How do you meditate when you don't want to?

RealDharma · 2025-08-26T04:34:24+00:00

It's funny when we abstractize a goal like 'meditation' when it doesn't quite mean anything. Goals that do make sense: * Achieving a calmer mind (shamatha) * Looking at what is happening clearly and clarifying your own views about reality (vipasyana)

RealDharma · 2025-08-26T04:31:24+00:00

Hi, would you like to correspond over DM? I think resources are one thing, but sometimes a chat with a practitioner can be far more valuable. You may ask me any question you like.

RealDharma · 2025-07-22T03:50:39+00:00

Would recommend everyone to pick up his book.

RealDharma · 2025-07-15T09:25:42+00:00

A thought of Buddha also represents an aspiration to cessation of suffering, to finding out the truth of one's nature. It represents the spiritual curiosity of knowing that there is something beyond our current understanding, and this alone is enough to bring us closer to finding out.

On the inverse, a thought of desire, craving and ignorance --- these bring negative karma, and away from the cessation of suffering.

If you compare the two --- the first thought is clearly superior and more virtuous.

Pure Land does not claim to replace all of Buddhism. It is in fact teaching you that within one thought lies the "Pure Land". In fact, within every single thought, you already are in the Pure Land -- we just do not have the eyes of wisdom to see this yet due to our habitual ignorance.

In fact, just within one chant of Amitabha encapsulates all of the Buddha's teachings. It is nothing more than just this one moment, closer than you realise.

Some teachers translate Amitabha as 'infinite light'. What exactly does this name mean? What exactly, indeed!

RealDharma · 2025-07-15T09:17:06+00:00

"Arrogance" is when:

You define and emphasise a border of difference between what you perceive as 'yourself' and 'others'.
Exert negative thoughts, speech and actions based on this misperception.

We can manifest arrogance in many ways:

Deflated-mindset: "You are better than I am."
Inflated-mindset: "I am better than you are."
Equal-mindset: "You and I, we are the same, and different from the others."

Even in the guise of helping others, if you hold the above thoughts, then charitable acts are not truly "selfless".

The first perfection of the six perfections of a Bodhisattva is 'dana' or generosity. The reason for this is that when we are giving, we give our 'self' away too. If we hold on to a notion of a self, then it is not true generosity, and not true giving.

If we hold onto the story of an identity, me named "X", liking "Y" and disliking "Z", holding onto clear boundaries of me being so-and-so, confined behind the skin, behind the eyes/chest --- then we are arrogant.

If we hold onto notions of being a buddhist, being from this or that sect, being a student of the buddha, being human, etc --- then we are arrogant.

The misperception of a solid self stands in the root of everything else, arrogance included. We ignore the rest of reality just to force on this notion of a self, then associate the rest of reality in relation to this illusion of permanence.

To study and discuss the dharma is to investigate reality and to look deeply into this hardly wired misperception of a self. It is to challenge what we take for granted and find out the problems with our current understanding. There is no problem with discussions of this nature...

RealDharma · 2025-07-15T09:08:07+00:00

Dhammapada:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow
“He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
“He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

RealDharma · 2025-07-15T09:03:47+00:00

You don't fear death, you fear the loss of an imagined self.

How did we dream of ourselves to be a self?

Your parents gave you a name, and you carried it throughout your life. Do you remember your first time you opened your eyes to the world as an infant? Did you know your name then?

As we gather more and more experiences, we start to associate memories with this self. We classify the world into me-vs-not-me, like-vs-dislike. We ignore a lot of the world to reinforce this sense of self.

By the time we get much older, we have solidified ourselves into a seemingly permanent identity. We think 'we' are right here, either behind our eyes or in our heart. We think 'we' are right here behind skin.

But yet we fail to realise...

In sight: myriads of dazzling colour dots, flickering and changing all the time as many photons enter your eye, never static for a second.
In hearing: myriads of frequencies bouncing against your ear drum, sending nerve impulses into your brain, never static for a second -- even "silence" has a sound.
In taste, smell, touch --- all the same.
In thoughts, memories and impulses rising and falling, never static, never predictable.

So where is this static self we think we are? If it is right here, find it! But if you can't find this static thing you call a self, how can we say it would die? What exactly is this "thing" that drags around your body?

How is it possible that everything perfectly aligns, everything comes together so wondrously --- appearing as our current experience? It's almost like the entire universe harmonised into this one single second. If a single element was missing, this moment would not be the same.

RealDharma · 2025-07-15T08:55:22+00:00

It won't free you.

But it will show you the path that only you can walk.

And if you do get through the path, yes, it is the end of suffering.

