feels very dull and boring.

"I TOLD YOU SO!" yes

Whenever I try to sit distraction-free during my breaks at work, it feels so awkward sitting there while everyone else is either on their phones or chatting idly. It is particularly difficult not to pull out my phone when someone sits in my line of sight. Would love to get to the point in my practice where I am completely at ease in these situations.

At this point I am not certain what is actually needed in terms of the environment and mindset one must have. I am reading Polak's book, "Nikaya Buddhism and Early Chan: a New Meditative Paradigm" - he suggests that radical renunciation (of even self-preservation instincts) may be necessary for liberation. The problem is, I am not sure how to integrate this into my own life. I live with my family and renouncing everything is not really tenable or even possible in this day and age. The conditions in 5th century BCE India differed considerably.

Hi Dhamma friends,

In the pursuit of Dhamma, what would be the purpose of confession of bad deeds to another vs. admitting them to oneself, and resolving not to act unwholesomely again?

Considering that in the latter case, one does still take virtue and the training seriously, it doesn’t seem like confessing every mistake is essential- except if it’s a grave offense- am I wrong? Is this more important for an monastic environment perhaps?

My reasoning is that if it’s a minor mistake, I’d be fueling excessive guilt by obsessing and making a big deal out of it. But if it’s a big mistake, a breach of precepts for example, there may be a legitimate need and benefit to confessing it to somebody, and thereby helping you ‘process’ it- because if you don’t it could dominate your mind and warp your perspective, and in turn endanger your spiritual practice.

Speaking for myself, lately I’ve occasionally been indulging in wrong speech fueled by ill will, in regards to talking about politics— worldly things, bad idea I know— as well as in a strange and difficult coworker situation a little while ago. Out of fear, weakness and defensiveness.

Nothing too extreme lately, although some past memories of especially shameful immoral behaviors have resurfaced. I’m currently letting them “weigh down on me” and basically just acknowledging, and enduring, the guilt. But since I’m not obsessing about them 24/7, and they don’t seem to be warping my perspective, I’m thinking of sparing my local priest a visit by me.

I’d be interested to hear if you have any thoughts! Thank you!

I've been trying to keep the precepts in private for all this time, and never really declaring to others that I'm keeping what I'm keeping. I realized a few months ago, that my justification for not announcing them publicly was fear and disapproval of others.

It was only a few weeks ago that I realized that my compulsive search for the 'perfect proof' for the validity of the Dhamma was a symptom of this fear of disapproval of others. In my mind, if I'd found a justification for the teachings which was as indubitable as mathematical proofs, then I could confront others about what I'm doing without having to fear any criticism. Or even if I were in fact criticized, the idea was that if I had a proof of such degree of indubitability regarding the efficacy of the path, then the criticism wouldn't make a difference to me either way since they would be undoubtedly wrong in it. It was a sort of protective measure that I could fall back on to, that I hadn't been explicitly realizing as such until just now.

Now that I've been restraining the compulsive tendency to seek justification for everything, the fact that I fear and shy away from disclosing my intentions is becoming more and more apparent.

I'm celibate and intend to remain celibate for the rest of my entire life, and have no issue in that. But, I haven't disclosed this to my family even though we're Indian and the idea of celibacy isn't something they aren't familiar with. In announcing my celibacy publicly to my family, I would implicitly be distancing myself from the religion I'm born into (Sikhism) because it's doctrinally the opposite from everything taught in it. This isn't too much of an issue for my closest relationships (mom, sister) since they've assimilated well into Western society where none of the religious doctrines are really relevant (but there are of course other concerns like my mom expecting me to have kids in the future). I'd personally abandoned the religion doctrinally many years ago, but it acts as a kind of social glue between my family and relatives. Announcing celibacy, and for example, not eating and socializing for the sake of pleasure, would most certainly boot me out of that cohesive social structure held together by the religious doctrines I'd be implicitly rejecting.

I don't fear being booted out of the social group, but rather the disapproval that precedes it.

The same is the case for jobs. When I last had a job, during lunch times when I wouldn't be able to go out for a walk alone, I would have to sit with others and they would inquire into my interests. At that time, I was still not keeping the entertainment precepts in the manner I am now, so I would talk to them about the music I liked and so on. But there were other subjects they would talk about like clothing, resturants, relationships, etc., that I had no concern with, and I would get weird looks and jokes made of me since I was so 'inexperienced' in that area.

It's very odd because in my entire life I've never really cared significantly about doing what the group did, or what was 'trendy', and was always, from others' perspective, the oddball doing my own things. Nonetheless, in nearly all the social situations I've been in, I had quite a great reputation and a lot of friends, and I made sure it would stay that way.

But acting in line with the Dhamma is destroying any possible basis that could exist for maintaining such a reputation. I'm now at a point where I can officially say I have no friends, and I'm content with that. Previously, I would still have people I'd ocassionally talk to, but now as I've given up even music and the last bits of entertainment like youtube and so on, there's no basis for any relation with any people. The only thing I can imagine left connecting me to the world is my mind's enjoyment of my family's safety and comfort, but that too is something that I intend on reversing.

But now I imagine in social situations, my reputation will dampen even more as any social currency (other highly reputed friends, hobbies others would like, being inquisitive of others, etc.) I previously had is in the process of destruction. And it is very scary.

My question is, how do I train myself in regards to overcoming this fear of losing reputation? The fear of having to disclose my private intentions?

Currently, I don't go to university since the lecturers are subpar, so I'm home alone most of the time just studying or contemplating. Should I try to join social groups to expose myself to potential disapproval? I can stay alone like this all the time, but then I won't really be able to discern the mind's inclination towards reputation, and as such, not really have any opportunity to train amidst that.

I could also just 'expose' myself to my family by mentioning the fact that I'm keeping the precepts, but that would be such an immense pressure all of a sudden that I don't think I will be able to handle it. Is there an equivalent 'gradual' manner of working towards that point?

It's been hard going forth. Trying to seriously practice as a layperson is way worse and I would never go back to that. I knew as soon as I encountered the dhamma that being a monk would be best, but it took a while to reach the point of leaving home. It was for the best though, because my understanding of the teaching and practice has changed a lot over the last two and a half plus years.

