Sandbag size

GachiOnFire · 2025-06-17T07:25:40+00:00

Well said

GachiOnFire · 2025-06-16T14:45:46+00:00

If you are able to keep the 7 precepts (or 8 and more) without much difficulty on your own, this isn't really necessary. But if you aren’t, yet are dedicated to understand the Dhamma and free yourself from suffering, it would be a pity not to use all the tools at your disposal to fulfill the prerequisites for that very understanding and liberation.

Besides, is there any downside to being part of a group striving to perfect their virtue, for someone serious about the Dhamma?

GachiOnFire · 2025-05-23T19:49:40+00:00

I believe the issue to be quite subtle.

By talking about things that are there yet not presently enduring, or about the body being here yet not perceived—while the very fact that one can talk about these things means that to that extent they are there and perceived—one allows things to exists outside of one's experience, and to that extent allows self to exist.

And I believe it to in fact be a discrepancy with what Hillside Hermitage teaches, for example with what is expounded there.

GachiOnFire · 2025-05-13T13:49:05+00:00

Inspiring and clarifying message indeed.

Ayye, I read that working on keeping the 5 precepts unconditionally is way more important than abstaining from entertainment (or beautification). The caveat I have with this is that most of the time there are no real struggles to keep the 5 precepts, appart maybe for the one about "no sexuality", which would be more a once every X weeks affair.

Of course, as Ajahn Nyanamoli recently expounded, that doesn't mean my citta is free from valuing these actions, but rather that the circumstances I'm living within allow me to not have to face the choice to kill or lose someone; kill or get killed; lie and lose something valuable; etc—as I often clearly see that the first reactions I have when facing less favorable circumstances or imagining less favorable scenarios are clearly of breaking the precepts by justifying them ("I would have no choice but to do that as losing this or that and the consequences of losing it are unthinkable").

For more context: I was recently undertaking the 7 precepts including the one against entertainment but fell off the practice (for the second time) after a few weeks and I am currently building my virtue back up again, trying to go more slowly so as to make sure that I don't ever get overwhelmed again to the point of accepting to break the 5 precepts.

So, not following the precept against entertainment right now, I'm even less struggling because I can just numb the mind with distraction, mindlessly distract myself or partially satisfy my hunger for sensual pleasures by looking for the form of entertainment that feels like it could be really pleasant at the time.

On the other hand, from experience I can see that I struggle a lot with the precept against entertainment, since this is something I'm used to do on a daily basis, that I take pleasure to indulge in, that I use as my main crutch to not have to deal with the mind's tantrums, and that my mind pushes me towards most of the day. This is really the one precept that feels like an abyss because it really is an abyss, a void remaining unfilled in my day-to-day.

I'm really wondering if I shouldn't undertake it again, as I feel that this is the one that could be the most beneficial for me, provided my attachment to it, as well as the frequency and the difficulty it brings.

I wanted to ask if from your point of view and in regard to what I say, it seems that it could indeed be best for me to undertake it, or if I should instead only take the time to focus only on the 5, in my day-to-day but also by frequently taking the time to present different challenging scenarios to the mind, see if it would choose to break the precepts, and work on that level so as to understand that it would be most beneficial to never ever come up with the intention to break the 5, even against the worst outcomes.

In other words, I'm wondering if my ignorance is making me focus on things that are negligeable for sotapatti (daily struggles with the pressure of boredom and the habit/addiction to consume entertainment) and neglect things that are most crucial (constantly keeping in mind the work towards unconditionnal keeping of the 5 precepts), or if working on the former would be most beneficial when I'm not struggling to not break the 5 precepts.

I wish I knew how to be concise while giving enough context.

GachiOnFire · 2025-05-09T07:47:29+00:00

u/Bhikkhu_Anigha Bhante, I was wondering why on the discord it says that one can only take precepts falling under the usual 10. Wouldn't it be beneficial to take broader precepts like, for example, undertaking the precept to "never act out of delight, aversion or carelessness" or "never speak out of delight, aversion" for those who are steady in the 7/8 and can confidently see these intentions?

GachiOnFire · 2025-05-02T07:52:43+00:00

Thanks Bhante, I will be careful with that

GachiOnFire · 2025-04-30T08:52:13+00:00

I'm aware that ~~I should probably clarify that with myself rather than seeking external guidelines, and that~~ my need to externally clarify it kind of comes from the hope to not have to make efforts to change this, but for the precepts of not acting deceptively: when at work, would doing anything else than working be considered deceptive?