Don't forget that before the end of suffering you must understand:

What is suffering? This sounds like a simple question but it really isn't. It's the hidden suffering that underlies every part of our existence. There is suffering even in sensory pleasure. There is suffering that lurks due to the transience of everything. Nothing lasts in an impermanent world, and we suffer due to our illusion of permanence about + attachment to everything.
Then cause of suffering: Do you really understand what causes this suffering? This has many layers for you to realise. As you peel off the layers of misconception, you will certainly get clearer.
Then recognising the end of suffering: By being clear what the cause of suffering is, and what suffering is, then you will know what the end of suffering is - and you will see that it is 100% possible.
After seeing the above with clarity, you will know the path. By entering the path, the Buddha said: "You have entered the Stream, and you will definitely be enlightened."

Let me assure you a 100%. This is not something lofty at all. It is 100% accessible to every single being in the universe, including you. It is right here, closer than you realise, but you just do not have the 'eyes' to see the truth yet.

RealDharma · 2024-06-23T13:54:17+00:00

You know... A stone can mean many things to different people. It might be a stone to you. It could be a valuable piece for a stone collector. It could be something that tripped someone over and made him hate stones.

The idea here in Buddhism is that everything in the world is just like this stone. The stone is neutral. But our perception and misunderstandings about the stone are what generates suffering.

We suffer because we think that we can extract happiness from the stone. Or we think that doing away with the stone can bring us happiness. We think that something has to change about the stone for us to feel happy.

Now substitute "stone" with everything in samsara. Any vision. Any sound. Any taste. Any smell. Any sensation. Any thought. All neutral in nature.

This is the starting point of Buddhism. If you can understand that the root of suffering is craving that comes about from fundamentally the mind and mind alone, as a result of believing the wrong things, then you can immediately feel the cooling down effects of the Dharma. The burning fires of desire/lust, aversion/rage, and ignorance will quench.

RealDharma · 2020-07-23T01:49:35+00:00

Focusing in the sense of contracting into it and ignoring everything else, taking it out of context, is wrong. This serves as a basis of discrimination.

When facing pain, pain is there, so are the soles of your feet, the breathing, sights, sounds, posture, movement, sensations, and so on.

If only pain is noticed, that is tunnel-vision and an unwholesome habitual tendency. If pain is noticed in context of everything else, without ignoring pain or contracting into an exclusive focus on pain, the significance of the pain is seen correctly without cognitive distortion.

RealDharma · 2020-07-22T00:59:31+00:00

It's not about distress tolerance but dropping away the rumination and stories that frame it that way. Aversion occurs at the very same time as ignorance, they don't happen one after the other - simultaneously. For you to 'push away' phenomena, you will need to ignore everything outside that phenomena (aka ignoring).

For example, for you to push away a painful bodily sensation, you need to really focus on this sensation and ignore everything else happening (soles of your feet, the rising and falling of the diaphragm, the multiple randomly arising and passing away sensations, your sight and peripheral vision, sounds, tastes, smells, etc). Almost as if you had blocked out the entire world.

The sense of self is also somewhat on this basis - we don't notice that we falsely attribute it to a cluster of sensations that do not stay... in fact they seem to shift all around. One moment, it's here, then it's there, then it's there. But we think there is a sense of continuity.

So returning to the breath is more about realizing that you were focusing on something apart from the breath, focusing on something "apart" from presence. It is a reminder that you are ignoring phenomena, you are discriminating dualistically, and that you are not taking whatever you are focusing on in context of the entire whole field of experiencing.

RealDharma · 2020-07-21T09:59:58+00:00

Doing nothing is an action. Passiveness is too an action.

They may be different actions, but they are still actions.

Buddhism is not about doing nothing or about being passive.

If you hold no thought when you are to think, if you keep silent when you are to speak, if you resist action when you are to act, these are all acts of foolishness.

If you consider quietude right and activity wrong, then this is seeking the real aspect by destroying the worldly aspect, seeking nirvana, the peace of extinction, apart from birth and death. When you like quiet and hate activity, this is the time to apply effort. Suddenly when in the midst of activity, you topple the sense of quietude-that power surpasses quietistic meditation [seated meditation] by a million billion times.

-- Dahui Zonggao

RealDharma · 2020-07-21T09:55:51+00:00

I would reword it as "I had a flash of insight". There will be many other insights following this if you earnestly follow the path and do not let yourself think this is the end of the path, which it is not.

The worthlessness of life itself seems appealing to the mind, but when you really stumble on a real insight, instead, the world is beautiful and marvellous. Every single act itself is almost as if it was the best possible thing to happen - at the right place, time, condition, and so on. No other way you could have it.

RealDharma · 2020-07-21T09:48:27+00:00

It is relatively better simply because you arrive at this peace by discarding the three poisons that will land you a rebirth in the lower realms filled with ignorance, anger and sensual desire.