The idea of questioning my faith seems absurd. Like, of course I have faith, right? Not the faith of a sotapana. Venerable Subhara told me about a conversation on faith he had with Venerable Anigha and I began the painful look into my own faith. I always thought I had profound and deep faith in the Buddha, dhamma, and sangha. It was on the day I was truly content with suicide and was set on doing it, had finished my short bucket list and completed everything I wanted to do in the world and saw nothing else I wanted to do, that I happened to come across the the four noble truths. I wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the dhamma and I determined to give myself fully to it but I've come short again and again with compromises that showcase a lack of faith.

Lacking faith to give up intoxicants for a long time because I thought I could get useful stuff from them, lacking faith in keeping the 8 precepts unconditionally. Even now, "having gone forth out of faith" and buying a one-way ticket to a poor country halfway around the world because of a reddit post some random guy made, I'm still confronted by things I'm doing or not doing because of my lack of faith. There were many spiritual teachers I liked, and I still have attachment to the religion of my youth and to Jesus as a pretty good teacher. It was because of that faith long ago that I lived as a celibate, sense-restrained, teen contemplative(to the best of abilities) and experienced the benefits of that.

I recognized the total superiority of the Buddha's teaching and dependent origination, and that all suffering can be ended by practicing the noble eight fold pant(to the extent a puthujana recognizes these things), but I still liked other teachers because I thought there was value in addressing certain particulars and in addressing things in a way that felt "less cold". I.e I was attached, wrongly. Why deal with particulars when I know the teaching that addresses all suffering, universally? Even that guy in MN 12 thought the Buddha's teaching leads to the end of suffering(though he thought the Buddha figured it out by logic and denied that the Buddha had superhuman attainment). A sotapana doesn't acknowledge another teacher. They can see to what extent other teachings might be valid, but any teaching that advocates continued existence, that might even teach a valid path to the brahma world, is still shortsighted to a sotapana. It's good relative to sensuality, but the myriad teachings that aren't the Buddhas' will still leave you wandering this Samsara. The mind that is content to wander and whose highest hope is a higher rebirth is an assassin. There will be a time when the light of the teaching will not shine and what will one do then?

Two weeks after finding the dhamma, I sat down in the park and asked if I really wanted to do this. To accept another religion. To accept the Buddha. I had an obsessive fear of psychosis and losing my mind and the Four Noble Truths seemed the only thing truly stable. After the initial honeymoon with the dhamma ended my doubts and skepticism of who and what I can trust about the nature of reality came to the fore. We're all told so many ideas of what reality is and is like, who and what we are, but Ithin just doubted it all. I determined I wouldn't trust anyone blindly, and that I could trust myself to determine what is valid(because to determine otherwise nullifies itself). And I could trust Buddha. Nothing gets past the Four Noble Truths.

Through the unlikely things I went through when I found the dhamma, I also discovered that there was this entire world of meaning behind the stories humans make and the symbols we use. I saw patterns and the fulfilment of cycles in ways I'd never seen before that pointed to why we have the narratives we do, why stories are how they are, why religions are how they are. I even recognized that these stories and symbols don't just follow patterns, but that pain and things we don't want to acknowledge inside will emerge through these symbols and stories. I had no reference point for this stuff until I later discovered Jung. Accepting Jung wholeheartedly lead to me the Buddha's teachings in a way the wasn't really in accordance with what the Buddha meant. Eventually I abandoned Jung and psychology(although it's damn hard not to interpret things or not proliferate on patterns in things in a way that is counter to the dhamma).

I even went the way of tantra for a while, mostly because it allowed me to preserve sexuality in some way and because of its intoxicating use of symbols. I sacrificed my reason chasing what I know deep down needed to be abandoned. More bizarre than the drug use and tantra was some other stuff that happened repeatedly, totally sober, that was extremely disturbing because I could not explain in but could not deny it. I don't know what I was doing or communicating with but no spiritual connections should be sought out or relied upon. Anyone who isn't a sotapana should exercise extreme caution with other forces that one doesn't understand. Some of it was just fearful and disenchanting because I still can't explain it, it utterly undermined my view of reality, except that reality, existence, should be abandoned. It doesn't matter what people make of this comment, it's best not to go into details. I'll leave this useful quote by Ajahn Pannavaddho.

Be most suspicious and careful of anything that tells you things and gives you information in any 'psychic' manner. If a person gets caught in this snare, the information is often correct to start with, but later on it turns into pure fantasy and can veer toward paranoia or schizoid tendencies. In all these things, your most valuable and reliable faculty is your normal rational functions and intellect. The 'psychic' functions can, however, be very valuable as long as they are always checked by reason, so you must not disparage them too much.

The Buddha does not lead anyone astray and can be fully trusted. I've seen that when push comes to shove and I'm breaking down and suffering I still run to those old images, foolish determinations to avoid discomfort, father or mother images, gods even, even crying out to Ajahn Chah in despair. Finding security in food. I'd like to think my faith is pure, but it just isn't, or my actions would be in line with my discernment regardless of the pressure. I'm shedding these things, but man is this a painful process. I'd like to believe there was a pure faith from the beginning but it's been tainted and I've hurt myself and others and misrepresented the dhamma.

I understand this is long and perhaps rambling but I've made a fool of myself on this subreddit repeatedly already and I can only hope this soul-baring helps point people to the fact that in the situation we're in, the five grasping aggregates situation, having a body and mind situation(plus current events, global warming, I don't read the news), isn't a good situation. There isn't any hope in the five aggregates. We are subject to suffering. Fortunately there is one who knows, there is a solution to the problem, if only we do not despise whatever seeds of discernment we have. Don't deceive yourself.

After stagnating I upped the restraint much further than usual and so the mind tries to reach out for pleasure, realises its tied up and snaps back and I realised "wait, is that the mind?" I was sure it's me. I wonder if I have the willpower to take on the 8 precepts or maybe I'll just fail :/ Are hobbies also forbidden?

Ever since i started living by the 8 precepts (not to the letter but mostly) and practicing abandoning the attitude of sensuality, i find that i very naturally, or with little effort can be mindful in this sort of way - when im walking in the forest, im aware of my body moving, aware of sounds around me, wind blowing on my face, i feel present and my mind is naturaly quiet with little thought.

Should i intentionally cultivate this way of practice?

The precepts which I currently do not adhere to every day are the 6th and 7th. I've taken the approach of making small steps towards an eventual 100% adherence to these particular precepts. For example, I am intermittent fasting, but still eating after noon because I can't / don't eat breakfast. I am working on cutting out snacking and only eating at two meal times/day.

