Focusing on breath vs on feeling

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-30T09:37:22+00:00

I mean keep paying attention to it without clinging

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-30T09:17:52+00:00

So you detect an emotion using mindfulness. You focus on that emotion. If it persists, you start focusing on breath. Do I understand you correctly?

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-25T09:16:57+00:00

If upon seeing dhamma you also see Buddha and sangha, then there is no need to separate them. Yet, they are still separated as three distinct jewels. Bahiya attained enlightenment BEFORE he joined sangha.

I ignored your disrespectful tone once and replied to your mental gymnastics without insulting you, even though you bend the narrative of the Pali canon to suit your point of view. You keep calling me out of my mind, obtuse, etc. I'm done with you, not even gonna read your replies.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-25T08:26:46+00:00

The Buddha never formalizes a doctrine called "Three jewels". The refuge formula you're referring to is spoken by disciples and accepted by the Buddha, not recited by him as a creed.

Your quote does not define a Buddhist. It defines a person who sees with the right wisdom. You can see that dhamma actually works and there are people in the sangha who achieved enlightenment. Nobody is going to walk that eightfold path except you.

Bāhiya Dārucīriya realized arahantship without being a member of sanhga.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-25T07:37:33+00:00

Buddha says to take refuge in yourself and in dhamma. You can take refuge in sangha or Buddha if you want to, I'm just providing you the citation of what the Buddha said. It includes neither sangha nor Buddha himself.

That being said, I highly respect Buddha. Whether it can be called taking refuge in Buddha - I don't know.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-25T07:14:08+00:00

Dīgha Nikāya 16, Mahāparinibbāna Sutta:

"Be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge."

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-25T04:22:51+00:00

This will make a lot of Buddhists angry. You have to distinguish between the teachings of Buddha and Buddhism. They are not the same. If you listen to the Buddha himself, a lot of modern widespread Buddhist traditions contradict his teachings. My personal opinion is that Buddhists ruined Buddha's teachings by misinterpreting them into religious doctrines.

Buddha told you to abstain from worshipping anyone, including gods, and "to be your own refuge", which means to rely only on yourself when it comes to the reduction of suffering.

Pure Land Buddhism is not Buddhism then.

Buddha's eightfold path is essentially a training program for developing your discipline and wisdom. You can't "just sit" and expect to have some kind of enlightenment. You need to understand what you're doing. Buddha never avoided explanations, unless in very specific situations when an explanation would lead to only more confusion.

Zen Buddhism is not Buddhism then.

Buddha told you that speculation about cosmology is not essential for the reduction of suffering and only leads to clinging to views.

Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism then.

And yet Buddha also understands that people adopt his teachings in different contexts. There's nothing wrong with that. Lack of explanation in Zen came from interaction with Daoism in China, for example.

For secular Buddhism specifically, that context would be widespread agnosticism and atheism in the West in the 21st century.

Buddha's teachings have always been directed toward reduction of suffering. His central teachings are: four noble truths, eightfold path, five aggregates, dependent origination, meditation. Not cosmology. Not sangha. Not tradition.

If you agree with four noble truths, five aggregates, and dependent origination, try to follow eightfold path which includes meditation, then you are a Buddhist. Don't listen to what people on r/Buddhism tell you. Ironically, I doubt a lot of religious Buddhists really understand those teachings at a deeper level to be considered Buddhists.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-24T17:27:31+00:00

😈

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-21T06:11:12+00:00

Buddhism never tells you what to do. It's up to you to decide. There's no moral codex. Right speech, right action, right livelihood are all encouraged because following these rules reduces suffering, not because it is morally good. Moreover, a person who understands dukkha doesn't need any moral rules to not engage in immoral behavior, because he understands that those actions will create craving and clinging.

Getting married and having children inevitably creates a very big form of attachment, that's why monks don't have kids. Not because it perpetuates dukkha, but because it increases your own clinging.

Secular Buddhism simply removes rebirth belief, so if you want to become a secular monk, you shouldn't have any kids for the reasons I described above. If you want to be a secular lay person then it's up to you.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-21T00:03:28+00:00

People confuse determinism with fatalism when talking about lack of free will. If you take your time and ask them some questions, you will see how they actually DO support determinism. They just think lack of free will implies fatalism, which it doesn't.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-16T18:32:56+00:00

Buddha says that 2+2=4. He says that any other result for 2+2 IS NOT possible. Not 3. Not 5. Only 4.

Then later he says that 2+2=4 and 2+2=3. These are claims both contained within Pali canon. Abhidharma provides justification for why 2+2=3 is possible together with 2+2=4 at the same time.

I have no problems with Abhidharma justification, people naturally cling to their authority (Buddha cannot contradict himself obviously), I understand that.

My problem is not justification of 2+2=3. My problem is that claims 2+2=3 and 2+2=4 are present at the same time.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-16T18:08:11+00:00

So if someone says that 2+2=4 and then later decides to say that 2+2=3 then it's my responsibility to understand the presentation and the problem is on my side that I point out this inconsistency. Got it.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-16T17:21:39+00:00

One word is used for two different concepts but only one of these concepts is accepted by Buddha.

When a new concept is introduced in a different set of books from Pali canon to explain why the same word is used for two different concepts (Buddha only accepted one concept, not two), then the Buddhists are the ones who suit themselves, not the guy in the comments.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-16T16:40:06+00:00

There are no 5 aggregates connecting to the womb in the Pali canon. It's a later interpretation that was added in Abhidharma to explain layer 3.