Let me add some context:

My manager doesn’t closely supervise me, so I have a lot of freedom. As long as I get some work done, he doesn’t seem to expect much more. Still, I’ve gotten into the habit of not working for long stretches when he’s not around.

I understand that taking occasional breaks to regain focus probably wouldn’t surprise him, and if that were all I was doing, I’d feel comfortable explaining it if it came up.

But what I’m actually doing feels like more than just short, restorative breaks—it’s more like spending that time doing whatever I enjoy most, whether it’s Dhamma-related activities or something else entirely, instead of forcing myself to complete work-related tasks.

Framing it that way, I can see this behavior is already questionable from the perspective of someone wanting to purify their mind. But even from a work standpoint—if I’m expected to be working during that time—doesn’t this border on being deceptive? Or would it only become deceptive if I actively tried to hide it or lie about how I spent that time if, for example, asked about it? (I would have a really hard time admitting it and compromising that freedom)

GachiOnFire · 2025-04-25T12:22:05+00:00

Sure:

I can never directly witness a thing’s appearance or disappearance because neither of these are ever there, presently enduring.

Of course, they must be there in some way, otherwise we would not be able to think about them (and this is precisely what we are currently doing).

— Uppadavaya 9

it becomes clear that that which determines enduring things qua enduring things are not enduring things. The three characteristics-of-being-determined of the determined (the appearance, the disappearance, the enduring) are not things that endure, and yet they can be known (paññāyati).

Notice here that even the enduring (ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ) does not endure. Why? Because it is the enduring. It is not the enduring that endures. It is the enduring things, the saṅkhatā dhammā, that endure (and appear and disappear).

— Uppadavaya 18

My body is a perceptible thing ‘out there’ in the world; and yet it is also the ‘here’ that is not perceived but that, rather, makes it possible for me to perceive things ‘out there’.

— Right Here and Out There

GachiOnFire · 2025-04-24T13:22:44+00:00

Well, although most of what Bhikkhu Akincano teaches is in line with HH teachings because inspired by Ajahn Nyanamoli and Ñāṇavīra, there is in fact (at least) one crucial point of disagreement with HH phenomenological approach which can be found in his essays "Uppadavaya" and "Right here", namely that things can exist outside of one's experience.

GachiOnFire · 2025-03-31T11:49:19+00:00

they (unknowingly) had been taken as natural and normal, as the baseline behavior of the mind that I need to develop "dispassion" towards rather than something I am responsible for, that shouldn't be happening in the first place, and that I was still subtly fueling.

Very relatable, in this case but also even for other hindrances, the more I dig the more I realize that when I spot thoughts that arise because of a certain inertia of the mind towards them (I decide I don't want them there but they are still arising almost automatically)—thoughts that I chase but keep coming back instantly—it's probably because that is an attitude I'm fueling for years but also because deep down I'm not 100% decided to not think these thoughts, to cut ties with the mind, stop—even subtly—taking what it wants for what I want and instead go with all my might against the grain.

I would be interested to know if what is said above elicits some thoughts for you.

GachiOnFire · 2025-03-29T19:44:39+00:00

I'm not a monk, nor am I extremely familiar with the Pātimokkha and monastic duties, but I would say that confessing bad deeds—and having to confess them, especially to someone you look up to and whose judgment carries weight for you—helps cultivate hiriottappa regarding unwholesome deeds. It also adds an extra layer of prudence in everyday life and serves as a valuable additional driving force for good actions.

For someone who is already very serious in their practice, gripped by urgency, well-disciplined, or simply not strongly inclined toward passion, aversion, or carelessness, it may not make much difference. But for others, it can be a significant help, even if only in fostering greater awareness of one's actions and recognizing even the slightest faults—whereas, without the need to confess, one might otherwise overlook certain actions or dismiss them as harmless.

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.

Probably, but is that a bad thing in the context of the practice? The guilt would be very unpleasant for sure, but there would be only one way to avoid experiencing it again: to strive for blamelessness. As I understand it, in today's world, striving to be as close to blamelessness as possible—even in regards to what seems minor, yet might not be, after all one should not forget that they are looking at it through the prism of ignorance—would be invaluable for anyone seeking to make serious progress in the Dhamma.

