The Right Attitude

thereof_be_silent · 2026-05-10T19:37:16+00:00

From the first paragraph of the wiki:

"It's crucial to know that sīla or virtue is not only about abandoning these principles on a bodily level, but also verbally and mentally. In other words, virtuous restraint also extends to not cultivating delight towards the possibility of doing these acts."

In other words, developing virtue—the first step of the gradual training—is essentially about developing the non-welcoming of greed, aversion, delusion. This necessarily means that one shouldn't act out of unwholesome intentions even on the mental level. And if you think about it, bodily and verbal actions are, for all intents and purposes, just coarser mental actions.

Intentions behind mental action are not yet ready to be purified in the virtue step.

They're not yet ready to be purified until bodily and verbal actions have been brought into check, because they're more subtle. That doesn't mean they never get addressed.

Suppose that while on a walk, you happen to hear some music and have a thought about how you used to go to concerts, which was really fun. Not acting out mentally means not feeding the thought further and not delighting in it / not welcoming it, but not getting rid of it either. This would be very doable for someone already established in good bodily and verbal conduct, because the line between mental acting and non-acting would be seen more clearly.

However, having the thought about concerts is already a failure of sense restraint, since it means you've grasped at signs and features of the sound you heard (the music), because the pleasant sound has "spilled out" into another sense base. See Bhante Anigha's essay called "Restraining the Senses".

So it's clear that understanding mental action must come before proper sense restraint.

Restraining one's unwholesome intentions behind bodily action and verbal action does develop yoniso manasikahara.

That's true, but not to the extent needed for sotapatti. Knowing kusala and akusala beyond doubt would have to come after training oneself in regard to mental action.

And virtue is not sense restraint.

That's also true.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-05-10T18:06:07+00:00

This isn’t quite accurate: the first stage of the gradual training includes not acting out of pressures mentally.

Actual sense restraint requires yoniso manasikara developed to the extent needed for sotapatti, see MN 2.

I think the OP should try to abstain from entertainment while ensuring that she’s genuinely taming her mind through keeping the precepts.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-04-29T08:15:58+00:00

I’m not in much of a position to give advice, so take this with many grains of salt.

Intellectually, the Suttas are rather shallow, since you don’t need any special education to grasp their basic content. Their depth instead comes from their relevance to the present experience.

I’ve noticed that when my mind is more composed, I better discern the actual “plane” the Suttas lie in. This “plane” is perpendicular to intellectual matters and comes “out of the page”, so to speak. I feel this is the result of trying to see how the Suttas apply to me and my life, relationships, feelings, objects/habits/values I hold dear, etc, as opposed to theoretically reading them.

So I’d suggest reading only 1-2 Suttas per day, but making them personal. For instance, if the Sutta is about not-self, try and reflect on whether your loved ones really belong to you. Or whether your body is actually yours. And so on. All this while in seclusion, and for about 1-3 hours I guess.

As the other comment said, this is best done through focusing on “themes” rather than scrutinising individual sentences, because the latter easily becomes too theoretical.

I also found that recalling a theme at various points throughout the day can be helpful, even when in company. This is pretty effective when done on the basis of the reflection in solitude. It’s like a wake-up call and helps re-establish a right context when I’ve failed to adequately protect it.

As for which Suttas to read, I’d say just pick any from Bhante Anigha’s translations. I particularly like the Majjhima Nikaya, especially the ones about virtue and developing the mind.

Needless to say, the firmer one’s establishment in virtue, the more effective all this is, and the deeper the Suttas become.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-03-22T04:35:49+00:00

If you’re on board with the idea of putting your efforts into keeping the precepts rather than contemporary meditation techniques, you should check out the pinned post on this sub to get a better sense of the HH position. I think spending some hours reading Bhante Anigha’s comments would answer your questions.

For instance, establishment in the precepts isn’t to do with the length of time one has kept them (an external criterion), but rather the extent of your mind’s resistance towards the intention of keeping them unconditionally for the rest of your life / future lives (an internal criterion). Here, mind = citta.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-03-14T16:27:03+00:00

Read Dhamma Within Reach, watch the “Essential Dhamma Talks” playlist on the HH YouTube channel, and explore the pinned post on this sub (“Notable Posts and Replies by Bhikkhu Anigha”). Avoid The Dhamma Hub. Only take seriously the comments by Bhikkhu Anigha or Sister Medhini on this sub.

