What makes one rough, what makes one gentle... ____________________________________ If you wish to support the Hillside Hermitage Sangha and this channel you are very welcome to do so via: www.hillsidehe...
Sn42.1 Saṃyutta Nikāya, Caṇḍasuttaṃ Once at Sāvatthı̄, ...Caṇḍa approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said: “Venerable sir, what is the cause and reason why someone here is known as rough? And what is the cause and reason why someone here is known as gentle?” The Buddha: “Here, someone has not abandoned lust. Because he has not abandoned lust, others irritate him. Being irritated by others, he manifests irritation: he is known as rough. He has not abandoned hatred. Because he has not abandoned hatred, others irritate him. Being irritated by others, he manifests irritation: he is known as rough. He has not abandoned distraction [avijja]. Because he has not abandoned distraction, others irritate him. Being irritated by others, he manifests irritation: he is known as rough. “This, Caṇḍa, is the cause and reason why one can be known as rough. “Here, someone has abandoned lust. Because he has abandoned lust, others do not irritate him. Not being irritated by others, he does not manifest irritation: he is known as gentle. He has abandoned hatred. Because he has abandoned hatred, others do not irritate him. Not being irritated by others, he does not manifest irritation: he is known as gentle. He has abandoned distraction. Because he has abandoned distraction, others do not irritate him. Not being irritated by others, he does not manifest irritation: he is known as gentle. “This, Caṇḍa, is the cause and reason why one can be known as gentle.”
I sometimes wonder about the magnitude of the pain that must have sent Bhante down this path at such a comparatively young age. He really speaks like someone who has been through much and overcome much and exudes a seriousness that makes me ashamed of my own laziness and frivolity. The best dhamma on the internet.
Not that I know about Bhante, but at least for me - even if initially ordaining wasn't due to a great magnitude of pain - the solitude, difficulty, and restraint you will have to endure after ordaining and starting to practice will be incredibly painful.
@@saschaheylik He has such a good grasp on the mechanics of addiction that I was assuming some kind of past drug problem. I won't continue to speculate about his lay life, in any case. I have been walking and listening to these talks almost daily for months, so it got a bit parasocial there
@@JoshSmith-ff8dw Bhante said in several videos that he did not become a monk for some special reason, as usually happens. He didn't have mental problems, he wasn't depressed, he wasn't addicted, he just started to learn about religions and philosophies and that's how he got to Buddhism and found himself in it. As time passed, he increasingly began to see and understand the meaning of suffering, more precisely the "possibility of suffering" and then he said that the decision to become a monk was practically necessary.
Thank you Venerables for this amazing talk. As Bhante have said even we Putujanas can experience Samadhi by faith in our virtue and faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Learning to practice on account of faith was the best thing that happened in my entire life.
Ive been listening to these talks for a few years but after listening and relistening, and reading the essays, especially on the body and feelings, I finally see I had the order all wrong. The body and feelings are there first, they're not mine. It's not "me" and my body and feelings. The body and feelings arise on their own and they're not under my control. I'm subjected to them. Kind of trapped by them. I guess this is a good first step. Of course, I first had to unwind my conceptions of feelings and the body, and learn how to discern rather than “perceive” feelings and the body.
I’ve been exploring this channel endlessly because I know some laymen who are very accomplished in their Dhamma who follow these teachings. However, all I hear is Russian stoicism mixed with French Existentialism presented as Buddhism. In American Buddhism, we get western psychology mixed with hard scientific materialism presented as Buddhism. Buddhism is adapted in this way into every culture. When it went to China, the Brahman cosmology that the Buddha allowed to be kept as a mundane ethical framework was thrown out completely. This is why a radical focus on seeing the 4NTs for oneself is the only way to know and be Dhamma
Hey Michael, you again, huh? I see you all over haha (told you I have too much time on my hands)... if you don't recall, I'm the one who was bitching about Dhammarato being too heavily leaned into positive psychology rather than actual dhamma, though I still see much value in his teachings. Maybe we can talk elsewhere about HH in greater detail, because I too have spend a fair amount of time exploring their teachings. You say 'all you hear is Russian stoicism plus French Existentialism present as Buddhism'... perhaps that's hyperbole (ALL you hear?) but at a minimum you clearly have disagreements that you're either leaving out for the sake of politeness or brevity. Those are what I'd be interested in discussing. If they merely said "here are some useful approaches that might serve you a bit better than other contemporary approaches out there, so give it a try" it would be a whole different conversation, but their attitude of strident exceptionalism is where I have an issue and find that particular position implausible. I might hit you up on Discord if you're up for talking about it
@@NothingTheGreat sure. My comment here is not outright criticizing HH. It’s more so putting myself out there, admitting that I don’t get their approach, while I would not have returned if I didn’t know some people who really seemed to understand the Dhamma based on HH’s approach.
