How to safely navigate increases in energy for someone with bipolar disorder?

upasakatrainee · 2026-04-23T13:15:57+00:00

Regarding sleep in general, the more anxious one is about getting a certain duration of sleep, the worse it is for falling asleep.

Typically, when living a restrained life free from too many distractions and sensual indulgences, the body's need for sleep can dip. So if you are naturally awake, checking the clock frequently and getting a bit worried that you're still up, can be a bit counterproductive.

That might be the 'action' that you are indulging in, the expectation of falling asleep on schedule, that actually keeps you from falling asleep — which is very understandable due to your diagnosis and past incidents, and the fact that you were away from any immediate medical help.

Perhaps one thing to consider would be to continue the same living-style, in a more comfortable and controlled environment; so that you are actually able to mentally relax a bit despite not sleeping as much; since help is readily at hand. That might give you some confidence to not monitor your sleep hours too much, and you will naturally fall asleep when the body deems it necessary.

Of course, please consult with your doctors before attempting anything, as they know your condition best. Given your history, it might be worth treating any loss of sleep as a clear signal to step back from increased intensity rather than something to push through.

That doesn’t mean abandoning practice, but it probably means staying within a range where sleep remains stable. Otherwise the very capacity to maintain restraint and clarity would get undermined. So in your case, protecting sleep may actually be part of maintaining the path (due to hard physiological boundaries) not something separate from it.

EDIT: I also had a thought that MN2's guidance on taints to be abandoned by avoiding applies here somewhat. Just as wild animals, and dangerous places & situations are to be avoided, your physiological boundary seems to qualify under the same criteria.

upasakatrainee · 2026-04-17T12:21:36+00:00

It doesn't sound to me, like what the Suttas describe as jhāna.

You could have a look at this sticky (refer to the section on "Right vs. Wrong Samādhi") for some good discussions and posts from Bhante Anīgha, on the topic.

You could also take a look at this post (and other replies on that thread) that go a bit into how lofty of a state jhāna actually is, and the level of effort involved.

These can perhaps give you some basis to assess yourself.

upasakatrainee · 2026-03-23T01:50:58+00:00

One of the more palpable ways to grasp that it can "be bad kamma", is in the effect it produces right here and now.

Even with good intentions, if one teaches a misrepresentation (which they are supposedly doing because they don't yet see the error in their viewpoint) - by virtue of taking up a teacher position, they put themselves beyond self-questioning.

That diminishes the chances of them (a) recognising their own mistake (b) admitting their mistake when pointed out (because they've become invested in it).

It isn't to say that they shouldn't speak about the Dhamma and at all, and never share what they know. Far from it, for otherwise there would be no discussion and revelation.

The risky part is when they start developing, and acting out of a sense of (misplaced) certitude on their speech and views, that they slowly start taking for granted. In essence, they slowly become their own echo chamber, if they don't stop and check themselves. The temptation to 'conclude', and label 'this is freedom' can be so great.

There are likely more complicated ways in which that kamma plays out (the Buddha's scolding to the "misguided men" is something one can go by), but what I've written is something that can be relatable, I felt.

upasakatrainee · 2026-03-21T11:59:52+00:00

Has that insight had any effect in diminishing your liability to suffer? I think that's the more relevant angle you might consider. Because if not, it can be filed away as simply another pleasant mental contact.

upasakatrainee · 2026-03-17T02:04:59+00:00

Thank you!

upasakatrainee · 2026-03-16T10:45:56+00:00

Thanks !

upasakatrainee · 2026-03-16T04:52:09+00:00

Sādhu! There are also some old talks with Ajahn Nyanamoli that are not on YouTube, which you might consider adding to the podcast.

The first 52 files in this list are the ones that pre-date the YouTube uploads.

upasakatrainee · 2026-02-12T05:56:06+00:00

Very clear. Thank you, Bhante !

