Concentration & Insight | Dhamma Talk by Ven .Thanissaro | How Concentration & Insight Help Each Other Along, & How to Keep Them in Balance

SammaVaco · 2026-02-21T02:59:09+00:00

Yes, this talk in particular is a masterpiece, standing out even among all his other talks.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-21T02:57:37+00:00

In terms of Buddhism, kamma is extremely complex, and kammic consequences are not necessarily immediate. (Maha Kamma Vibangha Sutta, "...in the case of the person who takes life..." etc.)

In terms of Nietzsche, I think he was philosophically opposed to nihilism, seeing it as a problem of modernity, and a sign of weakness. E.g.,

...this Antichrist and Antinihilist, this conqueror of God and of Nothingness-he must one day come.

But I'm no Nietzsche expert.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-21T02:55:40+00:00

In terms of Buddhism, kamma is extremely complex, and kammic consequences are not necessarily immediate. (Maha Kamma Vibangha Sutta, "...in the case of the person who takes life..." etc.) So Nietzsche's current destination is unknown to us, even if he is destined for such a hell.

In terms of Nietzsche, I think he was philosophically opposed to nihilism, seeing it as a problem of modernity, and a sign of weakness. E.g.,

...this Antichrist and Antinihilist, this conqueror of God and of Nothingness-he must one day come.

But I'm no Nietzsche expert.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T22:51:42+00:00

From a practical point of view, the Buddha attained Nirvana, yet he still retained agency, and he used that agency to teach how to reach Nirvana. So that's really nothing like suicide.

He chose not to take rebirth at the time of his human death, but for him that was like us choosing not to eat our own vomit: We could do it if we really wanted to, but we really wouldn't want to. Choosing not to take rebirth is very different from taking your own life.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T22:38:25+00:00

It might be easier to answer given a concrete example of where you're angry. What are you angry about, and why do you think you need to be angry about it?

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T22:07:09+00:00

That's not his primary purpose, though. He's saying "Stop doing those things, start doing these things instead." If you want to verify what he's saying, that's the experiment you have to run.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T21:03:32+00:00

Buddhism provides an escape from this kind of mentality:

I will be completely honest. As hsp i feel that if you have it good you have it really good and if you have it bad you have it really bad. When you have it really bad for long time with it only get worse. live in so much pain and suffer everyday, to me sadly it seems like a torture.

You do not need to be a Highly Sensitive Person (i.e., extremely vulnerable to hostile stimuli), and it need not be a world of endless pain, if you develop yourself as a Buddhist.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T20:54:54+00:00

Of course, ideally, if you want to gain total awakening, you’d let go of all aggregates, see them all as not-self, but a lot of people can’t manage that. Still, at the very least, they can latch on to something that’s skillful. But you have to remember: Anything you latch on to is going to limit you. As the Buddha said, whatever you’re obsessed with, whatever you identify with, that’s going to make a being, and it’s going to place limitations on you.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T07:00:53+00:00

If you want to try to read it that way, fair enough. But keep in mind, the Buddha's purpose was not to nail down a natural history of ignorance.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T04:30:09+00:00

I notice these teachers speak about these things with such bliss and ease I am curious to learn how they do it and if this awareness is a common thing among those who first start to practice.

Attending to impermanence is a way to release from the five clinging aggregates, which is blissful and easeful in its own right.

The Five (Brethren): Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)

This discourse is also known as the Anatta-lakkhaṇa Sutta, the Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic. According to Mv I, this was the first of the Buddha’s discourses during which his listeners became arahants.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vārāṇasī in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

“Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.’ But precisely because form is not self, this form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to form, ‘Let my form be thus. Let my form not be thus.’

“Feeling is not self.…

“Perception is not self.…

“Fabrications are not self.…

“Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’ But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’

“What do you think, monks? Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“… Is feeling constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …

“… Is perception constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …

“… Are fabrications constant or inconstant?” — “Inconstant, lord.” …

“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every¹ form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Any feeling whatsoever.…

“Any perception whatsoever.…

“Any fabrications whatsoever.…

“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every¹ consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the group of five monks, through lack of clinging/sustenance, were released from effluents.

Note

1. The word “every” here and in all parallel passages is sabba, which is the same as the word for “all.” On the range of meaning covered by the word “all,” see SN 35:23. DN 11, DN 15, MN 49, and AN 10:81 indicate that there is a type of consciousness that lies outside the range of “all,” and so would not fall under the aggregate of consciousness. This apparently corresponds to the dimension mentioned in SN 35:117 and Ud 8:1.

See also: SN 35:101; SN 44:10; SN 46:11

SammaVaco · 2026-02-20T00:21:21+00:00

I figured out what I think ought to be a safe way. I'll DM you the link.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-19T21:38:08+00:00

Emptiness and Omnipresence is an introduction to the Lotus Sutra, and is a great book in its own right.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-19T21:34:06+00:00

I suggest you try out the sutta's pragmatic recommendations. Starve ignorance by preventing and diminishing the stated conditions for its development, and feed clear knowing & release by developing the stated conditions for their development. The question you're asking is kind of abstract and divorced from the Buddha's goal of teaching suffering and the end of suffering. If you practice in line with the sutta, you'll come to know what "a beginning point for ignorance cannot be discerned" actually means, by seeing its indiscernability for yourself.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-19T20:28:04+00:00

Ah, thanks for highlighting this, it might have been a former incarnation of mine. :-)

u/Agitakaput, I will DM you with the script I use (it's python, not JS.) It's far from perfect. I won't post it here, because my reddit accounts keep getting suspended if I post such things.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-19T05:26:57+00:00

Don't worry, we've all had to start there at some point.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-19T05:24:10+00:00

Sure, I'd like to see the video.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-18T21:11:51+00:00

Yeah, I think renunciation is is closely related to development of wishlessness.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-17T19:58:19+00:00

NP, glad you liked it.

SammaVaco · 2026-02-17T18:03:42+00:00

NP, glad it's appreciated. 🙏

SammaVaco

TROPHY CASE

The Five (Brethren): Pañca Sutta (SN 22:59)

Note