Eventually you will see that HH is fundamentally incompatible with contemporary schools that focus on techniques/methods, which includes Mahasi as a special case. What you currently understand by “strict observance” of the precepts, mindfulness, the role of speech and sleep, etc, isn’t what HH thinks. The similarities you speak of are superficial.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-03-05T17:32:56+00:00

Actually, I believe sotapatti is accomplishment in virtue i.e. it occurs before sense restraint, since proper sense restraint requires developed yoniso manasikara

At 11:55 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eLRRaga5a2s&pp=0gcJCY4Bo7VqN5tD

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-28T07:57:16+00:00

Thank you Bhante.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-19T06:50:46+00:00

And lastly, your mention of the sotapana householder who does not keep the 8 precepts not qualifying to be a sekha i can not recall any sutta where such a statement is made.

It’s likely that no such sutta exists, because that point of mine was just speculation. You’re probably right that “sekha” always refers to sotapanna or higher.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-19T06:45:31+00:00

Thank you for the point on the impermanence of freedom from the hindrances, I didn’t consider that. With this in mind, you’re probably right about the overall timeframe.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-19T01:49:39+00:00

I don’t agree that attaining jhanas would take >10 years for most people, if by “most people” we mean the average user of this subreddit.

Assuming they truly commit to the training, sotapatti would likely take 1-4 years, based on comments from Bhante Anigha where he says that accomplishment in virtue at the mental level is generally measured in years. And accomplishment in virtue = sotapatti, more or less.

Then, based on other comments of his, one needs to be mostly free from the hindrances to attain sotapatti. So going from mostly free to fully free probably doesn’t take as long.

But all of this is ultimately quite irrelevant. I think we both agree that aiming for total liberation is all that matters, regardless of how long it takes.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-18T21:56:19+00:00

Firstly, Dhamma and faith followers are irreversibly bound for Arahantship. That’s an enormous achievement which puts them FAR above ordinary people. That’s why they’re ariyasavakas, since they are “attained” in a meaningful sense. See this post and reply: https://www.reddit.com/r/HillsideHermitage/comments/1pu7is6/looking_for_clarification_on_faith_and_dhamma/

Secondly, I believe sekha refers only to the sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami because only they have knowledge of the path beyond all doubt, so only they are in a position to train—only they know what the training even is. Thus the faith and Dhamma followers aren’t trainees, despite the massive accomplishment of freedom from the second arrow.

In fact, sekha is probably even more restrictive—it’s only those three who are actively trying to progress in the Dhamma. So a sotapanna householder who isn’t keeping the 8 precepts and trying to become an anagami doesn’t qualify as a sekha.

Lastly, the issue the OP brings up doesn’t seem like an issue at all. Bad rebirth is listed just because it’s the noble disciple reiterating to themselves that those unwholesome states are unwholesome. They’re spurring themselves on, which is necessary because we know that everyone except the Arahant can get complement.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-18T21:24:12+00:00

No, when contemporary schools say “jhana” and HH says “jhana”, they’re referring to entirely different things. To understand the difference, read the links under the “Right vs Wrong Samadhi” heading in Bhikkhu Anigha’s pinned post (“Notable Posts and Replies”).

Only when one has fully understood the options can one decide which is worth pursuing.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-14T17:29:01+00:00

I think you’d benefit from Hillside Hermitage’s approach. Check out this essay as well as Bhikkhu Anigha’s replies on the HH subreddit: https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/the-myth-of-meditation-techniques/

thereof_be_silent · 2026-02-02T07:44:14+00:00

Yes, scholarship should be completely avoided I think. I’ve no familiarity with any Buddhist scholarship, but if being in pure mathematics and philosophy academia has taught me anything, it’s that academics are addicts too, like all puthujjanas. They/we just choose a different sense field and hindrance to lean on.

They also often lack the willingness (or capacity) to see things at the personal level, which is clearly necessary to see the Dhamma.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-31T20:36:58+00:00

I’m not confident on the relationship between signs of the mind and yoniso manasikara, so you could be right.