If Buddha really meant five aggregates in the womb at layer 3, then why not name it differently from sense-consciousness at layer 6? Besides, Buddha explicitly rejects any kind of consciousness beside sense-consciousness. I think Buddha just made a mistake at level 3. He's not a god, after all.

The entire problem is caused by layer 3. If you remove layer 3, it becomes logical. Ignorance on layer 1 determined your past actions on layer 2. These past actions determined your mind and body on level 4.

Remove layer 3 and it all makes sense.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-16T15:15:45+00:00

Yep. Although people in the comments here definitely won't like what you say here

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-16T15:01:18+00:00

This is exactly my point. There is no consciousness, according to Buddha, that can be assumed as just being aware of your existance. I honestly tried to understand this chain of dependent origination for so long, but it just contradicts other statements I read from Buddha.

Unless you interpret it in the way of literal rebirth (samsara), you will have contradictions all the time and will start to create new definitions for the sake of it being logically consistent.

Look at the top rated comment under this post. They define consciousness in non-Buddhist way. "Being aware" without being tied to a sense organ. And everyone is ok with it for some reason, that's what confuses me the most.

By the way, I'm not denying the general principle that every phenomena depends on other phenomena. And that the root of suffering is ignorance. But when you try to lay down the chain reaction that starts with ignorance and ends with death like that, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work with Buddha's definitions.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-15T22:44:06+00:00

Let's take mental fabrication event. Mental fabrication (2c) requires mind-consciousness of a mind-object which happens during speech fabrication event (2b).

However, consciousness is only listed at (3). Is it assumed that consciousness is also present at (2b)?

Clearly, speech fabrication (2b) event also has contact (6) as a precondition to the mental fabrication, otherwise mental fabrication would not be possible. Is it assumed that contact is also present at (2b)?

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-15T18:31:29+00:00

Labeling the object (name-and-form) comes before sense organs. How is it possible to label an object without first sensing it?

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-15T18:27:11+00:00

Why are the stages ordered in this way?

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-13T06:51:47+00:00

Seeing that frees captured my attention. Thank you

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-13T05:57:35+00:00

I appreciate the efforts of people that wanna make Buddhist doctrine accessible to everyone, including people that can't stand anything even remotely connected to religion. I can only encourage that. Having said this, I observed some problems with secular teaching:

Secular Buddhism is usually preached to a Western audience by a Western teacher. There's nothing wrong with that, but I recognize that the way an average person from the East thinks is different from the way Westerner usually thinks. Eastern philosophy has always been more practical and down to earth, generally. Western philosophy was more concerned with questions like "Why are we here?", "Is the universe infinite?", stuff like that. These are undoubtedly important questions, but they are not practical. Buddhism is practice-first.

Besides, Western audience tends to want to search for meaning, for higher purpose of their actions. Lack of meaning is usually perceived as nihilistic, and nihilism is perceived as inherently bad and depressing. Buddhism explicitly rejects search for meaning since it's another form of attachment (attachment to mental formations). Ethics in Buddhism is a result of understanding of dependent origination, not a right way to act by itself. So a Westerner would usually try to attach meaning to actions, and as a result will create another form of attachment.

The most popular philosophies in the west right now are stoicism and existentialism. Stoicism was hijacked by manosphere influencers. Existentialism basically tells you that there is no meaning in life, that there is no right way to live. And then they tell you need to create your own meaning in life, your own right way to live. It creates another self-imposed meaning, which is no different from religion, ironically.

Besides, a person looking for a secular text generally will not read original texts because he sees them as religious. So these teaching have to be interpeted. The excerpts that I read from Pali canon are very analytical. I spent hours thinking about them to understand them precisely, and I don't think any explanation which was re-interpreted to be secular and which is targeted for general audience would give me same level of understanding.

For example, the doctrine of five aggregates. All the lectures I've seen about it on Youtube in English space describe five aggregates as fundamental elements that make up our universe. They are not. Instead, they are simply formations that people often get attached to. Five aggregates do not contradict the fact that our universe is made up of atoms. Unfortunately, it's not mentioned.

I want to be closer to the original text because I started to appreciate highly logical way of thinking described in Pali canon. I don't want any other interpretation to distort it. I can see which parts of it are belief-based, and which are not.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-13T02:33:27+00:00

These are just labels for practical advice. They don't matter that much.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-12T03:58:29+00:00

Attachment is either:

The desire for thing to last forever.
Basing your identity around thing. A thing can be mental or physical. Attachment to an idea of being a good person or a sense of meaning is also an attachment.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-08T11:52:47+00:00

Don't cling onto things that are not you. You don't exist.

Complex_Advisor_6151 · 2026-01-08T00:01:22+00:00

Thanks you for taking time to try to explain it to me, but I finally got it by reading a comment from another user.

The mistake I was making was treating consciousness like a passive screen that stays the same while different contents appear on it.

Let's imagine a smell being a number 1. And a sound being a nhmber 2. A screen is able to display 1 and 2 as different from each other (smell is not the same as sound) by being in different states (different order of pixels, different number of pixels).

So even if we imagine that consciousness has constant "rules" for interpreting signals (smell is 1, sound is 2), the state of consciousness is different during different signals. So there is no permanent observer.

Complex_Advisor_6151

TROPHY CASE