As for the 7th precept, it's the entertainment part that I'm still not 100% untangled from. I've gotten to where I will not engage with entertainment during the work week, and I don't ever listen to music. Watching shows is now almost always something I do with family but not on my own.

Not to overthink or be too impatient, but part of me is wondering if this approach might lead to a perpetual state of making small allowances here and there to break some of the precepts. Am I better off just going all in and not working gradually at it?

Another thing, seeing that I am not a monastic, have a young child who enjoys watching movies and shows with me occasionally, and we eat dinner together... should I be more realistic and wait until her dependency on me is over and she is living out on her own before taking some of these renunciation precepts on more full time?

This is a translation of SĀ 1178 and SĀ-2:92, two parallel discourses from the Saṃyukta Āgama—a collection of early Buddhist scriptures closely related to the Pali Saṃyutta Nikāya. Today, the Saṃyukta Āgama survives in three distinct Classical Chinese translations made by different groups at different times based on lost Indian originals. One (SĀ) is complete, while the other two (SĀ-2 and SĀ-3) are partial translations.

Their content serves to illustrate a point often made in our teachings that I've attempted to clarify a number of times here. Namely, that the suffering a sotāpanna is liable to is minuscule compared to the puthujjana.

In the same vein, further below I added a translation of SĀ 891, which unlike the Pali version SN 13.10, makes no mention of "at most seven [lives]," nor depicts the Buddha with "seven grains" on his hand, instead using a different comparison altogether. As we shall see below, this appears to be an addition to the Pali rather than an omission from the Chinese.

SN 15.10 is a Pali text that discusses stream-entry undeniably in the context of saṃsāra, and we can see that though the message might appear the same as SN 13.10 at first glance, there are subtle and important differences. Firstly, SN 15.10 (and its Chinese parallels) does not say anything about suffering proper; it focuses on the fact that, for a puthujjana, there is no end in sight to birth and death, while for a sotāpanna there is.

On the other hand, both SN 13.10 and SĀ 891 agree in explicitly speaking not only in terms of dukkha but also quantitatively, with SN 13.10 referring to "the mass of suffering that was exhausted and worn away", and SĀ 891 mentioning "various vast and immeasurable sufferings cut off at their root, unable to arise again" (adding the simile of a palm tree with its head severed that appears in several Pali Suttas, emphasizing that it's not merely an ability to overcome arisen suffering). Both compare this large quantity with a miniscule amount representing the suffering that remains for a sotāpanna.

We can thus see that the distinction between ordinary person and stream-enterer is being presented from two angles that are not strictly equivalent: although the amount of births explicitly mentioned in SN 15.10 will in practice likely correlate with more net suffering, in theory one being could suffer the same "amount" over very many lifetimes in a higher realm than another being over a single lifetime in a lower realm. If a sotāpanna continued to suffer as much—or sometimes even more than—a puthujjana but had only seven existences remaining, this would of course still be an extremely significant achievement worth striving for. But through the lens of SĀ 891, the sotāpanna is no longer liable to anywhere near the same amount of suffering at any given time, even when encountering unfortunate circumstances (and this aligns with the Arrow Sutta). This also would by itself—without any fixed limit on future rebirths—be an extremely significant achievement worth striving for. In both cases, the deal presented in SN 56.35 seems perfectly sensible. In reality of course, both of these are defining characteristics of a stream-enterer, and they both originate from one and the same cause: having understood the four noble truths.

Given that the language in SN 13.10 more closely reflects the latter aspect of stream-entry than the former, it seems that its original focus was on liability to suffering—similar to its closest equivalent, SĀ 891. However, at some point, there appears to have been an effort to shoehorn in the theme of rebirth found in SN 15.10 and other canonical texts that emphasize the seven lives aspect. This likely occurred because, as later interpretations—chiefly those of the Pali commentaries, whose spirit and underlying assumptions shape virtually all modern Theravādin traditions—became the norm, it may have even been sincerely viewed as a textual error for the original SN 13.10 to suggest that a stream-enterer's suffering had been reduced to one sesame seed compared to the Himalayas.

After all, the only reasons for thinking that SN 13.10 is about rebirth are (1) the phrase "that is to say, the fact of having seven lives at most (yadidaṃ sattakkhattuparamatā)," which appears at the very end of a passage that in itself does not refer to or hint at rebirth, meaning the phrase could easily be an insertion, and (2) the mention of specifically seven mustard-sized pebbles (satta sāsapamattiyo pāsāṇasakkharā) rather than one_—like the _one drop of water on the tip of a hair depicted in SĀ 891—which could also have been inserted later to align with the other mention of the number seven. If we remove these two arguably unnatural references to the number seven, the text becomes identical in essence to SĀ 891.

What's more, since the comparison with the Himalayas was never substituted, SN 13.10 ends up containing a technical flaw uncharacteristic of the Pali canon: equating suffering with time in saṃsāṛa and then comparing the puthujjana's suffering to the Himalāyas implies their time in saṃsāra, although very large, has an eventual end. But this is precisely not the case. In early Buddhism, for as long as beings are ignorant and fettered by craving, there will not be an end of suffering for them. The idea that all beings are inevitably destined for Nibbāna is a later development, made possible by very different notions of what Nibbāna and the path to it are.

This is one of a sizeable number of instances where the Chinese version of a text appears to be more authentic than the Pali version, and this might be because the Āgamas, translated into Chinese around the time of Buddhaghosa (4th-5th century), were never as widely engaged with—and thus modified, intentionally or otherwise—as the Pali texts, which have been used by a living tradition for two millenia. This is because Mahāyāna dominated China for most of its history, apparently already since the 5th century, and thus these texts were likely scorned and labeled "Hīnayāna," yet they were still preserved.

It is also noteworthy that the bulk of the manuscripts used to compile the modern Pali canon apparently date back to no earlier than the 17th century. The congruency between the Chinese and Pali collections suggests that any changes made to the latter by the Theravāda tradition over the last millenium and a half were not so drastic so as to be glaringly obvious. However, as this example illustrates, there can be subtle yet impactful differences in meaning between the two versions of a discourse created by the presence or absence of just a couple of words.

Saṃyukta Āgama 1178

Thus have I heard:

At one time, the Buddha was residing in the Ambara Garden in the country of Mithilā.

