Watching videos on this channel feels like being struck with luck. Thank you.

I've always felt that this delight in possibility is never matched in actual experience. Now I know why. Thank you.

this talk explain the addiction and the way to end the addiction.. thankyou Bhante for great discussion 🙏

Thank you very much for this amazing discussion. I walking around dazed right now.

Hello Bhante, I am not sure if you respond to comments on old videos, but I figured I would try. I have been trying to understand what you have said about sensuality is various videos. I would like to put my understanding in my own words and have you look them over and point out any errors. The typical view of sensuality is that pleasure is in the sense object. Upon interacting with the sense object, pleasure is “injected” into your experience. This view depends on the assumption of something outside your point of view, specifically the sense object, which is what allows you to feel pleasure. As I understand what you are saying in this video, there is no need for the external sense object to cause the pleasure. Rather, the entire “reward system” mechanism that results in the pleasant feeling is something that is occurring entirely within the five aggregates, or within your point of view. First, there is craving for a sense object, which is felt painfully. Then, when there is the PERCEPTION of a sense object being obtained, attention is diverted away from the craving, causing you to stop resisting it. This fading, or non resistance of the painful feeling of craving, is felt pleasantly (MN 44). Thus, the pain of the craving accounts for the danger of sensuality and the alleviation of the painful feeling of craving accounts for the gratification of sensuality. ASSUMING pleasure is in the external sense object perpetuates sensuality and seeing that the process that accounts for both the danger and gratification is ENTIRELY within the five aggregates is the escape from sensuality. Is this the correct way of understanding what you are saying? Much gratitude for all of your work, Bhante.

The "assumption of sensuality" among humans seems to me fundamentally the denial of death and impermanence. Most human sensual desires are greatly influenced by the weight of the ego, which is in turn, fundamentally, the desire for durability, the aversion toward death and impermanence, the distorted inflation of our survival instinct due to our awareness of death. This ego is mostly an outgrowth of the cultural environment one subscribes to, often the environment one just happens to be born into. This culture has more durability than your mere physical body. And thus by living up to (or exceeding) its (often arbitrary) standards, one gains a feeling of durability, of being part of something more durable than oneself. Having sex or engaging in food gluttony, lots of entertainment etc. may be things a person pursues because such activities are perceived as socially/culturally valuable (e.g. they convey wealth, sexual prowess or success). Or conversely, because they allow the person to forget their lack of social/cultural value i.e. the absorption into the sensual activity can allow one to momentarily forget about unpleasant feelings related to death and impermanence, or one's lack of culturally granted durability. That's not to say that nonhuman creatures, relatively unburdened by the weight of the ego, do not suffer due to sensuality. After all, a basic function of evolution is the transmission of genes; irregardless of the effects on the organism. It is hard to generalize, but my tentative assessment is that the relative absence of existential anxiety among nonhuman creatures reduces their overall suffering as compared to humans. In addition, their impulse toward genetic durability/immortality implies an interaction with their environment substantially based on empirical reality. As genetic creatures, we also possess this impulse toward genetic durability. But as the byproduct of it (that resulted in a more intelligent death aware brain), the human impulse toward symbolic immortality arose, implying, in contrast, a largely delusional interaction with the environment. And generally speaking, more delusion entails more suffering, for a number of reasons that I won't fully go into here. The greater peace and contentedness experienced through a relative lack of desire do seem to imply a delusional assumption among those humans who do not pursue these states of mind. Not only because they increase awareness, but also because humans, unlike other creatures, do seem to have a choice to pursue these states that decrease suffering. Needless to say, the pain to pleasure or ill-being to well-being ratio achieved through excessive sensual desire is not favorable. However, among other creatures, and to some extent among humans, the initial dissatisfaction implied in the pursuit of sensual desires does not seem to increase overall delusion or suffering if these desires fulfill certain conditions, such as moderation, discernment, or physical necessity. Existence itself implies a certain amount of ignorance and delusion, which we must accept. This seems true for all life forms. The excessive desire to overcome this intrinsic limitation can actually create more ignorance and delusion than it overcomes. The Buddha seems to have communicated this idea in his doctrine of the middle way.

All your content is very helpful and educational and clear. Also, seeing those dogs makes me very glad. How wonderful! 🙏

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

Excellent 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼💎💎💎

Thanks for sharing the discussion - very helpful. Sadhu.