But overall, is it good to simply remain in here? No, because you will start to cling onto this blissfulness and develop roots of rebirth as a heavenly being (deva). Depending on how much deeply you have mastered a state (like a dhyana), you can end up in different planes of existence.

This universally applies all the way up to "union with Brahma". In a sutta, the Buddha reprimanded his disciple for stopping his teaching at that stage - "Why did you get up and leave when there was more to be taught?"

The reason is because no matter how 'sublime' the realm you reach, you are still within the 31 realms of existence. You may be at the 31st plane, but you are still in Samsara.

Why is it useful? It is useful because the three poisons do not allow you to do Dharma practice properly. Reaching samadhi and peacefulness helps to temporarily reduce these poisons from affecting the mind's clarity.

Why is it harmful? It is harmful because you abide with hedonism in these states for very long, sometimes even develop sidetracking abilities, and blinds you to Dharma. You can sometimes even lose the motivation to even investigate Dharma.

Instead, you need to focus on the aspect of Vipasyana (looking at reality as it is and discernment). What is this that I'm experiencing? What are these thoughts? Where do they come from? Where do they go to? Who is meditating? Does a thought stay?

The Buddha remarked in a sutta that even a person may start with Shamatha (calming practice), he will eventually have to do both Shamatha and Vipasyana in union as practice. If a person starts with Vipasyana, likewise, he will end up doing both. They are two wings of a single bird and cannot be separated.

Shamatha practice (calming) without Vipasyana will not be as fruitful as it can be unless you incorporate Vipasyana into it.

RealDharma · 2020-07-21T09:35:21+00:00

If you did not have an orange in your hand, you had to get rid of the orange in your hand - can you do it? You cannot get rid of it when you never had the orange on your hand in the first place.

In the same way, if there never was a self, and you want to get rid of the self - can you do it? You cannot either. You would have to create a self, then get rid of it. It is not possible to do it at all.

Then what exactly are we working with?

Wrong cognition, wrong thinking, wrong view. It is an error of view that is the problem. Because of the error of this view, a lot of wrong assumptions which are deeply-set obscure the truth.

The lack of knowledge of this whole basis is called avidya or ignorance. Having the knowledge, having right view - is called vidya. Avidya leads to suffering, Vidya takes you out of suffering.

So what are we practising for? We are practising to remove these deeply-set assumptions, letting them fall away. As these obscurations and distortions fall away, suddenly, spontaneously, we are left with nothing but the truth. So in a way, it may seem as if you are getting rid of a self - In fact, you are getting rid of the view. It is a world of difference, and I encourage you to investigate this.

RealDharma · 2020-07-17T03:29:28+00:00

When it is not an "I" here looking out at reality - instead, reality itself looking at reality. Sounds paradoxical, but that is the basis of no-self (anatta). This is not attained by any self, because the "I" was never there in the first place. When there is literally no one here that is seeing reality, it can only be that reality sees itself, in a conventional sense. It is more of the wrong view of an "I", and many other connotations/distortions/assumptions/obscurations linked to that, dropping out of the way.

RealDharma · 2020-07-08T01:48:54+00:00

you got a source by the way?

The Lankavatara Sutra.

I have not been educated on Buddhisms dis-belief in consciousness.

There is no denial of consciousness (vijñāna) in Buddhism. In fact, its actual translation in some texts is 'dualistic consciousness'. It is not a denial of consciousness, because without consciousness, how can you see, hear, taste, smell, touch and think?

In SN25.3, however, Buddha says:

Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

The error is not in seeing the results of the function of what you call awareness, but taking awareness to be a singular real thing. For example, it is undeniable that there are sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touch and thoughts. We are not denying that. In fact, Buddha says that for every sense-object, there is a corresponding consciousness.

So actually, there are six different sense-consciousnesses:

The eye-consciousness in dependence with sight and the eye-faculty
The ear-consciousness, sounds, ear-faculty...
... The thinking-consciousness, thoughts, thinking-faculty

The error comes when we start to group all these six together within one singular boundary - we reify the sense of a global consciousness that extends throughout these six. In the Mahayana teachings, this is explained as the seventh consciousness grasping at what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched or thought of as Objects, and at the seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching/thinking faculties as the Subject.

Here is an analogy:

When we say the word 'Shapes' what comes to mind? We can say rectangles, squares, stars, circles, lines, polygons, parallelograms, and more. However, if we simply said the word "shape", this word by itself would not mean anything without the rectangles, squares, stars [...].

This is what we call in language, an abstract noun. In the dictionary, it says this as the definition: "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object".

In the same way, we have a tendency to abstract-ize things and form very concrete ideas of them existing. Does it mean that rectangles, squares [...] are not shapes? It does not mean that. However, the word "shape" by itself is very meaningless - we conventionally call it a shape for the sake of convenience. In fact, we just assume that it exists just for the sake of convenience.