There was a Brahmin woman named Vasitthi, who had lost six sons in succession. Grieving for her children, she lost her mind, wandering naked with disheveled hair along the roads, until she arrived at the Ambara Garden in Mithilā.

The World-Honored One was surrounded by a great assembly, delivering a discourse. When Vasitthi saw the Buddha from afar, she regained her senses, felt shame and embarrassment, and sat down modestly with her body drawn in.

The World-Honored One said to Venerable Ānanda, “Take your outer robe and give it to the Brahmin woman Vasitthi so she may wear it and listen to the Dharma.” Venerable Ānanda, following the Buddha’s instruction, took the robe and gave it to her to wear.

After the Brahmin woman put on the robe, she approached the Buddha, paid homage with her head at his feet, and sat to one side.

The World-Honored One taught her, showing, instructing, illuminating, and gladdening her. Following the Buddha’s usual method of teaching—progressing step by step—she developed pure faith, took the Three Refuges, and, hearing the Buddha’s words, rejoiced and expressed delight. She then paid homage and departed.

Later, when her seventh son suddenly passed away, the laywoman Vasitthi did not weep, grieve, or suffer in anguish. Her husband, the Brahmin, spoke a verse to her:

When your earlier sons died,

Grief for them brought you suffering;

Day and night without food or drink,

Even to the point of madness.

Now, with the seventh son’s death,

Why do you feel no sorrow?

Vasitthi, the laywoman, replied with a verse to her husband:

Children and grandchildren number in the thousands,

Born from the union of causes and conditions;

Through the long night of time, they pass away,

And so it is with you and me.

Descendants and kin are countless,

Born in various places,

Where they devour one another in turn.

Knowing the nature of birth,

Why should one grieve?

I have understood liberation,

The nature of birth and death,

And no longer feel sorrow,

Thanks to entering the Buddha’s true teaching.

Her husband, the Brahmin, praised her with a verse:

Never before have I heard such a teaching,

Yet now I hear it from you.

Where did you hear the Dharma,

That you no longer grieve for your son?

Vasitthi replied with a verse:

Today, the Perfectly Enlightened One

Resides in the country of Mithilā,

In the Ambara Garden,

Forever free from all suffering.

He expounds all suffering,

The cause of suffering, its cessation,

And the Noble Eightfold Path,

Leading peacefully to Nirvana!

He is my great teacher,

And I deeply rejoice in his true teaching.

Having understood the true Dharma,

which can dispel your sorrows.

Her husband, the Brahmin, responded with a verse:

I too shall go

To the Ambara Garden in Mithilā,

Where the World-Honored One

Will dispel my grief for my son.

The laywoman replied with a verse:

Behold the Perfectly Enlightened One,

His body radiant like soft gold;

He tames the untamed,

Guiding countless beings across the sea of existence.

The Brahmin prepared a horse-drawn chariot and set out for the Ambara Garden in Mithilā. Seeing the World-Honored One from afar, his faith and joy increased, and he approached the Great Teacher.

The Great Teacher spoke verses, opening his Dharma eye, revealing the Four Noble Truths—suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path—directing him toward Nirvana. He immediately saw the Dharma and attained the non-return state. Having understood the Dharma, he requested ordination.

The Brahmin was then ordained. He dwelt alone in seclusion, contemplating diligently, and eventually attained Arhantship. The World-Honored One declared: “On the third night, he attained the Three Knowledges.”

After attaining the Three Knowledges, the Buddha instructed him: “Send the charioteer back with the chariot to inform Vasitthi, the laywoman, to rejoice. Say to her: ‘The Brahmin went to see the World-Honored One, gained pure faith, and devoted himself to the Great Teacher. The Buddha taught him, opened his Dharma eye, revealed the Noble Truths of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the Noble Eightfold Path, leading to Nirvana, and he attained the non-return state. Having understood the Dharma, he sought ordination. The World-Honored One declared: “On the third night, he fully attained the Three Knowledges.”’”

The charioteer, following the instruction, returned swiftly. When Vasitthi, the laywoman, saw the charioteer returning with an empty chariot from afar, she called out and asked: “Did the Brahmin see the Buddha? Did the Buddha teach the Dharma, open his Dharma eye, and reveal the Noble Truths?”

The charioteer replied: “The Brahmin saw the World-Honored One, gained pure faith, and devoted himself to the Great Teacher. The Buddha opened his Dharma eye, taught the Four Noble Truths, and he attained the non-return state. Having understood the Dharma, he sought ordination and now contemplates diligently. The World-Honored One declared: ‘On the third night, he fully attained the Three Knowledges.’”

The laywoman rejoiced in her heart and said to the charioteer: “The chariot and horses are yours, and I grant you an additional thousand coins for delivering this good news: ‘The Brahmin has become a monk and attained the Three Knowledges,’ which brings me great joy.”

The charioteer replied: “What use do I have for chariots, horses, or money? Return the chariot, horses, and money to the laywoman. I will now return to the Brahmin and follow him in ordination.”

The laywoman said: “If that is your intention, go quickly. Soon you too will attain what he has—the Three Knowledges—and follow him in ordination.”

The charioteer said: “So it shall be, laywoman! Just as he ordained, so shall I.”

The laywoman said: “Your father has ordained, and you will follow him. Soon I too will go after you. Like a great dragon soaring freely in the open sky, with other dragons, dragon sons, and dragon daughters following, so too will I, taking up the robe and bowl, living simply and easily satisfied.” The charioteer responded: “Laywoman! If it is so, your aspiration will surely be fulfilled. Soon I will see you with few desires, content, carrying robe and bowl, eating almsfood discarded by others, with shaven head and dyed robes, having cut off attachment to form, feeling, perception, and consciousness, free from greed and bondage, and extinguished all outflows.”

The Brahmin, his charioteer, Vasitthi the laywoman, and her granddaughter Sundarī, all ordained and reached the end of suffering.

SĀ-2.92

Thus have I heard:

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the Amrapālī Grove in the kingdom of Mithilā.

At that time, a Brahmin woman named Vāsitthī had recently lost her sixth child. Overwhelmed by grief for her lost child, her mind became disordered, and she ran about naked and frantic, eventually arriving at the Amrapālī Grove in Mithilā.

At that moment, the Blessed One was surrounded by a vast assembly, teaching the Dharma.
Then, Vāsitthī, the Brahmin woman, saw the Blessed One from a distance and regained her composure, squatting on the ground in shame.