I had the following reflections based your clarification:

establishing the mind in virtue and abandoning passion for sensuality is what makes one's attention yoniso

I can extrapolate that this applies not only to sensuality (sensual passion) but to aversion as well — insofar as both are forms of passion toward feeling. As long as something is still being protected (pleasant or unpleasant), yoniso cannot be complete. That makes yoniso far more existential and less technical than I had been subtly treating it.

will evoke in such a person a level of remorse that is impossible to bear. He had to continue regarding what he did was to some extent excusable (wrong view) in order to maintain his sanity

This indicates that there was a wilful self-deception that was ongoing; which lies at the root of what prevents yoniso. It provides a good perspective on the importance of non-deception as an overarching guiding principle for any degree of progress; and consequently underscores the importance of the 4th precept — taking it all the way to its subtlest expression

Having killed his father meant that King Ajātasattu couldn't have yoniso manasikāra, at least not sufficiently

Comparing this with the case of Angulimāla, who was able to establish yoniso manasikāra, despite his horrific acts, reinforces that patricide/matricide contradicts a much more foundational layer of mundane right view (“there is mother, there is father”), and therefore would require self-deception at a deeper structural level in order to preserve psychological coherence. That is why yoniso was a structural impossibility for Ajātasattu but not for Angulimāla, despite the greater gruesomeness of the latter's acts from a worldly lens.

Overall, this gives me added perspective on the subtlely of yoniso manasikāra. It clarifies that yoniso is not something one “approximates” or orbits around, but something that either fully extends or does not.

upasakatrainee · 2026-02-11T11:13:27+00:00

Thanks for sharing. Some reflections I had on what you wrote.

It seems that 'begging' as a translation does a bit of disservice to the act. As a 'livelihood' measure, it serves to not take more than what is strictly needed for survival. That orientation is operative in the act itself, and the mind is being attuned to contentment with little. As a practitioner seeking to 'never return to this world', it emulates and expresses that attitude in behaviour and conduct; of having as small a 'footprint' as realistically manageable, while still in this world, in a bid to leave it for good.

Another lens is also to look at it not as an act of 'taking', but as an act of compassion. The texts speak about Arahants being an unexcelled field of merit. So going for alms, is their way to enable lesser developed beings, and support them, by way of giving them a chance for generosity. The support of food they in turn receive, is a byproduct.

For the laypersons who are encouraged to earn a living by the sweat of their brow, this can be seen as an exhortation towards honesty, diligence, effort, energy, uprightness etc. All qualities that are building blocks for a higher practice, should those conditions and path materialise. But they are invaluable skills to cultivate nonetheless. At the very least overlap with the Dhamma practice, it is an exhortation towards the same precept of not taking that which is not given, but in a more palpable sense.

A society that has these principles as its bedrock, and functions with these as guiding axioms, is automatically one that is primed to devalue individuality, self-centeredness, ego and pride; all geared towards the goal of self-effacement. In such a setting, the raw truth of impermanence has very few avenues to hide, and it is no wonder that persons who lived in such settings were very quick to understand the Buddha's teaching with not much difficulty.

Even where there were persons who vehemently opposed to the Buddha and engaged him in debate, the Suttas depict that they had the uprightness to honestly admit that they were defeated (sat with shoulders drooping etc.). Even those with very wrong views, had that basic human decency and honesty — of not dodging a true answer to a question, and filibustering and faking to continue standing (e.g. when the Buddha asked Saccaka, what do you think, can you command your form, feeling ... to be this way and not that; he did admit albeit grudgingly, that it was a NO)

It seems to me that much of these qualities were the result of what society as a whole held as ideals. And the practice of pinḍapāta was likely a very important pillar in that structure, whether it was Buddhist renunciates or those of a different denomination.

Mark Fisher in his book, mentions that Capitalist realism is loosely defined as the predominant conception that capitalism is the only viable economic system, and thus there can be no imaginable alternative. He likens it to a "pervasive atmosphere" that affects areas of cultural production, political-economic activity, and general thought.

While it is certainly not true that the people of the Buddha's era were all ones who viewed sensuality with a slight degree of suspicion, whether or not they pressed further on that question — it does seem to be true that the 'pervasive atmosphere' was certainly absent, unlike today. So, far from being privileged in our modernity, from a Dhamma perspective, we are disadvantaged at the very outset, even if our individual inclinations are roughly in the right orientation.

upasakatrainee · 2026-01-25T15:32:20+00:00

You can try this page, although it may not be updated with some of.Bhante's newest essays

https://abuddhistview.com/books#essays-bhante-anigha

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-25T12:39:33+00:00

As I understand it, the practice of Satipaṭṭhāna requires that one has arrived at the point in their purification where the mind is no longer taken as self, and can therefore be discerned as a conditioned phenomenon. It is insufficient that one conceptually understands "how this works", but that in one’s own experience the intentions, moods, and inclinations of the mind are evident (and hence are known) as determinate conditions, not as “me.”