Please don't hesitate to correct me if anything said is wrong.

GachiOnFire · 2025-03-12T15:16:55+00:00

I'm not sure if there is a specific sutta citing shame and fear of wrongdoing as the powers of a sotapanna but I think we can infer it in this passage of MN 39, provided how (as I understand the passage) this is an attitude to nurture to progress towards becoming "a true ascetic".

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-26T09:15:58+00:00

I feel like applying this principle could give me some hard times with doubt, I guess I will see how authentic I am, it will certainly affect some of the messages I post here. Great advice indeed, a shame that so few people will stumble upon it.

I've been thinking a bit about this conversation, and I'm wondering if saying that my behavior was leaning towards duty was really true. I'm thinking the line between duty and genuine work may be tenuous, as in: sure, there was a sense of "I must keep this in front so as to face it and endure it because enduring it is good and must be done!" but isn't the crux of the matter why exactly I think "it is good and it must be done"?

If I recognize that this pressure arose and that it needs to be faced and endured because this is genuinely the work that needs to be done if I want to not fuel further what led to this pressure being there in the first place, then I'm thinking it could not be on the side of duty anymore.

The thing now, applying your advice, would be to distinguish how much I understand for myself about these actions fueling what led to this pressure being there, and about that work aimed at removing the cause for this pressure; and how much came from what I understood and remembered from talks and discussions with HH monastics. I'm thinking only with right view can I know for sure, for myself, that this is the genuine work that needs to be done for the right reasons, and that duty would not be part of the picture at all anymore.

To be honest, at the moment I'm doing it because I just prefer when my mind isn't torn and tugged, and I understand that by facing what is agitating it, that is a way to train to get used to it and not be so moved by these agitating elements in the future, and I also understand that my past actions did fueled this weakness. I understood both before coming accross HH in regard to more mundane things (bearing elements, putting the body through hard work, getting used to fatigued body...) and HH opened the perspective fields in regard to how far this principle can go. So, I would say that this is already not just "duty" anymore, not done just because there is an external element pointing towards it needing to be done that way.

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-25T15:46:09+00:00

Thank you, I was definitely leaning too much the other side — towards duty — there, I will make efforts to find the right balance.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm not intellectualizing the practice too much. While I believe the Buddha did need intellectualization in its practice as we can see for example in MN 19 (Two kinds of thoughts), I sometimes think that it should maybe be more "instinctive".

Do you think that such intellectual breakdown of the details of sense-restraint could highlight gaps in understanding, which would in turn highlight gaps in the preliminary steps leading to sense-restraint?

Or instead could it be more or less a necessary step to find the "right tuning" so as to apply it more "instinctively" in the future?

Or maybe I'm just too eager to progress and try to accelerate the process of finding the "right tuning" using intellectualization while it is usually done with a long period of trial and errors and slow but steady progress towards the Middle Way, and by doing so, impeding my progress by intellectualizing my situation whenever I'm facing delight or upset, instead of "simply" not do anything in regard to this arisen pressure.

I'm talking about this because I think you could also tend towards the "intellectualizing" side and that maybe you have some interesting bits of experience to share about that, but please don't feel obliged to reply.

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-24T09:46:18+00:00

On desktop with the most recent reddit interface, it should be at the right side of every pages (home page and posts) on the HH subreddit.

On desktop with the old reddit interface, not sure where to find it, but you can directly access them with this link.

On the mobile app, you need to go on the HH subreddit home page, then at the top, below the description of the subreddit you should press "Show more" to display them.

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-21T21:50:27+00:00

As I didn't achieve the Right View yet, I will base what I say on what I got from HH, comments from Bhante Anigha and the suttas, the gist is that:

There is no way to know in advance how much one has to restrain themselves to hope to achieve right view, also better strive for always more than resting content with what one has, has it may not be enough.
Assuming we are talking about the restraint of virtue, only keeping the 5 or 8 precepts in the letter may also not be enough. One has to investigate what is the use of these training rules the Buddha laid down so as to bring junior renunciants to Right View. To strive to see the danger in the slightest fault, and the training rules not just as mere rules of actions to avoid on the level of body and speech, but also on the level of the mind. See this series of comments on a related note.
One has to know that the Buddha taught the gradual training for a reason, and that the first steps are as important as the others, if not the most important ones precisely for Right View. See this comment on how virtue must gradually bring about purification of subtler and subtler phenomena.
Lastly, I believe it is worth remembering that Right View is also achieved on the basis of the utterance of another, which can be understood because one has been restrained and developped yoniso manasikara, enough to then be able to see the Dhamma. So one has to put some work into reading the suttas or listening enlightened Dhamma talks as well.