The Buddha said to Ānanda:

“Give her a nun’s robe, and bring it here; I will teach her the Dharma.”

Ānanda received the command and provided the nun’s robe.

Vāsitthī, the Brahmin woman, quickly put on the robe and approached the Buddha, bowing her head to his feet.

At that time, the Blessed One taught her various aspects of the Dharma, showing, instructing, and delighting her, as the Buddhas of old had done—speaking of generosity, morality, and the heavens, explaining that desire is the root of impurity, suffering, and affliction, while liberation is true joy.

Then, the Blessed One expounded the Dharma broadly, knowing her sincere wish to free herself from the fetters of hindrance, and taught her the Four Noble Truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.

This Vāsitthī was intelligent and insightful, able to grasp the teachings upon hearing them, like a clean white cloth easily taking dye.

In that very moment, seated there, she perceived the Four Noble Truths, saw the Dharma, attained the Dharma, understood it, and crossed beyond doubt to the other shore. She realized the Dharma herself, no longer relying on others’ teachings, her faith unshaken, fearless in the Buddha’s doctrine. Rising from her seat, she joined her palms, bowed to the Buddha, and said:

“Blessed One! I have now crossed beyond the three evil realms. For the rest of my life, I take refuge in the Three Jewels as a lay follower, vowing never to kill, maintaining pure faith, refraining from theft, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants—such is my commitment.”

Then, having heard the Dharma, the woman rejoiced, bowed to the Buddha, and departed.

At a later time, Vāsitthī lost her seventh child, yet she felt neither sorrow nor distress, nor did she dwell on it or run about naked and frantic as before.

At that time, her husband, the Brahmin Bharadvāja, spoke in verse, asking:

“When you lost your children before,
You mourned with unbearable anguish,
Your heart entangled in sorrowful memories,
For a long time you neither ate nor drank.
Now, with your seventh child fallen ill and passed away,
You, a devoted mother,
Why do you not grieve or dwell on it?”

Then Vāsitthī replied to her husband in verse:

“Through countless eons,
I have taken bodies without end,
Due to attachment and love,
My children and descendants are beyond count.
In every place I took birth,
Losses were never few,
In the vast wilderness of birth and death,
I have endured endless suffering.
I have understood birth and death,
The destinations of coming and going,
Thus, today,
I harbor no grief or attachment.”

Her Brahmin husband responded in verse:

“What you have said,
I have never heard before.
From whom did you gain this insight,
that you are able to cast aside your sorrows?”

Then Vāsitthī answered in verse:

“Brahmin, know this:
In days past, the three Buddhas,
In Mithilā, in the Amrapālī Grove,
Taught the cessation of all suffering,
And the path to end it,
Cultivating the Eightfold Noble Path,
Leading to peace and Nirvana.”

The Brahmin then spoke in verse:

“I, too, now wish to go
To the Amrapālī Grove,
To ask the Blessed One
To relieve my pain of longing for my child.”

Vāsitthī replied in verse:

“The Buddha’s body shines like pure gold,
His halo radiates a fathom around,
He has forever severed all afflictions,
Ferrying beings across the stream of birth and death.
Such a great guide,
Able to tame all,
Transforms all sentient beings,
Thus he is called the True Deliverer.
You should hasten now
To the presence of that Blessed One.”

Hearing his wife’s words, the Brahmin rejoiced and leapt with joy. He immediately prepared his chariot and went to the grove. Seeing the Blessed One’s majestic radiance from afar, his reverence doubled. Upon arriving, he bowed and sat to one side.

At that time, the Blessed One, with his mind-reading ability, observed the man’s earnest heart and immediately taught him the Four Noble Truths—suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path—along with the Eightfold Path and other teachings leading to Nirvana.

Hearing this Dharma, the Brahmin awakened to the Four Noble Truths, attained insight into the Dharma, and sought to become a monk. The Buddha permitted it.

After becoming a monk, he practiced diligently without negligence, and within three nights, he attained the three higher knowledges. The Buddha declared him an Arhat, thus renaming him “Well-Born.”

Having attained the three knowledges, he instructed his charioteer, Bharati, saying:

“Take the jeweled chariot you drove and return home. Tell Vāsitthī:
‘You should rejoice for me. Why? Because the Buddha has taught me the Four Truths, allowed me to become a monk, and I have gained the three knowledges. Therefore, you should have pure faith in me.’”

The charioteer, Bharati, returned home with the chariot. Seeing it return, Vāsitthī asked the charioteer:

“Did the Brahmin meet the Buddha?”

The charioteer replied:

“The Brahmin, while seated, perceived the Four Noble Truths. Having seen them, he sought to become a monk, and the Buddha allowed it. After becoming a monk, within three nights, he attained Arhatship.”

Then the woman said to the charioteer:

“You have brought this good news. I shall reward you with a horse and a thousand gold coins.”

The charioteer replied:

“I do not need a horse or gold coins. I wish to go to the Buddha and hear the wondrous Dharma.”

Vāsitthī said:

“If that is so, it is truly excellent. If you become a monk, you will quickly attain the path to Arhatship.”

Vāsitthī then spoke to her daughter:

“You should manage the household well and enjoy the five sense pleasures. I wish to become a nun.”

Her daughter, Sundarī, replied to her mother:

“My father has abandoned the five sense pleasures to seek the path as a monk. I, too, shall follow and become a nun, letting go of attachment to my brothers and kin. Just as a great elephant departs and the young elephant follows, so I will follow, becoming a nun, holding an alms bowl and begging for food. I can practice the easy-to-sustain way, not the difficult one.”

Vāsitthī said:

“What you desire is truly good and auspicious. Your wish will surely be fulfilled.
I see that soon you will exhaust all desires and be free from all fetters.”

Thus, the Brahmin Bharadvāja, Vāsitthī, and Sundarī all followed one another, becoming monks and nuns together, each attaining the end of all suffering.

SĀ 891

Thus have I heard:

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Śrāvastī, in the Jeta Grove, in Anāthapiṇḍada’s park.

At that time, the Blessed One said to the monks:

“Suppose there is a lake, vast and long, fifty yojanas wide and equally deep.
If a man were to dip the tip of a single hair into that lake water,
what do you think, monks? Is the water in the lake greater,
or is the drop of water on the tip of the man’s hair greater?”

