How to overcome things that bother you. 

This instruction suffices to reach the goal of we were able to always keep our recollectedness . Thank you for sharing the sutta here 🙏

I'm not sure, but I've heard major/clinical depression is usually caused when one has repressed their feelings so often, for so long, that their feelings get habitually shoved out of awareness. (which explains the symptoms such as lethargy.) I'd then assume the preliminary step to understanding/discerning what feeling actually is would be to allow those feelings to arise without acting with them or because of them (like in repression), so as to be free of them for good. (I suppose you have to let the thing arise in order to understand it, but if nothing arose, then there would be nothing to understand ;-))

Could be feelings of shame, which brings a feeeling of disconnection and control over one's emotions. Try and increase your emotional awareness (What emotion am I feeling?) And looking at a wheel of emotions may help. Increasing your awareness of your emotions and understanding how the emotions work. You can also increase your sensitivity by finding opportunities to trust others and yourself.

According to the clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson depression has often to do with the body and a very bad diet and lifestyle. Pornography, fast food, social media etc. everything that triggers dopamin in excessive amount... will lead to depression...

Clínical depression run into families as other major mental health issues

The third option is only possible on the basis of restraining and not acting out of anger. And even then, it's not about dropping the anger which requires you to be affected by the anger in the first place (in order to drop it). Rather it is about UNDERSTANDING the nature of that mind of anger (revealed through restraint), up to the point of not being affected by it. And if you want to understand it you should neither act of out it (give in to it) nor drop it (try to get rid of it). You should stay in the middle and endure it for as long as it lasts, discerning how not to be burned by it while it is there. You will have no need to drop the burning coal if you learn how not to take it in your hand to begin with. So what we are teaching is UPROOTING of anger (ceases to arise, ceases to affect you now and in the future), as opposed to MANAGING IT (i.e. dropping it when it arises - which can make you proficient in dropping it, but still not prevent the anger from manifesting in the future. This means you will still be affected by it FIRST, even if you know how to THEN instantaneously drop it).

@@HillsideHermitage I understand and agree that restraint must be the first step, and that you will get absolutely nowhere if you just automatically give in and act out of whatever emotion arises. In all that follows, I am assuming that we are already at the level of having anger at most in the mind, and not taking it to the level of being expressed in words and actions. I also understand and completely agree that the aim is not to remove anger when it arises, but to uproot it and not have it arise at all. We are not yet Anagami, so we can still be often affected by impatience and irritation, which may sometimes grow into anger; and even if we are not of a very angry mind, we are all affected by various emotions - fear, anxiety, worry, sadness, stress, sensual desire - or else we would be already Arahant. The aim is to remove the root of all these, not just to manage them - on this there is no disagreement. Where I am still not sure to understand your teaching is the tool used for removing the root, and about what to do with these things when they arise in the meantime. I should maybe also clarify what I meant by “dropping” anger, or dropping any other emotion. I did not mean “try to get rid of it” (as one tries to get rid of any unpleasant feeling simply because it’s unpleasant and we don’t like it) - either by suppressing and ignoring it, pretending it’s not there, distracting from it, changing the subject, diverting it and so on. I meant really to remove it wherever it arises. In one instant, the moment it arises, one simply looks into the mind; and by looking into the mind and cutting into the mind, it vanishes and dissolves, leaving the mind clear and light with no remaining anger, fear, sadness or whatever was there. If I understood correctly, you say that removing anger or any emotion is not a good idea; one should keep the emotion as long as it lasts, whether fear, anger, jealousy, anxiety, sadness or sensual desire, in order to be able to study the mind with this emotion and later not be affected by it. 1. What I mainly do not understand is how wisdom can possibly arise out of allowing any kilesa to remain in the mind, including anger. For example, for anger to arise and persist, there needs to be attention on the object of anger, e.g. somebody hit me on the head with no provocation. Anger arises basically because of the point of view of blaming and fault finding: “they hit me, they hurt me, they had no right to do that to me”. It’s actually not the hitting on the head that causes anger to arise - they can hit only my head, but cannot make me angry. If there is no attention paid to the idea “I was hurt, they hurt me” anger will have to cease. Anger can’t exist without an object. Can you force yourself to become angry right now at will with no object? No, but you can summon it if you want with the thought of an object of anger, something based on which anger will arise. Thus anger persists only as long as the mind is blaming somebody or something, and as long as the mind is still blaming and finding fault, there cannot be the understanding that there is in fact no reason to blame and no reason to be angry. The one who is in wrong view doesn’t see he has wrong view. He thinks that he is right. What I mean to point out here is that there can be no possible wisdom, observation or understanding that arises as long as the mind is in anger - because for the mind to be in anger, by definition it has to be in wrong view and finding fault with others. If it’s no more in wrong view and blaming, there’s no way for anger to continue. When the anger ceases - either by itself or because you let go of it, then one sees things differently and can understand clearly why all that all that arose in the mind driven by anger was false and full of wrong view. How could it then be right or useful to keep it when you have the possibility to let go of the anger and let go of wrong view and replace it with patience, friendliness compassion, right away? How can keeping hold of a burning coal result in not being burned? And why do you need to keep it in your hand until it’s burned a hole through to the other side, to understand that it burns? 2. When the Bodhisatta was going to cemeteries and fearful places where fear would arise, even before becoming the Buddha, he says that whenever fear arose in him while he was walking, he would keep walking until he had removed that fear. The same if he was standing, sitting or lying down. (MN 4) He doesn’t say that he would keep on walking until the fear went away by itself. The Buddha says, “With wise judgement, the monk doesn’t accept a sensual, angry or cruel thought that arises… he doesn’t accept any evil, unwholesome quality that arises. He drives it out, removes it, wipes it out of existence.”(MN 2) He doesn’t say that the monk should “endure sensuality or anger that arises for as long as it lasts” - he says that he should not accept it, that he should remove it and wipe it out of existence. "Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. " (MN 21) He does not say that you should keep ill will and endure it as long as it lasts (you will die long before it has time to dissipate) - He says whoever keeps anger even in this situation is not a student of his teaching. So again, I don’t understand, when you tell that you should keep the anger, fear or sadness and endure it as long as it lasts, how it is in line with these teachings (and several others, but I keep it to these for the sake of brevity) 3. Suppose anger arises in some monk or practitioner based on some harsh words. While restraining himself from speaking harsh words in return, he does not let go of the anger in his mind. A moment afterwards, with anger still in his mind, he suffers a brain aneurism and dies instantly. Suppose another monk or practitioner also becomes angry based on harsh words, but he sees anger arising in himself, he does not accept it, looks into the mind, cuts into the mind and lets go of it, thus leaving his mind without anger, but with patience, compassion and friendliness instead. Then with no anger in his mind, this monk is hit by a falling satellite and also dies. Now according to the Buddha’s teachings as I understand them, the monk who died with his mind in anger is likely to be born in a bad destination, while the monk who died with patience and friendliness in his mind is likely to have a good destination. You said that it is not right to drop anger, but better to restrain it and not act on it. But if you die with anger, regardless of whether you acted on it or not, you still go to a bad destination. 4. One more point: being able to remove anger right at the place where it arises, does not mean that you rely only dropping and managing it while still becoming as angry as before. Anger is a habit of the mind, fear is a habit, agitation is a habit of the mind, it's not a fixed thing that you carry around in a cupboard in the back of your mind. You can’t give up a habit of nail-biting while continuing to bite the nails. So how can you give up the tendency of the mind to be driven by anger while allowing the mind to roll in anger? It’s by stopping to follow a habit or tendency, whether physical or mental that you work towards removing that habit and tendency completely. So once again, for this reason I do not understand in what way it is better to allow the mind to continue in anger, fear, stress, sadness, anxiety, or sensual desire, as opposed to letting go of them. This reply got longer than I thought it would! Bravo if you got to the end! :) I am not writing this out of wanting to argue or out of any disrespect - I have so much respect for what you are doing, the seriousness with which you are practicing the generosity with which you are sharing the dhamma with others. :) I would be really interested to hear what you think about these points and to communicate more if you have time and are willing… but I would prefer not to do it like this on youtube! If you want to write to me directly, the email address is hermitagemeditation@gmail.com