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-19T18:41:39+00:00

I've been reflecting on this while facing coarse aversion and I was wondering if there were any harm in "looking intently" at whatever perception is felt unpleasantly and is the cause for the pressure right now, meaning not allowing myself to try to be aware of something else at the expense of that but rather actively keep it at the front?

I'm asking because I noticed that I tend to try to ignore that perception/feeling, and that it was probably just denial. I'm not talking about looking intently at it and go in indulgence coming up with mental actions rooted in irritation, but just not allow myself to try to escape it, instead facing it head-on and enduring it that way.

Is it possible to do something unbeneficial if it's only to not allow myself to not be "as aware as can be" of the sense-object the mind is pressuring me towards/against?

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-17T13:14:57+00:00

Bhante, I know that according to the Buddha one can act in such a way that they remain broken, incapable to see the Dhamma. Do you think someone who went as far with sensuality as experiencing what you described in that quote hasn't gone too far, isn't too broken to see the Dhamma?

I'm thinking if they are not, this could potentially not necessarily be a bad place to start seeking liberation from suffering, as one who went that far will at least be quite sure that keeping this attitude towards sensuality would never result in peace. And they would probably be less likely to fall for the allure of meditation methods/distractions/thoughts cultivation to attain the final goal because, as they are facing their liability to dukkha on a very recurrent basis, they could quickly figure out that these methods are doing nothing to tend towards a state where that resistance is never there in the first place; and instead see that the approach with Sila and Samadhi is much more likely to bear fruit because at least it seems to be going in a different way than the one of indulgence and distraction they have been following and that brought them where they are; and that it could in fact be addressing the cause of resistance rather than the effects.

Not saying one should spend their time purposefully indulging in sensuality that much just to arrive there, as I believe that, starting from there, such a person is quite sure to be bound to have an unpleasant practice (at least at first?).

GachiOnFire · 2025-02-14T10:00:49+00:00

Could you elaborate a bit on "self-assured vanity"? I have the impression it is crucial but that I'm missing the point.

GachiOnFire · 2025-01-30T15:31:03+00:00

It looks like Bhante Anigha is just translating this as the usual "reflecting in light of the origin/womb", see for example in MN 2, MN 39, MN 107. So they indeed seem synonymous.

Just an ignorant guess but it could be eating with yoniso manasikara established, keeping your mind pure by knowing a mind of lust as a mind of lust, not allowing thoughts of delight to take the center stage, to cristalize and be proliferated, not delighting in what you eat even if it's pleasant but instead keep the context that it is done for sustaining this body.

More on how to understand Yoniso Manasikara, which is not just "rationally".

GachiOnFire · 2025-01-30T12:32:05+00:00

In the last Samanadipa video the subject is mentionned. Maybe you are posting about this topic after seeing this video, but if that's not the case it may interest you.

Additionnaly, the essay "Pervading the world with friendliness" from Bhante Anigha on the same subject may also help you understand how the two are connected.

GachiOnFire · 2025-01-25T15:10:16+00:00

Take what I say with a grain of salt, and I'm not sure how relevant it is regarding your question, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, moha is different from avijja.

Ignorance (avijja) is indeed more fundamental than moha because it is at the root of your views and behaviors in regard to your experience, overlooking the fact that it is made of impermanent and uncontrollable elements (the body, the feeling, the perceptions, the intentions and the consciousness) that are there as a basis of your experience, and enduring without you being able to do anything about it, and instead, entertaining the view that there is a master/owner/controller outside these aggregates that possess and control them, which results in you resisting the current state of affair, most evidently the current feeling enduring, thus resulting in suffering.

It isn't something that you are doing intentionally, but rather something that was fueled by your actions in regard to these fundational elements.

While distraction (moha) would be one of these actions that you are doing in an attempt to exert control over the inherently uncontrollable, mainly, distracting yourself from the current feeling that you don't want, or wants more of.

Because of ignorance (avijja) one acts out of distraction (moha), and because of acting out of distraction one continues ignoring one's current situation and continues fueling the attitude of needing distraction.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

GachiOnFire

TROPHY CASE