@@NothingTheGreat if you keep the precepts, read the suttas yourself and try to understand at least the fundamental ideas for yourself without relying on anyone's creative imagination, then look at various teachers and check who is teaching in accordance with the suttas it should become clear soon that there is not much left that passes that check.
Hello Ajahn, I've been researching Buddhism recently and I'm simply so confused. It seems everything "good" in the world that I had previously known is not valued in Buddhism. I would like to begin a practice and a path toward enlightenment, but I don't know what enlightenment is. I don't understand the relationship to my body or my mind, what is "good" or "bad" about them, if having children or wanting companionship is "bad," if caring about ancestors or offspring is "bad," caring about prosperity and building things, defending things and people, what humans are "designed" to care about according to our nature, or at least according to the evidence of history. What is my relationship with the world supposed to be? What is the point of our instincts and bodies if they're bad for us? It seems I have everything backwards and I can't understand how that's possible. Don't know where to start. Any advice is helpful. Thank you.
Sometimes a better Buddhist perspective comes from asking better questions. “Bad” and “Good” are very charged words. Buddhism looks at behaviour more in terms of skillfulness.Does this action create more suffering or reduce suffering. Like any skill, you see the results and you then refine. People can have all those things you’ve mentioned and be strong on the Buddhist path. Intention and level of attachment is more important with respect to these things.
Beginning a Buddhist practice involves a deep exploration of one's actions, intentions, and attachments. It requires a compassionate and mindful approach to navigating personal desires and societal responsibilities, all while keeping the ultimate goal of enlightenment in mind. Remember, the path is not about suppression or denial but about understanding and transformation. As you embark on this journey, may you find clarity, peace, and liberation.
"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech." Some people need soft words to learn. Some people need rough words like bitter medicine to snap them out of a daze. The middle way. There's also a subtle danger in the message Bhante is spreading here. He says "If you get upset at what is said, right or wrong, it's your fault for getting upset." This is a common tactic of manipulation called gaslighting. If the responsibility was all on the receiver then there would be no need for right speech at all, would there? Sure, there's a line where you can cut off a reaction festering and proliferating, but if someone were to assault your own mother in front of you then I think you'd be hard pressed not to have a reaction without serious denial or repression, and to be blamed for that reaction is manipulative judgement.
You are speaking from the point of view of worldly concerns. Our talks are for those that want to overcome that and practice the Dhamma without any compromise. And from that point of view the responsibility is ENTIRELY on what you call "the receiver", as the famous Simile of the Saw Sutta very sharply describes: "Monks, even if bandits were to cut you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his mind get angered even at that, would not be following my Teaching". So, either the Buddha was a major gaslighter manipulator or he knew where the root of suffering comes from and was pointing at that. Of course, people can accept this fact or not, but what they cannot do is have it both ways.
Doesn't this only apply to the laylife where people more or less share responsibility in managing their emotions? If someone did something bad to you, you would completely blame your emotions on them, whereas the dhamma places the true responsibility on you for not training the mind to not be affected by these things. And since the mind is completely trainable, it would ultimately be your fault for any form of suffering or irritation you experience. You can't control what people do but you can train your mind to not have an ounce of bother from what people do.
@richardmccabe2392 Like I said, there is a measure of control in not letting things fester or proliferate. Some would call this being mature. But to essentially say that you should be a stone statue or else you're wrong can and will lead people to repression and a future explosion. So I would ask you what is actually the teaching of the Buddha: to not get upset ever or to recognize what these things really are when they arise? Do you think Ajahn Chah never got upset? Do you really think getting upset can be completely divorced from the reality of the experience of this form?
The buddha as most important religious figures was a major manipulator, of course those within the religion will not see this as such because he is perceived as someone who had access to the TRUE nature of things. IF it happens that he was right, unlike the thousands of other religious teachers (note the ironic tone) then I understand that monks following his path will not see the faults/biases in his personality because he had a very concise worldview that allowed him to conceal this faults/biases and intentions as part of the "Truth", the same way christian monks would do with Jesus teaching and so on. As someone with a profound interest in the religion, yet not part of it, it's easier to see the nuances and maintain a skeptic outlook, yet I concede that is coherent that within the context of monastic and lay practice, the person that is genuinely convinced of the dhamma, should be responsible for their own emotional reaction to the harshness of the teachings, instead of looking for comfort.
I worry he will disrobe. Something doesn't seem quite right. The kind of drive he has tends to go wrong eventually, as we have seen with so many other people. I hope he'll be well, though.