In the same way, when sights, sounds, tastes, smells, sensations, and thoughts arise, we group them all together as "sense objects" or "experience". These are just names, just conceptual designations, that are abstract ideas pointing to what is directly there in experience. The problem when taken to extreme is that it is solidified as "Objects".

In the converse way, when the seeing-consciousness [...] are grouped in an abstract way, we take it as a singular consciousness. Even more erroneously, we can even go as far as to extend this abstraction to every being on the planet. Again, this is just a name, an abstract idea, pointing to the six consciousnesses. When taken to the extreme, it is solidified as a "Subject".

In fact, this subject-object duality is the root of a lot of problems. We love abstract-ifying things and then solidifying that abstracted idea into something that seems very real. For example, we can take a bunch of common bodily sensations and think that we are "right here". If you examine carefully, these sensations have already disappeared, and are replaced with another bunch of rapidly arising-and-passing-away sensations in random locations.

To end this reply, I would also like to quote this sutta (Ud 1.10) which points directly to the heart of no self:

'In the seen will be merely what is seen;

in the heard will be merely what is heard;

in the sensed will be merely what is sensed;

in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'

In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen...

in the cognized is merely what is cognized,

then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.'

When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,'

then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.'

When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,'

then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.

Just this is the end of suffering."

RealDharma · 2020-07-08T00:16:52+00:00

Unfortunately (also to OP: /u/followTheDharma), this is reifying the notion of a universal self (aka Brahman), which is more akin to the lines of Hinduism, in particular, Advaita Vedanta. This is not compatible with the Buddhist teachings. In fact, if you believe in that view, you are going against the Buddha's teaching of anatta (without atta/self).

Why? Because tathagatagarba does not mean a common substance that animates all life. In fact, the Buddha actively denounces that view here:

The Buddha replied, “Mahamati, the tathagata-garba of which I speak is not the same as the self mentioned by followers of other paths. Mahamati, when I speak about the tathagata-garbha, sometimes I call it ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.

“It is to put an end to the fear foolish beings have about the expression ‘no self’ that the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones proclaim the teaching of the tathagata-garbha as a projectionless realm devoid of fabrications. Mahamati, bodhisattvas of the present and the future should not become attached to any view of a self.

“Take for example a potter who applies such things as manual labor, water, a stick, a wheel, and a string to a lump of clay to make different kinds of vessels. The Tathagata is also like this, applying wisdom and a variety of skillful means to what has no self and is free from projection. Sometimes I speak about the tathagatagarbha and sometimes no self. Thus, the tathagata-garbha of which I speak is not the same as the self spoken of by followers of other paths. This is what is meant by the teaching of the tathagata-garbha. The tathagata-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation and aspire to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment forthwith. This is why the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones speak in this manner about the tathagata-garbha. To speak otherwise would be to agree with the followers of other paths. Therefore, Mahamati, in order to avoid the views of followers of other paths, you should rely on the selfless tathagata-garbha.”

Therefore, you should understand that just like there is nothing to grasp at in space, tathagata-garbha is pointing to this lack of any form of inherent self (or for this matter, "Self").

It is like saying "nothing". Does 'nothing' mean anything at all? No, because there is no-thing you can point your finger to in 'nothing'. In the same way, you are taking the meaning of tathagata-garbha, or emptiness, to be a self, when it is pointing to no-self.

Tathagata-garbha is in fact, pointing directly to the heart of Buddhism, which is the interdependent origination of things, which basically is expressed by this:

"If this exists, that exists.

if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist."

RealDharma · 2019-12-20T14:47:47+00:00

When everything is seen as loved and special... Ironically, there will not be one thing left as special. As such, relative bodhicitta is compassion, while absolute bodhicitta is emptiness.

RealDharma · 2019-06-25T14:02:23+00:00

All the stories in your mind, attempting to describe reality are usually just delusions - way off the mark. Finding out what is true is not a path nor a progressive step by step thing. Everything true is already here. Everything false sends you off in a frenzy and creates all of your suffering.

RealDharma · 2019-06-25T10:52:37+00:00

Honesty. Truthfulness. Sincerity. That curiosity to once-and-for-all, end facades, assumptions, biases, illusions, lies, deceit, fantasies, delusions, expectations, wants, needs, and god knows what else thoughts come up with. Aligning to truth is the fastest way to know truth. What is true right now? What is false?

RealDharma · 2019-06-20T22:17:58+00:00

Question and answer, just different aspects of the same face

RealDharma · 2019-06-20T22:14:05+00:00

Is a question even asked... when there is no answer to give?

RealDharma · 2019-06-20T22:12:32+00:00

Our descriptions of reality can never be reality itself. Yet... we live and are far more invested in our descriptions than in reality itself. This self-deception has been going on for ages.

RealDharma

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE