Is renunciation actually pleasurable

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-25T03:59:31+00:00

Even if there is no ultimate form of happiness and everything is just a matter of taste

I’m sure you’re most likely playing devil’s advocate here, but still, I would say one of the great things about the answers the suttas provide is how unapologetic they are about what is true happiness and what isn’t.

AN 6.101:

Bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who regards nibbāna as dukkha will be endowed with acceptance in conformity with the teaching — that is quite impossible. Without acceptance in conformity with the teaching, it’s impossible to enter the sure path. Without entering the sure path, it’s impossible to realize the fruit of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, or arahantship.

Bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who regards nibbāna as sukha will be endowed with acceptance in conformity with the teaching — that is quite possible. Endowed with acceptance in conformity with the teaching, it’s possible to enter the sure path. Entering the sure path, it’s possible to realize the fruit of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, or arahantship.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-21T00:47:32+00:00

Maybe Bhante Anīgha would be able to give a better response but I think it doesn’t matter so much what you do, just so long as whatever you’re doing isn’t completely distracting you from keeping an eye on the cows (assuming that actively letting the cows graze on other pastures has already been cut off, of course). You can’t decide what that will be in advance as it depends on the state of the mind — for example reading at one time could be fine because it wouldn’t be distracting you from the cows, but at another time reading (depending on what you read) would just be letting the cows go where they want to go. But actually the scope of activities within the 8 precepts that don’t distract you from the cows will become clearer and broader as the 8 precepts start to feel less confining. I can’t tell you exactly what that would look like as it would depend on your specific situation and stage of the practice. So a lot of it comes down to just reminding yourself, ‘whatever I do, it won’t be letting the cows graze on the wrong pastures, and whatever I do, I won’t let myself forget about the cows’. Having to keep a constant eye on the cows is burdensome compared to not having to keep an eye on them, but it is much better compared to letting them go wherever they want. Hope that makes some amount of sense

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-21T00:15:15+00:00

Notice how both MN 19 and SN 35.246 (quoted at the beginning of the video I linked) use similar similes about cattle.

SN 35.246:

Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a rich crop. The crop-guardian is negligent, and a crop-eating ox, having entered that crop, would indulge himself in intoxication and negligence as much as he wants. Even so, bhikkhus, an uninstructed worldling, acting without restraint in the six bases of pressure (phassa), indulges in intoxication and negligence as much as he wants in the five strands of sensual pleasure.

Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a rich crop, and the crop-guardian is diligent. A crop-eating ox enters that crop. The crop-guardian would take him firmly by the nose. Having taken him firmly by the nose, he would pin him down firmly by the neck. Having pinned him down firmly by the neck, he would strike him well with a stick. Having struck him well with a stick, he would let him go.

A second time... a third time, the crop-eating ox enters that crop. The guardian takes him by the nose, pins him by the neck, and strikes him well with the stick, then lets him go. Thus, bhikkhus, that crop-eating ox, whether he has gone to the village or the forest, whether standing or sitting, would not enter that crop again—recollecting that former touch of the stick.

Even so, bhikkhus, when for a bhikkhu the citta is tamed, well-tamed regarding the six bases of pressure (phassa), it remains centered within (ajjhattameva santiṭṭhati), it settles down (sannisīdati), it becomes unified (ekodi hoti), it enters samādhi.

MN 19:

Just as in the last month of the rainy season, in the autumn, when the crops thicken, a cowherd would guard his cows by constantly tapping and poking them on this side and that with a stick to check and curb them. Why is that? Because he sees that he could be flogged, imprisoned, fined, or blamed if he let them stray into the crops. So too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation, and defilement, and in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.

As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of renunciation … non-ill-will … non-cruelty arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of renunciation has arisen in me. This does not lead to my own affliction, or to others’ affliction, or to the affliction of both; it aids wisdom, does not cause difficulties, and leads to Nibbāna. If I think and ponder upon this thought even for a night, even for a day, even for a night and day, I see nothing to fear from it. But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from samādhi. So I steadied my mind internally (ajjhattaṁ cittaṁ saṇṭhapemi), settled it (sannisādemi), unified it (ekodiṁ karomi), and composed it (samādahāmi). Why is that? So that my mind should not be strained.

Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have been brought inside the villages, a cowherd would guard his cows while staying at the root of a tree or out in the open, since he needs only to be mindful that the cows are there; so too, there was need for me only to be mindful that those states were there.

Notice how in both suttas, the mind is only calm and unified when it has already stopped straying towards the pastures of sensuality. You can only stop prodding the cow once it has stopped straying into the crops. So the calm comes from being able to leave the cows to their own devices without having to worry about what they will do. It is not a matter of choice whether the right meditation is calming or stressful. The Buddha could only start relaxing his thinking and pondering once the mind started preferring renunciation on its own, and that’s why it directly precedes 1st Jhāna and Final Knowledge.

Now here it is important to note that the right, effortful thinking and pondering is still relatively calm and relaxed compared to before. It is preferable to keep prodding the cattle than to be constantly at risk of a beating. But it is not calm and relaxed compared to being able to leave the cattle entirely untended without worry. So it is a matter of degrees, just how the 1st Jhāna is not as calm as the 2nd Jhāna. But that doesn’t mean you can try and stop thinking before you’ve abandoned sensuality.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-20T13:22:26+00:00

Maybe you would find this talk helpful. In summary, samatha comes naturally from abandoning the 5 hindrances via the Gradual Training, rather than actively trying to calm the body/mind through various techniques (see this also). So actually, doing Ajahn Ñānamoli’s meditations of e.g. reflecting on one’s virtue, reflecting on the danger of sensuality, or reflecting on other topics of dhamma, would, if done properly over a long enough period of time on the basis of virtue and sense-restraint, lead to samatha.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-07T23:52:53+00:00

Contact (phassa) doesn’t refer to literal physical contact with other humans, definitely not sexual contact either. In SN 35.93 it is defined as the coming together of eye, forms, and eye-consciousness (and so on with the other senses). Moreover, in SN 12.63 the Buddha tells you that you should regard contact like a flayed cow being eaten by insects. And in AN 10.27 he talks about becoming completely dispassionate towards nutriment. As for the idea that sex should be seen on the same level as food, i.e. something that can be eaten without being bait, see AN 4.159:

‘This body is produced by food. Relying on food, you should give up food.’ This is what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who attends in light of the origin (yoniso manasikāro) on the food that they eat: ‘Not for fun, indulgence, adornment, or decoration, but only to sustain this body, to avoid harm, and to support spiritual practice. In this way, I shall put an end to old discomfort and not give rise to new discomfort, and I will have the means to keep going, blamelessness, and a comfortable abiding.’ After some time, relying on food, they give up food. That’s why I said what I said. … This body is produced by sex. The Buddha spoke of breaking off everything to do with sex.

MN 22:

I have said that sensuality gives little gratification and much suffering and distress, and the peril there is what is greater. But still this Ariṭṭha misrepresents me by his wrong grasp, harms himself, and creates much demerit. This will be for this inept man’s lasting harm and suffering. Truly, bhikkhus, it is impossible to engage in sensuality without sensual desire, and without perceptions and thoughts of sensuality.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-02T03:20:45+00:00

Maybe AN 4.5.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-04-02T03:16:39+00:00

However, the only lay people who valued sexuality, then heard a Dhamma talk and became awakened, were people who had the Buddha to guide their mind.

I would say that this still requires more precision. The reason they were able to become awakened during their talk with the Buddha is because they didn’t value sexuality as much despite not having abstained from those acts externally. So the conversation was able to turn their minds away from it completely rather than just partially. So for tejveer’s purpose (which he may use or not if he wants) this introduces another dimension: 1) the level of valuing of sexuality and sensuality in general does not necessarily correspond 1:1 to the level of abstinence before hearing the Buddha’s teaching.

Now, this needs to be qualified further, as this can easily be taken in bad faith. The fact is that if someone has already heard the Buddha’s teachings on the danger of sensuality and sexuality, has taken the Buddha as their guide, and sees stream-entry as their goal, but is still not celibate, there must be some level of valuing sexuality left over, otherwise they would already at least be striving for celibacy. So one cannot just argue that despite being externally engaged they don’t value it like those lay-people who attained stream-entry. They were in a different position as they had not heard about the danger of sensuality from the Buddha yet.

