A most important talk. By closely listening to it a few times and reflecting, my ordering of what comes first has flipped. I.e., I can’t own my body because the body is the basis for which I am. And I also see the body cannot be in my control because it’s there independently - it is there first and is the container of my experience including any sense of self.

The Coffin simile was very powerful for me. I regarded my body as a Prison. Sadhu Ajahn.

It’s so enjoyable listening to the end of the discussion between these great monks!!☺️🥰❤️🙏🙏🙏🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️

the whole conversation is a great context to ponder upon, thankyou Bhante for always share the right Context! sadhu

“You can breath, you can sit, you can sing,, you can do whatever you want..........( in the coffin 🙃)” ❣️🙇‍♂️

I like 'unstable' better. Buddha teaches that everything arises by presence of the necessary conditions. Since the conditions come and go everything that has appeared to come to be is unstable, subject to pass away with the change in conditions. Think of having a certain idea/ viewpoint about something - when one learns some new things about the thing i.e. the conditions for the view changes - the old thing as it was known ceases to be and new idea / view of the thing arises. The new view is as illusory, unstable, empty as the former. Or think of having a certain feeling about a thing - which depends on cognition of the thing - the moment the conditions for the cognizance of the thing pass away the feeling related to it passes away. People focus to much on the existential kind of thinking equating anicca to decay and instability of the presence of the 'material' which is related to Westerner scientific kind of thinking of matter consisting of atoms and such while *Buddha thought in experiential way* - how can you equate rupa to mean matter when you have never been in contact with matter? You have only seen colors (and similarly for other senses) - which depend on the eye (reacting to the stimulation from the environment by activation of the nerves in the eye), *constructed mental image* that is subjective, constructed internally and the perception so how can you speak of 'matter'?? The Sabba sutta puts the nail in this coffin saying ""What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."" There is no place for matter, rupa means mental image. Buddhas teaching is experiential from A to Z, *you can not speak of experiencing matter, it is only an idea, you only experience subjective mental images arising in the process of perception* - rupa. The All does not contain 'matter', it contains mental images / media for each sense which is constructed - dependent on conditions and subjective - you can't even tell if your experience of blue color is the same to you as it is for me. On the same note *what you think of as your body is really just a collection of mental images* which depend on the sense experience. Because of the body there is activity one calls 'mind'. Because that activity one calls 'mind' one thinks of 'body'. Its only an idea - there is no real entity persisting in time and space that one calls body or mind. Take note how the 'five aggregates' (i find 'five constituents of the process of perception' better wording) subject to personalization does not include kaya i.e. body! Take note how when anicca is mentioned in the suttas in the standard questioning formula addressing a monk its the 'five aggregates' that are mentioned as unstable, not possessions, things in the world or body and the instability of objects in the world and the inevitable decay of the body are mentioned more often in regards to dukkha i.e. unsatisfactoriness, not anicca. The important thing is that one only has experience, not existence and its the constituents of the process of perception that are unstable (anicca) since they arise and cease dependent on conditions (outlined in paticca-samuppada) and its the play arising by that process that is ultimately unsatisfactory (dukkha).

Our sense of control is “beginning-less” and “gratuitous”. The body becomes our coffin because we try to control/escape suffering by seeking sense pleasure. Control is the sense of self.

🙏🙏🙏

Wow jeepers that was difficult, thank u!

Please do a session of meditation . As now venerable Ajahns in a discussion said that observation is not meditation in another video.we request you to upload a session on how to do meditation

Thank you. This video made me to do interesting reflexions.

The best translation for the word "dukkha" is "insubstantial".

Theruwan saranai bhanthe. I heard this word ANICCHA- we cannot keep anything under our will, under our corntrol ( anything means pancha skandaya) what is your idea on that bhanthe? We are expecting things to be as we wish, but they are not to be. This nature gives us the DUKKA. Is that correct bhanthe?

How can one meaningfully take responsibility, if one is not in control? (How can one meaningfully take responsibility, if one should assume one is not in control?)

So this problem of internal and external is basically the problem of positing a Self that exists outside of the body and mind which owns the body and mind. The perversion of the order is assuming Self comes first and then mind and body come after, but in actuality the body comes first as the necessary basis in which the Self exists. The self is the gratuitous assumption of the external. By having this assumption of existence outside of the body/mind we create our own suffering because we seek to control the uncontrollable to appease the non-existent. The body/mind is outside of our control because we come after the body/mind not before, our notion of self is dependent on the body/mind. Without a body/mind our Self would be nothing, inconceivable. The solution is to see experience as just the body/mind without an external self controlling or existing apart from the body/mind. We are the totality of the body/mind, which is the universe, not something separate from that. Have I understood correctly?

37:33

So, can you say that even gouging out your eyes does not affect the enduring eye, on account of which you suffer? As in, even after you've gouged your eyes out, if you were to suffer because of not having vision anymore, that very perception of lack couldn't arise absent from the enduring basis of the eye.

impermanence is the lack to things being able to persist through their own power into a 2nd moment of their own own accord. its the opposite of feeling buried alive. see 'berzin subtle impermanence' theravadins... nothing but a bother.

Geworfenheit

sanskrit contains the highest and most direct connection to the intuitive grasp the buddhas terminology. i would suggest always the proper sanskrit pronunciation should be given along with pali.