Bhante, would it be correct to say that the pain which comes first in any pursuit of sensuality and of which one is trying to rid oneself in the pursuit of a possible pleasurable feeling that is determined by this pain, is in itself simply the painful feeling of the harassment of sense objects one is experiencing every moment and which one is resisting?

❣️🙏🏼

🙏

Hello, at 7:50 Ajahn mentions that he's explained the upadana of attavada (self-identity) before - is that link to that talk by any chance?

Why do I see this so clear in others but it's foggy in myself clear sometimes but mostly cloudy. But in others it's very clear how there externalizing things and can most of the time immediately read there intentions.

Clinging/grasping requires the assumption to already be present, yes? This is why Upadana is not best translated as craving.

Dear Bhante! I have a followup question to the one's below by Jacob and myself. „cattārimāni, āvuso, upādānāni - kāmupādānaṃ, diṭṭhupādānaṃ, sīlabbatupādānaṃ, attavādupādānaṃ. taṇhāsamudayā upādānasamudayo, taṇhānirodhā upādānanirodho“ „This, friend, are the four assumptions - the assumption that is sensuality, the assumption that is views, the assumption that is virtue and duties and the assumption that is the belief in self. With the arising of craving is the arising of assumption, with the cessation of craving is the cessation of assumption.“ (MN 9) „saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo, nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke, saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo, tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke. athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandan”ti. „Intentions and lust are a man’s sensuality, not the images in the world, Intentions and lust are a man’s sensuality, images simply endure there in the world, and it’s in regard to them that the wise remove desire.“ (AN6.63) An arisen image - a sight, a sound, a taste, an image … - endures and I am pressured by it, it affects me, which is unpleasant. I resist that unpleasantness, assuming that I can get rid of it when I am going in the direction of that image, which now appears as an escape from this arisen displeasure, i.e. as pleasurable. I want to obtain it so the discrepancy I experience would cease - I want to become that image, so to speak, make it a part of me. The assumption (upādāna) that I could get rid of the arisen displeasure by pursuing (intending, lusting after) the image is my sensuality (kāma) at that moment, which is simultaneously present with my craving (taṇhā) against the arisen unpleasant pressure of the image. Why am I subjected to the pressure of the image in the first place and why is it unpleasant? Because the inclination to craving is there? It seems to me that sensuality is nothing other that the dukkha that the Buddha speaks of. It is so ironic, in delighting in sensuality the world thus actually delights in dukkha and simply revolves around it.

OMG, this is deep 🤔😐

Sense desires can be helpful eg prompts to eat for sustenance, prompts to drink for thirst, prompts to wear warmer clothes in winter to keep warmer, prompts to take medication if one is unwell. Why would one run away from such prompts? Other sense desires, on the other hand, can be profoundly troublesome and perhaps take the form of "craving". I feel confused. Is the discussion exploring the understanding that all desire is harmful?