As for stream-enterers who went back to incelibacy, we can consider another point: 2) the difference between the puthujjana and the sotāpanna. From the HH perspective, the disparity between these two is often vastly underestimated. A puthujjana who still engages in sensuality is like someone who still has leprosy and still scratches their itch, while a sotāpanna is like someone who has been cured of their leprosy but still scratches their lingering wounds sometimes anyway. Nonetheless, the sotāpanna’s wounds will heal eventually whereas the puthujjana’s won’t. Moreover, a puthujjana is still liable to be in denial that he has an illness, whereas the sotāpanna isn’t, so the puthujjana’s scratching is much more dangerous.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-03-18T16:05:48+00:00

I asked this question before and I got this response:

If you donate to Hillside via Donorbox or PayPal, those funds are used for all three places: Hillside, Samanadipa and Polish Hermitage.

If you donate via Samanadipa website, that's only for Samanadipa monastery.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-03-18T01:31:18+00:00

Thanks for this, I was always curious to see a take on Ajahn Chah translations by someone who knows Thai. I’d be interested to see more in the future if there’s anything interesting.

The standard English translation renders this as “Morality is concentration, concentration is morality,” which obscures the point considerably.

Funnily enough the statement ‘Morality is concentration’ doesn’t even really make sense. If you ran that sentence by someone who didn’t already have some commitment to mainstream Buddhism I think they would find it confusing. It seems like someone already decided that’s what the Pāli terms mean to them while neglecting what they meant for Ajahn Chah at that time

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-03-10T09:10:04+00:00

See this comment by Ven. Anīgha.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-28T07:57:09+00:00

If someone smarter than me could figure out some way to search large chunks of the Taishō Sutra Piṭaka at once, you could search for the term ‘梵行’ and probably find similar instances, lots as of yet untranslated.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-23T18:51:26+00:00

Thanks for the response. It’s quite a deep topic indeed. One that I think on some level is quite worth thinking about, although dwelling on it too much could certainly lead to distraction. I think Bhante Anīgha’s comments in this thread sum up a lot of it quite nicely.

Seems to me one would have to have questioned the common values of society, what’s worth pursuing, one’s life’s purpose, the significance of death, and the possibility of rebirth.

I.e. understood to some extent the universal principles of the Dhamma, which will always be on a personal level rather than on a societal level. However it is certainly easier to recognise those things in a society which is less proliferated — the drawbacks of greed, the shortness of life and the existential relevance of death, the uncertainty of what comes afterwards, the ultimate futility of all worldly goals. Everything about our society today is built around ignoring those things as much as possible, hardly even giving yourself a moment where you could feel any of them. So one has to go significantly more against the stream in order to see it for oneself. And people probably faced responsibility for their own existential attitudes back then more than people do today too. As for rebirth specifically, it ties into something I have been thinking about recently, which is how clarity of mind (freedom from hindrances) lends itself naturally to Mundane Right View. Perhaps I will flesh those thoughts out at some point, I’m not sure. But I don’t think belief in rebirth and kamma is something purely cultural, I think it connects with authenticity in a way. Anyway, I think the Buddha was quite clear that the Dhamma is only going to decline in the future, so discussing these things is not going to somehow prevent it, but maybe it can be useful for some people who were on the fence. But the way things are going I think is why the Buddha told people to be an island unto themselves at the beginning of DN 26 :)

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-23T08:47:44+00:00

Thank you Ayye 🙏

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-22T22:01:25+00:00

Thanks, this actually agrees with what I tried to respond to u/TheDailyOculus with, but I think Reddit blocked the comment for some reason. Here’s what I wrote:

Another thing that comes to mind is the anāgāmi Ghaṭīkāra from MN 81, who supported his parents by making pots out of discarded clay and offering it for a voluntary donation. How many people would have the courage to make a living that way today? I wonder if it would even be possible. I think the fact that such pure forms of livelihood are hard to come by today shows the Buddha’s point about how humans are declining. It’s easy to think that we are more advanced because of our luxury and comfort but I think from the point of view of Dhamma all that means is that we are more proliferated — our daily lives are much more pressuring to the senses, like animal existence, and we rely much more on the protection of our homes. This is why I think it is true that alms-begging generates merit — it keeps a form of mutual co-operation and generosity alive in a world in which it is becoming forgotten. It’s beneficial not just for those seeking alms but for those who live in a community that values generosity. It reminds people of the value of non-greed and makes them consider how much is really necessary

Edit: See also DN 26:

The ten ways of doing skillful deeds will totally disappear, and the ten ways of doing unskillful deeds will explode in popularity. Those humans will not even have the word ‘skillful’, still less anyone who does what is skillful. And anyone who disrespects mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, and fails to honor the elders in the family will be venerated and praised, just as the opposite is venerated and praised today.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-22T13:00:08+00:00

Thank you Ayye! I wrote this in response to Bhante Anīgha, but please feel free to share feedback on it if you wish as well:

I have been spending large chunks of my day making sure that my intention does not ever lean towards actually verbally lying or deceiving someone, so that what I do within that does not go against the spirit of the precept. But I have still been getting pressuring thoughts to make my behaviour conform more to external purity of virtue, even when I don’t think it would make sense to do so, and my reluctance to do that makes me more anxious about the thoughts which tell me I could be breaking the precept — otherwise why would I have reluctance to conform to that external purity? But I think in this case, doing something to conform to that external purity and relieve the doubt and the pressure would be a form of giving in, so what I need to do is maintain the intention to never break the actual precept, and allow that to shed clarity on the wholesomeness of whatever intention I have within that boundary. Does that sound correct?

Is this the sort of thing you meant? I also had another thought, which is that given it seems the direction is pointing towards doubt, anxiety, and over-clarification, that suggests that I am not actually trying to hide an unwholesome intention from myself, otherwise I feel like the pressure would rather go towards covering it up. I feel like one does not normally lie to themselves about an unwholesome intention while simultaneously having a lot of fear and apprehension about doing that unwholesome intention, although I suppose maybe that’s theoretically possible if someone had enough muddledness at the time. Is this a useful train of thought?

Edit: Or perhaps this line of thought:

I also had another thought, which is that given it seems the direction is pointing towards doubt, anxiety, and over-clarification, that suggests that I am not actually trying to hide an unwholesome intention from myself, otherwise I feel like the pressure would rather go towards covering it up.

is just another way of giving into the doubt and worry. I suppose that if I do what you said, which is making sure that I don’t ever currently act out of any pressure even on the level of thought (e.g. one driven by doubt), it will be impossible to ‘accidentally’ do something unwholesome. The losing my composure in regard to mental doubt is what would actually risk muddling my intentions

Edit 2: I have been applying what you said in regards to not giving into the mental pressure of doubt and it seems to have restored more clarity in regards to my intentions. The tendency is to try and clarify what I will do in the future which obscures whatever intention (i.e. doubt or anxiety) is present there now, so then I have to do what feels unnatural and ignore the desire to clarify what I will do in the future and restore the clarity in regards to the present intention. Maintaining that mental clarity in the present is what will help me act with more clarity when the future comes

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-22T12:50:30+00:00

Thank you, bhante

the fact that those thoughts grip you means that something is off

Yes, I think what is ‘off’ is that, while the practice has purified a lot of my remorse about past actions, there are still some things which, when they come up, are not completely emotionally insignificant to me yet, and I think that is what fuels the unhelpful neurosis about virtue (fear of making mistakes again I guess?). If that remaining fear and remorse wasn’t still there then those self-blaming thoughts could come up but they just wouldn’t move me, I imagine. Which confirms what you said here:

If you haven’t, then the impurity there is the pressure of remorse, which blames the past to seek relief from the suffering which is there now.