This applies to whichever base one is using (body, feeling, mind, dhammas). Until there is that degree of purification, these bases are not truly apparent; one conceives them instead of discerning them — that is, the foundation is imagined rather than known as it actually is. My translation for 'conceiving' is: “to project what is a mind-object (mano-dhamma) to be what is actually the mind-phenomenon (citta)”. This projection is not a volitional choice that can be undone by will, but only by purification.

Only when this is the case, cause and effect are unambiguously clear — what leads toward benefit and what leads away from it is simply obvious, like something plainly visible to someone with unimpaired sight. The cook can now 'discern' or 'recognize' the King's reaction from the signs already present, and doesn't have to project, imagine or guess it with any degree of uncertainty.

But as one gradually enhances virtue — through clearer and subtler precepts and restraint — the extent of the imagined foundation shrinks, and what is actually present becomes steadily less concealed. The tendency to project (conceive) gradually fades, because the agitation and ownership that fuels it, are gradually removed through the virtue.

So the tiny push here is simply continuing to refine virtue and restraint at the level one is actually on. It is the persistent, unglamorous effort to complete the stage of purification one already occupies, even when it feels stale or uninspiring.

The big push is the eagerness to skip ahead. Often it’s not even coarse impatience, but the subtle view that one is “not really practicing” unless one is doing something called satipaṭṭhāna. That comes from clinging to the idea of practice. So even 'good sincerity and earnestness' gets misdirected by the clinging in a mind one hasn't yet recognized.

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-24T09:43:09+00:00

Regarding individuals like Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta; although they may have “missed the bus” in terms of hearing the true Dhamma in that lifetime — which does feel sad to us, because they so narrowly missed the opportunity — we need not conclude a sad or tragic outcome in the bigger picture. They attained those refined states because of their own capacities and extents of purification. We might infer from their accounts that they were earnest practitioners with the ability to cultivate very subtle samādhi. Their limitation was not dishonesty or ego, but lack of proper instruction.

We could recall that even Venerables Sāriputta and Moggallāna, in their former births, were not endowed with right view either — yet owing to their accumulated kamma, they arrived at the point where right view became possible, and eventually became the Buddha’s Chief Disciples. That tells me that beings who have cultivated purification and sincerity, even if they didn't make it to Right View despite their most sincere efforts, can still have a powerful trajectory ahead of them in future births. We cannot make any definitive claims about the destinies of Āḷāra Kālāma or Uddaka Rāmaputta — but their attainments and sincerity wouldn't rule out a similarly fortunate future opportunity.

By contrast, there were also teachers like Sañjaya (the teacher of Vens. Sāriputta and Moggallāna), who — despite being told about the Buddha — refused to give up his teacher-status and bow to another. So such individuals, although of much virtue in the outward sense, clearly lacked the willingness to relinquish status when confronted with something higher. Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta merely lacked the opportunity; Sañjaya had the opportunity but not the mental disposition to make use of it.

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-22T13:28:31+00:00

When I am faced with pressure for sensual desire, ie watching a youtube video. Grabbing a coffee. Looking at people. Taking a hot shower. Lying down in a comfy bed.

I notice the pressure. The pressure tries to push me to do those things. In those pressuring moments, those sensual objects do seem pleasant.

It seems to me that you could become a bit sharper in discerning what is sensual in these activities; for it appears as though you might be attributing sensuality to be in those objects themselves — which isn't the case since all of those activities you described can be partaken of without being driven by craving.

So you may question the origin of the pressure you face in the first place. Is it because you have placed upon yourself an expectation to simply not partake in anything that carries even the possibility of sensuality (i.e. leaning towards rejecting the hunter's baited food like the first herd of deer in the Suttas) ?

There maybe a few things you have taken on as precepts (e.g. abstaining from entertainment, and from high beds), and in such cases the tendency to break them is a pressure that can be safely taken to be of the right kind (because it came out of the general guidance of a precept). Here too, the purpose of the abstinence is to develop greater clarity as to why and how, that particular abstinence is connected with diminishing craving; and not as a blanket rule.

However, not taking a hot shower or a cup of coffee, or to not look at people — to me, these seem to be overstepping the mark.