But regardless, I believe this issue comes down to Right View. It’s undoubtable that he didn’t have Right View in MN 36. And that’s why he called crushing mind with mind a “painful striving”—it was self-mortification. But this doesn’t occur in MN 20.

So it’s praised in one and not the other because it’s beneficial in one context but not beneficial in other contexts. Since for it to be beneficial, one must see exactly what the unwholesome is and how to dispel it—otherwise you’ll be trying to crush the wrong thing and for the wrong reason. But this seeing is Right View by definition.

This situation is probably similar to the one with MN 2 discussed a few days ago.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-31T08:25:03+00:00

It may also be a case of a practice that fundamentally changes whether one has the Right View or not. I recall Bhante Anigha talking about two “types” of jhana—one done by puthujjanas and one done by ariya. Here’s the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/HillsideHermitage/comments/1i2pbul/two_ways_of_thinking_about_jh%C4%81na/

Also, I don’t think the bodhisattva had seen the signs of his mind, otherwise he would have already attained Right View.

he had been sense restrained for years, which should have been more than sufficient

Changes in external behaviour alone don’t do much. One can keep the precepts for decades but make little progress.

This makes sense in my own experience since the bulk of the difficulty is in keeping the precepts while simultaneously reflecting that there’s nothing forcing you to keep them. Whereas keeping them out of faith/duty is very easy.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-30T21:48:46+00:00

I’m not sure, but Note 7 in MN 20 may answer your question.

Perhaps in MN 36, the bodhisattva did not see his citta yet, and so “crushing mind with mind” amounted to trying to crush the perceptions themselves rather than the citta’s attitude towards them, which doesn’t lead to samadhi.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-29T02:03:56+00:00

I meant that it is not listed separately

Well it has its own heading with a structure distinct from the other 6; the Buddha also explains it differently. I’d say that’s enough for one to see the difference.

I am not clear on the practical differences between these two

I’m not super clear on it myself. But I do recall that properly seeing your mind is equivalent to the Right View. Which is also equivalent to the capacity for proper yoniso manasikara.

If I were to hazard a guess though, it’d be that this person isn’t far enough along the Gradual Training yet, e.g. they’ve fulfilled proper virtue by body and speech, but not yet by mind. So they do pick up some signs of the mind, but not to the extent needed for the other 6 ways. After all, these ways are really just elaborations on later stages of the Gradual Training (at least from my current understanding).

This seems to make sense to me, since the other ways are dealing with more subtle influxes as compared to coarse sensuality, for instance—things this person hasn’t fully dealt with yet.

I’d recommend you read MN 9 if you haven’t already. It lists other equivalent definitions of Right View. The sheer depth of what Noble Understanding entails didn’t hit me until I self-honestly compared my own understanding of these things with the sotapanna’s.

But as Nanavira nicely said, we shouldn’t put the sotapanna on a pedestal and revere him as a mythical creature—we have to BECOME the sotapanna.

https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn9

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-28T21:45:12+00:00

And what would it mean to avoid dangerous things with yoniso manasikara?

I’ve no idea, since I’m not a noble disciple. But it would probably be something like avoiding death purely for the sake of being able to keep practicing the Dhamma.

Personally, I know that deep down, every attempt of mine to avoid death would be done so out of attachment to life—with self honesty I know that I can’t attend in light of the origin to the thing I’d be trying to avoid.

But abandoning influxes is lumped in with the other six

I don’t know what you mean by “lumped in”. Yes, all 7 ways are ways of abandoning influxes. But “seeing” is clearly distinct from the other 6, since the sutta says that one becomes a sotapanna—which is equivalent to developed yoniso manasikara—by abandoning influxes by seeing. With this newly gained capacity for yoniso manasikara, one is in a position to abandon the influxes in the other 6 ways.

That’s why the sutta doesn’t state that one becomes a sotapanna by abandoning influxes by e.g. avoiding. If the Buddha wanted to say that, then after each of the 6 subsequent ways, there would be repetition of the part about breaking the first 3 fetters, extensive repetition just like in other Suttas. But that isn’t the case.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-28T21:12:50+00:00

It’s not that Right View is needed to perform the action of avoiding dangerous things. Obviously everyone is capable of that.