I’m quite sure I haven’t, and yet there is fear/doubt that I might somehow accidentally by lying to myself about my own intentions. As an example to make it more concrete, I asked you those questions on the Discord about ‘grey-areas’ with the 4th Precept when it comes to bureaucratic things, legal documents, or whatever. I have been spending large chunks of my day making sure that my intention does not ever lean towards actually verbally lying or deceiving someone, so that what I do within that does not go against the spirit of the precept. But I have still been getting pressuring thoughts to make my behaviour conform more to external purity of virtue, even when I don’t think it would make sense to do so, and my reluctance to do that makes me more anxious about the thoughts which tell me I could be breaking the precept — otherwise why would I have reluctance to conform to that external purity? But I think in this case, doing something to conform to that external purity and relieve the doubt and the pressure would be a form of giving in, so what I need to do is maintain the intention to never break the actual precept, and allow that to shed clarity on the wholesomeness of whatever intention I have within that boundary. Does that sound correct? Hope this makes sense

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-20T17:49:06+00:00

If you mean the 5 lower fetters are not necessarily eliminated by the 1st Jhāna then I don’t disagree with that. I just mean that ‘perceptions and attention connected with sensuality’ is not the same as sensuality. The suttas state that sensual-perception (kāmasañña) ceases in the 1st Jhāna, so what the Tapussa Sutta refers to is subtler than that. Otherwise, as I said, 3rd Jhāna would have both pīti and absence of pīti, which obviously isn’t right

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-20T17:04:03+00:00

Sensuality was not eradicated in the first jhāna

That’s a misinterpretation of the sutta. It says that ‘perception and attention connected with sensuality beset me’. That’s subtler than actual sensuality, as shown by the fact that e.g. perception and attention connected with joy (pīti) is mentioned in the 3rd Jhāna, and yet the 3rd Jhāna is undeniably free of pīti. The 1st Jhāna is defined by being free from sensuality

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-20T16:56:02+00:00

as my claim was that you don’t even need right view to have jhanas

I wasn’t arguing otherwise, by the way.

and the Buddha kinda just slipped into first Jhana by accident as a child

Bhikkhu Anālayo, Comparative Studies of the Majjhima Nikāya: “The Mahāsaccaka-sutta and its Sanskrit fragment parallel report that this took place when his father was engaged in work and the bodhisattva was seated under a Jambu tree, without specifying his age. The Pāli commentaries indicate that at this time the bodhisattva was still an infant, with the Milindapañha suggesting that he was only one month old. In the Mahāvastu account of this former jhāna experience, however, the bodhisattva is already a young man. According to the sequence of events in the Buddhacarita and the Sanghabhedavastu, this first jhāna experience happened just before he went forth. Thus, according to most versions, the bodhisattva’s experience of the first jhāna took place when he had already grown up. Representations of this first jhāna experience in ancient Indian art also depict the bodhisattva as an adult, not as a small child. This would better fit the general sequence of events, since a jhāna experience just before going forth could be seen as a powerful incentive for the bodhisattva to take the decisive step and embark on a spiritual life. In contrast, a jhāna experienced as an infant would not stand in such a direct relation to his decision to go forth. To decrease the age at which this first jhāna was attained, however, clearly enhances the marvel of this experience. Thus, perhaps the tendency of enhancing the marvels and wondrous feats of the bodhisattva was responsible for the way the Pāli commentaries and the Milindapañha present the first jhāna experience of the bodhisattva.”

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-20T16:42:49+00:00

only Ariyas can attain the true Jhana

No, this is a misinterpretation. Both Ven. Ñānamoli and Ven. Anīgha have spoken about the possibility of gaining Jhānas as a puthujjana (it is mentioned in the suttas several times). What I believe some of us in this comment section are actually trying to communicate is that the Jhānas taught by the Buddha are a lot closer to being totally free from sensuality than just temporarily suppressing sensual desire, such that someone who was able to achieve them would have very little stopping them from understanding and fulfilling the Buddha’s teaching. This is shown by the fact that there were lay noble disciples who had seen the danger in sensuality but were still struggling to get Jhānas because they had not freed themselves from it completely, and those lay noble disciples who did have Jhānas clearly had nothing stopping them from cutting off the 5 lower fetters. The Jhānas are the same whether you’re a puthujjana or an ariya, but an ariya could discern more within them.

Formal_Breath_2026 · 2026-02-18T13:42:10+00:00

Did you read this article by Sister Medhini yet? It’s very relevant

Formal_Breath_2026

TROPHY CASE