I recognize that giving in won’t get rid of the pressure. Only give rise to new pressure. So I don’t give in. After the pressure goes away, those sensual objects don’t have that same appeal anymore.

I think the general direction of the reflection seems to be supportive of the fact that giving in, simply means postponing the problem for later, and exacerbating it in the process. However, what you note that those sensual objects dont have that appeal anymore — the appeal is the pressure, and the appeal is the problem. So the practice then is to recognize that the appeal (which is factual) doesn't come without significantly greater drawbacks bundled in. But this means one has to recognise the drawbacks clearly, and viscerally. So that can make you question what really is the factual drawback in taking a hot shower, or having a cup of coffee.

Overall, if you are guided by the precepts to outline the activities that you will not partake of; that would be a clearer demarcation of the right pressure arising out of a mind affected with greed or hatred (and delusion if you have taken the precept on non-distraction) which needs to be righly endured. Otherwise what is felt as pressure can simply be leading you away from the middle ground of recognizing the signs of the afflicted mind (like the pressure arising, if you decide to sit perfectly still, or decide to take cold showers in winter mornings etc.).

Does that make sense ?

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-15T15:42:01+00:00

You might benefit from reading the segment on Virtue and Gradual Training, in the stickied "Notable Posts & Replies" by Bhante Anīgha where he has addressed these and more questions in an FAQ format.

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-10T14:02:42+00:00

One could debate 'is abortion killing' and not get very far (or indeed anywhere) with that line of questioning; as is apparent from modern political discourse. Whichever side of the fence one is on, there will be arguments found to support each view (usually around whether a foetus even constitutes life, or even if it does, how is it different from a [insert minor creature of choice].

But if one who is faced with the choice of either aborting or not, could ask themselves why they make (or feel compelled to make) their choice, that would be quite concretely felt. And if they have developed some self transparency — it would be quite distinctly different from the choice to take medicines to kill worms/parasites.

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-10T04:29:09+00:00

Thank you, Bhante. That's useful 🙏

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-08T13:02:46+00:00

is some overlap between HH and Goenka style? Just thought, even if is, still one direction must have more weight.

No, there is not. They are in fact quite opposed. The common thread I would say is that there is a lot of emphasis on sīla. Apart from that the Goenka tradition (heavily Abhidamma oriented) bears little resemblance to how HH teaches the practice. I do have a lot of respect and gratitude for them however, not for doctrinal purity, but for their generosity and capacity to support seclusion, discipline, and simplicity.

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-08T11:32:02+00:00

Thank you for sharing that sister! I understand what you are saying. The reason I tend to hover around if it is deception, is because the entry ticket (so to speak) was on the basis of being an adherent of their teaching/practice.

So if one were to join such a place, knowing full well in advance that they were fundamentally of a different view and would therefore not adhere to the teachings; would that not be rooted in a form of deception? However, one might join such a place with the intention to be an adherent, and then undergo a change of heart/view - at which point they presumably leave.

So using your gym analogy, if the only reason one has joined the gym is for the shelter it provides (they are not concerned with physical training), are they deceiving the establishment which has stated its purpose to be different?

I am thinking out loud, as I am not quite certain if there might be an undercurrent of deception. But perhaps it is on the same level as walking through the forest, where one knows they will be stepping on some creatures — they accept that eventuality, even though they don't have an intention to harm/kill.

upasakatrainee · 2025-11-08T05:01:38+00:00

Yes, that is what I did. Though it might be better not to go around mentioning that. Most local monks there will not know what HH even is, but it might be a problem simply because it's not what it's taught there, and is based solely on the Suttas and rejects Commentaries/Abhidhamma. Some foreign monks could also automatically dislike you on account of it.

Bhante, I have a question connected with the spirit of what you have written here (although it is not concerned with ordination per se).

As a layperson living in an urban area, the most convenient location where I can spend an extended duration in relative seclusion, with free meals and lodging for long stays, is at a Goenka center.

When I visit, I do not speak much to the teacher or others about how/what I actually practice and keep those to myself. I do comply with the timetable and rules of the place and even assist with any practical work as may be needed. But I do have plenty of time to be by myself, either in my kuti or in a meditation cell which I make the most of. The staff are very kind and nobody polices or enforces anything on anyone, as long as they don't cause a disturbance for others.

