Thank your for your work. It is very difficult to find penetrating and insightful dhamma talks. I also appreciate your insistence that sila must come first, then right view. Your dIrections on how to practice are extremely helpful

Enough was said at “abandoning that which is liable to suffering” That’s all there is to it

🙏

An enlightening discussion as always. This discussion and many others raises some questions I've been having in regards to how all things connect. Let me explain further. How I understand. The approach taken during most of these discussions is to reveal the nature/root of phenomena. Meaning, the impossibility of control, of them being "beyond" you, in a sense. Creation, ownership, sense of self, craving, all of that stems from this fundamental lack of understanding. The thing is, it doesn't revolve just to that, but in fact to all phenomena, from the most subtle and difficult to understand, to the most obvious such as six senses, thoughts and so on. (When I say obvious, I mean, we normally are more prone to recognize positive phenomena, even though thoughts for some people might be very difficult to clarify, even more so would be the negative phenomena that can't be attended, such as citta, feeling and so on) The point is, in a sense, contemplating these things is an Establishment of Mind, and since perceptions are what leads to the mind being established (there is always an establishment of mind, being it right or wrong, so perception is the fundamental key), what is the purpose of other establishments? What is the value of, say, establishing the perceptions of the forest? My assumption is that these other perceptions are intermediaries so you go step by step refining your perception until you can eventually abandon even that, reaching the ultimate perception that includes all. Perfect clarity in relation to how things really are. Nibbana (though I'm aware I'm most likely wrong since I'm not a sotapanna). So, why am I mentioning this? The confusion comes from sometimes conflicting perceptions and I not knowing which ones to emphasize first. Like the sutta "Two Kinds of Thought" "Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind" Although thoughts, feelings, existence in general is a burden, a pain, disease. It has been thrown upon me, nonetheless, it's my responsibility which perceptions I lend my attention to (even though attention as well is thrown upon me, but lets not get into all minutia). So, a thought I know it's not conducive/productive, is enduring in the mind. I have a choice, I could "endure" it, or, turn my attention towards something that is also enduring (which is the opposite of that "negative/bad thought", otherwise I wouldn't be able to attend it), not for the sake of denying this thought, but because it would more conducive, and productive to attend that. So I know that by attending to the "negative" thoughts, negative mind states would arise in me, but, by deliberately looking at another perception that is there as well enduring, such thoughts could induce "positive/good" mind states. Agreeable feelings. But here is the thing. I know the content, whether agreeable or disagreeable, is a burden, affliction, suffering. Only when feelings are exhausted/extinguished that I'm practicing along the lines of the Dhamma. But I see that by attending the "positive", the mind would be more conducive to then focus on clarifying the abandonment of feeling, therefore, using positive as an intermediary, a refining step so to say to then develop more refined perceptions. My question is, what should be done in such a scenario? Should one endure what is arisen in his field of perception? Should one look to expand the field and look at the opposite? Or, even still, should one disregard both perceptions and then contemplate on the nature of things right away? The reason I say this is that by focusing on the "positive" so to speak, diminishes the anguish of being subjected to a coarser form of perception, and therefore makes it easier to contemplate on higher ones. Is this in any way correct? Is this how the practice should progress in this particular case? I hope it doesn't sound too confusing, if I made myself unclear, I can come back and try to address this in a different manner that might make sense. As always, I appreciate your answer, I would be very pleased if you could clarify this point. Editing here: Just to clarify, when I say perception, my definition might be broader or more encompassing than Eyes -> Chair "Ohh, I'm perceiving a chair" or something like that. Perception I mean context, theme, point of view, like when you are listening to a TV or something, but when you go to another room, the perception of the volume of the TV remains constant. Or sight. Looking at a city from a distance, although the skyscrapers look very small, you know they are big. Or like the example you mentioned in one of the talks about going to a forest alone and in a group. The Perception is different (although you used mood in that sense). I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding it might have come up in regards to my use of the word perception.

I find this “I am” to be a mental complex of identifications and appropriations, including memories. A self construct carried in mind. It is “imaginary”.

23:45 Extremely important

🙏🙏🙏

Bhante, the eye that the Buddha speaks of and which he says should be seen as impermanent/unownable - is it that eye that appears when I reflect (asking myself "what is the eye?")? Or is it that bit of bodily matter that enables seeing in the first place and which does not appear ? I am confused about this point, because all that appears when I reflect on the eye is a perception of touch around my nose, under my forehead, that I simply call "eye" because I think that this is where seeing originates. How to contemplate the eye (or any of the senses) correctly so as not to be pressured by them? All best wishes to you and everybody at the hermitage!

Colour and rupa

Greetings. In what ways is such a Dhamma interrogation a Socratic dialogue, and in what ways is it not a Socratic dialogue? Thank you.

Close but no Cigar ???

What is "atavada"?

🙏🙏🙏