The monks said to the Buddha:

“Blessed One! The drop on the tip of the man’s hair is exceedingly small, while the lake water is immeasurable, thousands, millions, billions of times greater—there is no comparison.”

The Buddha said to the monks:

“For one who fully sees the truth, with perfect right view, the disciples of the Blessed One who realize the fruit of truth, with unwavering certainty, have at that moment already severed and understood, cutting off the root—like chopping off the head of a palm tree—so it will not grow again. The manifold sufferings they have severed are vast and immeasurable, like the water of that great lake, while the suffering that remains is like the drop of water on the tip of a hair.”

Having spoken this sutra, the monks, hearing what the Buddha taught, rejoiced and put it into practice.

Just as with the drop of water on the tip of a hair, so it is with the drop on the tip of a blade of grass or a twig.

Just as with the water of the lake, so it is with the Sarodattagā, the Ganges, the Yamunā, the Sarabhū, the Irāvati, the Mahī, and the great ocean—likewise it is said.

Having spoken this sutra, the monks, hearing what the Buddha taught, rejoiced and put it into practice.

Hello,

I’ve recently started practicing the 8 precepts, and I’ve run into a bit of a dilemma I was hoping to get some guidance on.

I have asthma and need to take a steroid medication regularly. One of the side effects is a noticeable amplification of hunger — it’s not constant, but when it comes on, it feels quite sharp and intense. I’ve been doing my best to stick to the one-meal-a-day rule, but this side effect sometimes makes that challenging.

My question is: how should I work with this in a way that stays in line with the spirit of the precepts and sense restraint?

On one hand, it feels like I’m genuinely hungry at times, and eating a second small meal (late morning or early afternoon) seems like it would relieve a physical need rather than indulge a craving. On the other hand, I don’t want to start bending the rules and convincing myself of exceptions every time something gets uncomfortable — especially if that discomfort is workable with patient endurance.

Is there a way to distinguish between eating to relieve a medication-induced hunger and eating out of desire? Can one eat twice a day without falling into craving, or is that considered a violation of the precept in formal practice regardless of the reason?

Appreciate any guidance or reflections on how to skillfully navigate this.

One ought to be eating for the sake of this body, not for pleasure, just to keep this lump of matter healthy and comfortable. The pleasant contacts only last so long.

Wouldn't choosing to eat sweets, desserts, unhealthy stuff while healthier options are present categorically be acting out of sensual desire? Do all the Hillside monks eat in this manner? Probably not. I wouldn't fault them for however they eat, though, because I'm probably just missing something. I cannot imagine one who is properly eating in moderation according to my understanding of the way the Buddha spelled it out and the way Hillside teaches it reaching for an unhealthy option over a healthy one. And moderation(in the usual sense) isn't the middle way, so that's not the answer here, right?

But then again, I've heard Ven. Nyanamoli disparage the practice of not eating sugar. Probably because it's done for the wrong reasons and means you don't have to think about your intentions. The good intentions to reach for the sugar seem very limited.

For all my issues with food I've come to the conclusion that one meal a day is best and I can get all the calories I need for my lifestyle. That being the case nothing more is needed, and to eat more than that one meal would almost always be craving. I want sweets more than anything else, and will restrain myself even with fruit if I think the mind is craving them too much. This craving towards sweetness is probably stronger in me than most people. I might just have to give up sweets altogether and maybe even fruit for some time to help things normalize. I know abstaining from certain foods for periods of time can permanently alter your cravings and relationship with them. As things stand, my mind is untrustworthy regarding eating sweet things and that needs to be fixed, and at this point I don't want to eat the stuff if there's any doubt at all. It's certainly not always acting out of craving to eat fruit, and the tonics, while unnecessary for most individuals, do have their place if you're sick or truly famished or do hard work.

I've struggled with the triad of caffeine, chocolate, and sugar for a long time. I could go without two at a time, but always needed one. When I tried to abstain from all three I always fell back. I'm beyond caffeine and chocolate cravings now, but sugar remains and is more complicated. This really does seem the point for me where if I abstain from all three I suffer properly, without it being adulterated by management.
No topping up the body with what the 21st century thinks is normal to consume, or in amounts it thinks is normal.

Edit: Eating them as part of the one meal is definitely the optimal way to go. Eating sweets as part of a meal is always better for your teeth too. Venerable Subhara brings up some legitimate points about the food situation in monasteries in Asia(although I don't think curd being available justifies adding jaggery to it). And having been able to previously fully give up sugar, I can say that there is a huge difference with the way "the animal" behaves if you're eating even a little sugar and your mind is able to expect it each day(and get "topped up") and not eating any. The mind expecting something sweet at the end of it all is the main problem with Samsara after all, but it's just suffering arising and ceasing. I will say that this has been a point of pride for me, not eating sugar--until I fell from that one day a few months ago and over-indulged and have been struggling with it like an addiction since then. It was a good point of learning at least, seeing that I basically didn't train the mind at all in regard to it before, I just kept it pinned down until it gave up. As a former drug addict, I can see that the mindset of looking or hoping for a high has remained and its just shifted its object. A few times now when I've had shifts in my attitudes towards food and its purpose, those nights I would dream about drugs.

Edit 2: My thoughts about healthy and unhealthy could use some recalibration. All these veggies are so unnecessary spiced anyway and I often genuinely go for sweeter things because they're generally easier to digest. It needs to be approached with discernment each time. I can also trust my gut when it doesn't want something. If my stomach is telling me a bad feeling when I look at and consider certain foods I shouldn't eat them because my stomach is always right and I will feel uncomfortable or get sick from them. It doesn't necessarily follow everything it says "yes" to is good for me to eat, though.

A temporary break is also probably a good idea.

Hello everyone,

I found this comments on another forum and would be interested to get your reaction to it, and your first person understanding of your own aggregates too, how this understanding has evolved throughout your years of practice, and how the teaching of Hillside Hermitage has changed your view on these and continue to do so. I'm especially interested in what happens to your first person phenomenological experience once sense restraint has been established for years and years compared to before it was so established.

"Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by chownah » Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:19 am

The totally uninstructed one just assumes a self....does not see aggregates etc. The suttas address this ignorance.

The barely instructed one knows of the aggregates and so denies the self....but fabricates an "ongoing being" by assembling the aggregates into a cohesive uber-aggregate which persists through time and calls it a "being". Basically the barely instructed fabricates another kind of self with the main constituent being the aggregates....still it is a "self". The suttas address this ignorance.