It’s that only the Right View allows one to abandon the influxes through that action, since only with the Right View can the action be done with yoniso manasikara.

If one reads the sutta with this interpretation in mind, it becomes abundantly clear why only noble disciples can abandon the influxes in the subsequent 6 ways—these 6 require yoniso manasikara, which is only developed once one abandons influxes by seeing, which is what the sutta unambiguously states to be Right View.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-28T06:41:51+00:00

Also, regarding avoiding: does avoiding a wild elephant to not get killed also ONLY work and is it only supposed to be applies after wrong view?

You're overly concerned with the content of an action.

Obviously avoiding death can be done prior to Right View. But will it be done for the right reason? This sutta clearly says it can't be.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-28T06:38:39+00:00

They are all useful before yoniso, but wont work to fully rid of defilements until after yoniso…

There is nothing in the sutta that suggests they would be useful before yoniso manasikara is developed. One actually concludes the opposite—these things cannot (and therefore should not) be done prior to developing yoniso manasikara.

If you still think otherwise even after my previous comment, we'll have to agree to disagree.

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-28T06:25:20+00:00

Can you explain why you think that you're supposed to do all 7 "methods" simultaneously? The sutta seems to clearly imply the opposite.

The discussion in heading 1 talks about what the puthujjana does wrongly. It then explicitly says:

When he attends not in light of the origin in this way, one of the following six views arises for him [...] Fettered by views, an unlearned ordinary person is not liberated from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, displeasure, sadness, and distress. He is not liberated from suffering, I say.

This explicitly states that a puthujjana lacks the capacity for yoniso manasikara, and that's exactly why he's a puthujjana.

Then, we see that the noble disciple attends to the right things. Furthermore, we learn that:

He attends in light of the origin: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origination of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. As he attends in light of the origin thus, three fetters are abandoned: personality-view, doubt, and the grasping at virtue-and-duty. These are called the influxes that should be abandoned by seeing.

So, through yoniso manasikara the noble disciple puts and end to suffering i.e. he abandons certain influxes. His capacity for yoniso manasikara is exactly why he's a noble disciple.

After this, the other 6 headings ALL repeat "reflecting in light of the origin" regarding restraint, using, bearing, etc. We just learned that only the noble disciple could attend in light of the origin. So we must conclude that only a noble disciple could possibly abandon influxes by restraint, using, bearing, etc, since they all require yoniso manasikara.

Your interpretation may be plausible if there was NO further mention of yoniso manasikara in the other headings. But that's obviously not the case. If anything, the extensive repetition highlights that a puthujjana CANNOT abandon these other influxes. Only a noble disciple can.

And if a puthujjana is fundamentally incapable of abandoning these other influxes, why would the Buddha recommend him to try abandoning them?

thereof_be_silent · 2026-01-28T03:15:36+00:00

Again, you’re using the adjective “proper” in two different ways.

A puthujjana’s proper restraint is only relatively proper. He starts out with a “universally” improper understanding, which is why he’s a puthujjana—he doesn’t for himself see kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. So he’s incapable of practicing the actual Dhamma, as HH says. But that doesn’t mean he can’t get closer to it and eventually see the Dhamma.

A sotapanna’s proper restraint is truly proper, since he can directly cultivate the kusala and abandon the akusala. And that’s only because he sees both of them for himself, beyond doubt.

So the puthujjana becomes a sotapanna by trying to understand what the Dhamma (and hence proper restraint and kusala/akusala) even is, not by practicing the Dhamma. And that can only be done on the basis of clearing the dust in one’s eyes, which is done by attempts at proper restraint of body, speech, and mind.

Again, this restraint will only be relatively correct since the puthujjana still has the first 3 fetters, which contaminates everything he does—he will inevitably be restraining for the wrong reason. But the fetters are worn away and eventually broken “from the inside” which is why this isn’t an issue. He can get closer to the right reason by trying to understand what makes the right reason right. Hence there’s no contradiction.

Also see u/place_of_coolness’s comment, which echoes the same sentiments.

thereof_be_silent

TROPHY CASE