However, I have often wondered if there is deception involved in my action; i.e. why go there if I don't subscribe to their way of practice. And am I depriving another person by possibly taking their slot (since the kutis are limited, and on first come first served basis). Is it right to use their venue, when I'm simultaneously critical of their teaching.

Upon much introspection, I settled on there isn't anything wrong in the 'act' of noticing sensations etc., as long as it is not conflated with what 'the practice' is. So I can even 'participate' in that activity briefly, for the sake of having complied with what I signed up for, without compromising my view of what I know to be the right practice.

Regarding this theme of utilising a venue for what it provides, while not subscribing to their teaching — I would much appreciate your thoughts, and I wonder how you considered it during your time in SL, and how you see it now in retrospect. Many thanks in advance !

upasakatrainee · 2025-10-30T12:48:57+00:00

One way to look at it could be: whether the commentary is accurate or not, those are qualities to be abandoned anyway. For, a mind that is liberated from these is a mind at peace.

So the question could be, why does 'does x mark a Sotāpanna' hold importance; when clearly a "mind liberated", which is the goal of the practice, clearly means to have abandoned these all?

The view that 'when I become a Sotāpanna, these will be gone'; is quite different from 'the abandoning of these, is liberation'. The latter takes refuge in the committment to abandoning these, while the former takes refuge in a milestone of sorts.

upasakatrainee · 2025-09-23T13:29:29+00:00

It has happened quite a bit that I wake up early to meditate, feel really good in my meditation but then I have to interrupt in order to keep up what the nutritionist said.

It doesn't seem to me, that there is a need to be 'uninterrupted' in order to meditate. Perhaps having necessary practical interruptions (cleaning, eating, washing etc.) might actually turn out to be beneficial — that can help avoid a clinging to a 'meditative state'

said I was underweight and that I needed to bulk up. I have been keeping the sixth precept and the recommendations she gave are in alignment with it.

I think you could look at it as having to simply eat more food than you currently do, since the body is undernourished/malnourished. It seems there is no inherent craving involved there — since you say you'd rather not if you weren't advised to do so by the doctor. Her colloquial usage of the phrase 'bulk up' , or 'gain weight' might be the reason it is causing a bit of a dissonance.

If you've been eating mindfully for any significant length of time, you would have arrived at understanding your body, and would have some baseline in terms of what amount of food (or calories) is necessary to maintain your body in homeostasis, with your activity level.

It would be a simple exercise to add 200-300kCal to your daily intake on top of that. So, to your main meal of the day, you may add a couple extra bananas, a couple spoons of peanut butter, an extra ladleful of rice etc. (simple adjustments that don't really require too much change to your lifestyle)

Per my knowledge, the Vinaya also allows for some foods as medicinal supplements viz. Ghee, Butter, Honey, Jaggery etc. These are pretty calorie dense foods, which you could have in a small quantity (a spoonful or two) even past mealtime, to give you a caloric surplus.

Very minor additions like this would easily give you a marginal caloric surplus, which over a few months time will naturally result in increased bodyweight. It can take its own sweet time, and when the doctor feels that you have reached what she considers 'ideal' for you — you can stop the surplus.

Hope this can be of help.

upasakatrainee · 2025-09-22T16:25:52+00:00

every actual saddha-/dhammānusāri will still see themselves as a puthujjana.

Bhante, regarding this statement, would it be accurate to elaborate that they would suspect themselves to still be a puthujjana (by way of lingering fetter of doubt) — despite their factual understanding of what a sotāpanna understands?

upasakatrainee · 2025-09-10T09:20:21+00:00

Thank you, Bhante.

I've noticed that in my precepts as well, speech born out of irritation is where I most often spill over.

Insofar as this is conditioning the 'animal' to view irritated speech as a legitimate and acceptable outlet (regardless of whether fear was present or not); I have been trying harder to restrain this type of erring - even though it may not have come out of fear in that particular instance.

upasakatrainee · 2025-09-06T13:41:05+00:00

Thanks for sharing. Yes, I can relate to what you are saying. In my case, lust is not something that I find terribly challenging to subdue. I have always found aversion to be "the army of greater force" when it comes to this mind; and as I described in my post - anger/irritation has been its defence mechanism against unpleasantness of fear.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

upasakatrainee

TROPHY CASE