The bit more than barely instructed one denies the self called "ongoing being" (and the "self" without recourse to the aggregates) and fabricates ideas of a bunch of "ongoing aggregates" which each persist individually and act together over time....basically a bunch of little selves working together. The suttas address this ignorance.......

And the bit more than a bit more than barely instructed one sees the fabricated and lacking of self quality of the foregoing things but fabricates the six sense bases and their objects as persisting through time and basically thinks of them as persisting through time and each being even smaller selves than aggregates and fabricates them as objects and thus as selves....and here it is often the intellect which is latched onto and when this happens it is not uncommon for the bit of more than a bit of barely instructed one to slip on that slippery slope and come to rest right where they started with the deluded "discovery" that the intellect is "me".....(note: when at the aggregate stage they often grasp onto consciousness and slide down the same slippery slope to arrive at "me".)

As I see it these are some of the perils of our fabricated existences and the suttas address all of them because there are different people at various places and they all need instruction so there is instruction there which will better fit those various people. The suttas we are discussing address the second delusion of my list."

Chownah"

I have taken up eating once a day (in the afternoon/evening) and sleeping on a yoga mat on the floor, but i dont yet understand the purpose of this. Can someone please explain? Or refer to a video where this is explained?

Hello Bhante, Sister and everyone,

I would need some help to understand Vinnana -> NamaRupa and NamaRupa -> Vinnana.

So I have some tiny understanding of Paticcasamupada as far as Craving - Feeling (and somewhat 5-sense-base - Feeling) is concerned.

As in if desire (for something) is present, then this means that craving is there enduring. And if craving is there, this means that there is feeling there enduring in the background (in a way this feeling is feeding that craving). Seeing that this feeling is independent of me, doesn't know about "me", will endure on its own and then changes on its own (can only be properly seen with sense restraint), this is how I can understand that this craving and desire are based on something that is not mine and I can start letting it be there enduring, changing etc...

But as a puttujhana I can only see the feeling through the craving (towards or away from that feeling), I cannot see the feeling on its own, until I'm able to detach with sense restraint for a sufficient amount of time to heal the wounds of the craving and be able to witness a feeling-without-craving (this feeling-without-craving is something akin to science-fiction for me for now, or rather even worse I can't even actually conceive it, only slighltly imagine that "one day" my burns and itches have cooled down (are nibbana-ed) and now I feel the feeling without underlying tendencies of push and pull, a wild dream that I hope will one day (or one future life) come true from "my" first-person perspective).

So now my question is about the other links of dependent origination. The truth is, even after listening to Ven. Nyanamoli for months continuously there's a lot of terms from the dharma I don't even fully understand.

For example this story of ignorance -> formations as in, ignoring that none of my 5-aggregate can actually be taken as mine I actually take one or all of them as mine (through my kamma/actions), hence avijja patticca sankharas, and sankharas are determination and formations of the sense of mine, the sense of me, so in a mind blowing way this means that they are also linked with bhava aka being or rather they form being ? But then we are said that what form being is clinging or rather uppadana, that Ven Nyanamoli calls "an assumption". So with ignorance of the reality of our experience (ignoring these layer of already existing aggregate, already there present in the background, minding their own business, not knowing that "we" are there, like in the story of the feeling in "feeling patticca Tanha" I mentioned above) then we have the sankharas as determination of a Being ("me"). But in the Dependent Origination, this is not how it's presented. Maybe we could say that in Dependent Origination, if there is the manifestation of Being-assumed, if Being-Assumed is there ("I" deserve this, "I" deserve that) then we should try to discern the assumption (uppadana (*)) present in the background (I am, I was (born), I will be) that is fueling that sense of self. And there if there is this assumption, we should look at what craving is there fueling that assumption (I the controller deserve to always feel good feeling, I even believe I actually can change them, as I crave against changing the unchangeable this mean I don't know that I cannot actually change it !! That its change doens't depend on me). And then we should look at what feeling is there enduring fueling that craving (feeling-and-its-underlying-tendencies of push and pull cultivated for eons). And then we should look at what body is there present, enduring on its own, subjected to sickness and death, not mine, fueling that feeling ? And there we should look at what consciouness is there fueling that body ??

So now I can go back to my initial question. So we are told that we have sankharas (determinations, formations of the sense of me) that are patticca-ing Vinnana-Namarupa right ?

I barely understand what Vinnana is, even though from Ven. Nanavira I kind of get that it is the presence of things aka if something is present in my experience, then automatically Vinnana is there. So if there is perception of a sight, say the computer screen I'm looking at, then automatically this means that there lurks in the background the Eye-Consciouness that I will never be able to actually ever feel or see (in line with feeling is felt, perception is perceived). But also in a talk with Ven. Akincano, Ven. Nyanamoli said that Vinnana was just "conscious body" (Vinnana, Vinnana, what is Vinnana)

So now in that story of the two sheaves of reeds leaning onto each other [Vinnana -> NamaRupa] and [NamaRupa -> Vinnana]. How to understand that ? Would you say that if there is present the experience of seeing a screen, this means that there is rupa (the screen and my body that has an eye) and also nama (maybe we could say the meaning of this experience of looking at the screen, for me, for my pleasure of understanding and reading your answer to my confusion, delighting at the prospect of this reading). So there is the experience of seeing a screen, let's say "for me" (I want to get some information) then automatically this means that in the background of this perception (nama?) of "matter" (but also perception is different from nama ??) there is Eye-Consciouness ? But then how this knowledge was sufficient for Buddha Vipassi to completely extinguish all craving ?? There must be something obvious I'm missing.

Let alone the 5-sense-bases and the phassa (contact/pressure), where "one" is contacted (impinged by and pressured by the perception) if one again doesn't see the reality as it is, but add "oneself" to it, not knowing that in the seen there can only be just the seen, one adds itself as external/perpendicular to the seen, and pressured to act (but this can't be done by sheer will).

There is a lot in what I'm asking for here, not sure where to start, I just feel that the whole business of dependent origination is extremely complex to actually understand what each term "is" in my phenomenal experience (I obviouslsy don't understand most of these terms, if I actually did I'd be an Arahant lol, it's frustrating that these terms look almost understandable, but then when you realize you barely or only slowly progress on the cooling down then this is a clear sign that one does NOT understand). I would be grateful for any pointer or any (futures) article on this to help utilize it practically. Your generous article on Yoniso Manasikara is already one of my favorite reads of all time.