Bhante I am Volimdhammu I created this account beacuse I forgot the password of that account. I have been making good progress and I am seeing how my suffering and liability to suffering has improved enormously by understanding more and more. I will now ask you some questions which I wrote down while watching your clips. I hope I will not bother you. Thanks. In this clip you said " You stop assuming outside of the presently enduring feeling which means you stop craving against and towards the feeling" now my question is what is the assumption here you are refering to as "assuming outside of the presently enduring feeling" ?,, is it the self which is the assumed craver of that feeling or something else? I know you have talked alot about generals and paritculars, what is in case of feeling a particular feeling and a general feeling? , I will now go on to my next question Dear Bhante, One question which I personaly need help with with my own pracitce, it is the mixing of feeling and perception and also I heard recently that the feeling or as you say the content of that feeling is rooted in some of the 5 sense objects this needs clarification for me beacuse there is a mess for me i dont know what is what and what i took for granted did i take for granted that the perception is the feeling?, what ma i resisting the 5 sense objects or the mind object or the feeling is the putujana in fact thinking that what he feels is one of the 5 sense objects or does it also include the mind objects, the only thing that i know is that I am bothered by the feeling and I dont know what have i taken for granted and where have i . not knowing clearly what am i resisting and what is clearly the contradiciton implied in my situation, I want to se my contradiction, When there is craving to get rid of pain what has the putujana assumed that he is getting rid of is it the pain? the perception?,5 sense objects, or mind objects, am i resisting the pain and implying that i can resist the any of the sense objects at the same time?, also when you say you are acting in the physical, mental and verbal domain, what would constitute an action in the mental domain for instance is craving to get rid of pain what you call "an action in the mental domain"? and is craving what you call action in mental,verbal and physical domain?, When the putujana is craving to get rid of pain has he assumed the self which is the assumed "craver" that is craving against or towards that feeling, and by understanding that he has in fact assumed the self as that craver which is craving against that feeling he frees himself from craving, But understanding that there is only the feeling there he stops assuming the self as the craver and craving stops? I heard you saying that feeling are rooted in the sensual domain so if we look at the feeling we will se one or more of the 5 sense objects does this include also the mind objects?, when the mind is locked upon a feeling for instance is it really locked upon the feeling or an perception? what does the puptujana think his mind is locked upon (from personal experience the feeling) and what in fact is he wrongly assuming that he is reacting towards (even if he dont know what in fact he is implying that he can act towards, is it the feeling or perception or both or one of the 5 sense objects or maybe even mind objects or feeling or all or .... yeah you understand i need clarity here) i hope you will understand what i mean there is many things i have taken for granted and I need to hear from someone who knows what I have taken for granted beacuse there is as you said a vicious cycle which i am caught in and the doubt fuels it and cant by my self see my contradiction, but on the contrary if i saw clearly my contradiction when someobdy who knows told me it it would be very helpful, Bhante one time you said one time you cant percieve the feeling, but my question is what has the putujana assumed when there is a mess and he dont understand what is feeling and what is perception and what he has assumed to be acting towards ( acting towards do you mean acting towards some of the sense objects including the mind or acting towards implys also feeling?so is acting towards also implying craving towards pain and for pleasure or is action something different , if action and craving towards pain or for pleasure is different please tell me what it is, I heard you said you cant stop the craving but then i also heard you some time you need to stop resisting the pain so i am confused now is craving a volitionally choice u make "i choose to get rid of this" or is it happening automatically without my intentional choice but still i am responsible for it , the same question would be against the actions in the 3 domains am i voltionally doing it and what would constitute an action in each domain of mental physical and verbal is craving included here in these 3 actions? and what would be a mental action is it craving? ,does the putujana volitionaly choose this action either the craving or the 3 domains if yes i want to se clearly where is my responsiblity and where i am acting and what is the contradiction and what do i need to understand to see where i have overstepped my mark and thereby suspending my overstepping of my responsiblity and contradiciton, by not understanding what is happening and where my reponsilbity and the contradiction that i have taken for granted the action is going on by itself and by not seeing where i am overstepping my mark i cant stop that action, one thing more which i learned was that conciousness is not inside my mind, but i heard that there is a mind, where would that mind be inside the mind or elsewhere or neither, I heard the mind is the sixth sense which is not in accordance with science which assumes the public world independent of our experinece then the mind is only a by product of matter, but here according to this teaching the mind seems to be more important because as you said science negates the observer but dhamma doesn't? doe and istead says that the mind is the sixth sense to which objects or dhammas appear, now if i understood correctly dhammas is everything so is the sixth sense some kind of universal mind or what is the mind in the dhamma teaching i am very aware that probably it can only be explained in terms of negative but please give me explanation of that. I am totally destroying my own HARDENED public world view , my mind worked in terms of what is pleasant and what it deemed logical and that was just as you once said is influenced with what i deemed pleasant and unpleasant, well I have seen through many things by your teaching and i am really grateful to have found your teaching. question 1 you stop assuming outside of the presently enduring feeling, means you stop craving against the feeling or towards what is the assumption you are refering to here? question 2 when the putujana is craving to get rid of pain, is he also assuming that he is acting towards any of the 5 physical sense objects including the mind object, beacuse for him it seems like he is reacting towards the feeling because he is caught in it but maybe in fact what he is implying is that he can react towards the 5 sense objects and mind and the feeling at the same time, or maybe it is the other way around maybe in that mess of not knowing what is feeling perception and what is he acting towards and being caught in that pain he is assuming that that the feeling is in fact that one of the 5 sense objects or mind or that the 5 sense objects or mind is in fact that feeling or mind object is that feeling or feeling is that mind object what is the contraiction that the putujana has assumed? the self takes the central role behind the mind for a putujana question 3 is craving against painful feeling and towards pleasant feeling what you call acting in the 3 domains (mental,physical,verbal) or is craving different from them if yes can you please describe the difference, and could you please explain what a mental action is for me i think maybe it is craving towards painful feeling which is a mental action. Question 4 What is the mind from the dhamma point of view, I have heard that it is the sixth sense which is quite different from science which assumed that their is an external world and the mind is nothing but a by product of matter.