Seeing myself enclosed in the presently enduring feeling is being very helpful already, I'm also striving to better my sense restraint (8 precepts) but it's a not easy. I feel I'm quite detached from material possession (mostly seeing them as clutter) but I'm definitely far from seeing clearly, a lot of dust are still in my eyes.

Thank you very much for any help to clarify these terms, in the context of seeing clearly for the cooling down of the burns of the itch with the goal of healing these wounds created by sensuality (prospect of food mostly).

First, let me be nuanced, I'm not asking if most people want to die, i.e. suicdal, I'm asking if most people want to live, as in they look forward to the next day and waking up in the morning with excitement like they probably did when they were kids.

Second, if you gave the average person millions of dollars, would they still keep their job? I'd say the average person dislikes their job and wouldn't work it if they had a choice.

Third, there's 24 hours in a day, 8 hours is spent sleeping, 8 hours working, 4 hours commuting to work, preparing for work, body maintenance, cooking, chores, etc.. And about 4 hours of free time assuming they don't have kids.

Most people burn through those 4 hours doing the most distracting thing possible so they don't have to think about life, or the next morning. I.e. escapism.

Would only working part time solve this problem? Maybe.

In short, I believe most people don't want to live and are in a limbo state of avoiding physical and mental pain through escapism.

How exactly do I keep the 8 precepts? Through sheer willpower?

In his book 'The Only Way to Jhana', Ajahn Nyanamoli mentions this:

"The common misconception, even with people who keep the

precepts and value them, is that they keep the precepts out of faith,

cultural pressure, authority, tradition or instruction from whatever

meditation group they are a part of, but do not see how the precepts

are helping them to tame themselves."

So, what I understand from this is that there is no use keeping the precepts as external rules; keeping them out of faith will yield no results. You have to see how the precepts are helping you to tame yourselves and have to find value in them.

Right now, I see no value in keeping the precepts, simply because I don't understand how they can help me in seeing impurities, hindrances, delusions, wrong views, bad habits and so on. Since I can find no logic in keeping them, I cannot help but see them as external rules. For example, I don't understand how sleeping on the floor leads to me seeing all these things in my mind. Same with killing. How does me refraining from killing a mosquito, even when I know it can cause life threatening diseases like dengue and malaria lead to purification? (by the way, I live in a country where these diseases are rampant, and I get dengue or malaria every other year. THAT'S how many mosquitoes there are here, so we have no choice but to kill them. I don't know if there's even a way for me to follow the first precept. This is off topic, however.)

So what am I supposed to do?

Also, there lies one more problem. u/Bhikkhu_Anigha mentions this in his reply to a post:

"This is why it's a training that builds up in progressively. In this case, your only concern should be to begin keeping the precepts and get used to that. Don't worry about anything else for now. Once you get used to the precepts and more "space" starts to open up as a result, you will naturally start to see subtler impurities in your own mind, and only with that first-hand discernment will you be able to abandon them rightly.

(If one has a severely wrong view of what practice and purification are, a view that places the emphasis on something completely unrelated to the precepts and one's behavior, then it's of course very unlikely that any further impurities at the level of conduct will be noticed—even after keeping the precepts perfectly for decades—simply because one won't be looking to find them. The precepts become simply boxes to tick mindlessly before moving on to the main act ASAP.)"

What is a 'severely wrong view' of practice and purification? As far as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), one takes up the 8 precepts and then the rest of the gradual training with the intention to be aware of the hindrances, delusions, the Wrong View, impurities, bad habits, basically all harmful things in your mind, and after realizing their danger, he naturally lets go of them. (I use the analogy of putting your hand on a hot stove and burning your hand. When you realize that this burns your hand and hurts you, your mind will never allow you to do that again purposefully. Even if you get dementia or something, you will know not to put your hand on the stove, because this is not theoretical knowledge, it's knowledge that you will never forget.)

So basically, through the 8 precepts, one aims and intends to discern which actions (including speech and thoughts) moves him in the direction of freedom from dukkha, so that he can practice those very actions. And he also intends to discern which actions (including speech and thoughts) that lead him to dukkha, so that he can curb these actions, realizing their danger.

Now, that is how I understand it. This is my view of practice and purification. Is this wrong?

How do I keep the precepts, while also inherently seeing value in them, not seeing them as external rules, not blindly following them, and also keeping the correct view about the practice and purification? How exactly do I practice the precepts? (Also, small question: what is the difference between virtue and the precepts? I always thought they were the same thing.)

Also, after I've established the precepts, what is the next step? And all the steps after that? Please point me towards a step by step guide: an organized, structured, ordered guide of what exactly is to be done, because the suttas are honestly kind of vague and really hard to understand.

Also, please guide me on where I'm supposed to start with the HH material. Which video, text or essay I should start with. Honestly, there's so much, that I'm overwhelmed.

So finally, addressing all these questions, I request you all to guide me in properly practicing the 8 precepts. I apologize for any ignorance or any stupidity, I am new to HH material.

If you wish to not give a long answer and waste your time on me, then please point me towards a video , a text, an essay by HH, or any other source that can answer my question.

In one of the talks Ajah mentions "can you suffer if you don't want anything and don't have anything?" naturally I imagine anyone would answer "no", that sounds like freedom. So I thought "can I not want anything and not be attached to what I have?" since that's what's causing me pain. Acquire only what is necessary as means for something else that is necessary. Like working, buying food or transport to be able to survive and not to delight in acquisition.

I assume monks also have plenty of things in a monastery, but they don't delight in those things, don't think about acquiring more even if the level of engagement could be the same as a layman has in the world. Like for example a person could acquire books for the pleasure of acquisition or someone else could have what is strictly necessary to support their goal. The level of engagement is the same.

I feel like my post partially answers the question then it becomes why do anything?, why try to change anything? So far it worked without changing anything and just doing things and experiencing the results.

Why change anything externally if that is not where the freedom is?

I'm a bit unclear on those... As I understand it the puggala is what remains when sakkaya ditthi has been removed. But it feels a bit circular since I feel I'm doing the decisions to practice sense restraint to remove my ownership of sense of self... So the sense of self is doing the undermining of the clinging to the sense of self ??

Would it be good to sit and contenplate/reflect whilst simultaneously being aware of the body breathing (not concentrating on a specific spot, just breathing in general) ?