@Eva Donlon - "I should maybe also clarify what I meant by “dropping” anger, or dropping any other emotion. I did not mean “try to get rid of it” (as one tries to get rid of any unpleasant feeling simply because it’s unpleasant and we don’t like it) - either by suppressing and ignoring it, pretending it’s not there, distracting from it, changing the subject, diverting it and so on. I meant really to remove it wherever it arises." That is what trying to get rid of it is. Albeit more subtle, but still the same. "Removing it WHEREVER it arises" states exactly that. You are aiming at undoing of its arising. Or you are RESPONDING to its arising (i.e. being affected by it). Why that is a problem, see below. 1. - "What I mainly do not understand is how wisdom can possibly arise out of allowing any kilesa to remain in the mind, including anger." You are confusing emotional states (fear, anger, jelousy, etc) with kilesa. That's why you had trouble understanding the subtler point I was making. Angry mind is the RESULT of a kilesa (which is craving-against-unpleasant). Confusing the state of mind with the actual kilesa is like confusing a symptom of your illness with the actual cause. If you do so, you will think you found the cause, while in reality you didn't, so you remain sick. Also, I didn't say you ALLOW it to remain, I said you allow it ARISE (i.e. manifest). Two very different things. See below. - "For example, for anger to arise and persist, there needs to be attention on the object of anger, e.g. somebody hit me on the head with no provocation. Anger arises basically because of the point of view of blaming and fault finding: “they hit me, they hurt me, they had no right to do that to me”. It’s actually not the hitting on the head that causes anger to arise - they can hit only my head, but cannot make me angry. " No. Anger arises because you RESIST the DISCOMFORT of another person hitting you on the head. (Whether you resist it on account of physical pain caused to you, or on account of that person is humiliating you, it doesn't matter.) Resisting the discomfort is what makes the anger arise. Your blaming and fault finding is secondary to it. -"What I mean to point out here is that there can be no possible wisdom, observation or understanding that arises as long as the mind is in anger - because for the mind to be in anger, by definition it has to be in wrong view and finding fault with others. If it’s no more in wrong view and blaming, there’s no way for anger to continue." No. Mind is IN anger when RESISTANCE to discomfort is THERE. "Fault finding" and your idea of "wrong view" is secondary to it, and by that I mean it is closer to a symptom than a cause. For example, you are responsible for the fault finding BECAUSE you are responsible for 'resisting'. But for as long as you think fault finding is the cause of anger (or anything you DO on account of anger), you will not see the true cause of it. By not seeing it (and looking elsewhere) you will not be able to uproot it. - "How could it then be right or useful to keep it when you have the possibility to let go of the anger and let go of wrong view and replace it with patience, friendliness compassion, right away? How can keeping hold of a burning coal result in not being burned? And why do you need to keep it in your hand until it’s burned a hole through to the other side, to understand that it burns?" Letting go of anger or wrong view cannot be done the way you desribe it because things you would be letting go of are not the cause of anger or the wrong view. Otherwise, one could just CHOOSE to let go, which would imply that one's wrong views are INTENTIONAL. And we all know by reading the Suttas that that is not the case. It is something else, that IS intentional, because of which wrong views have accumulated. That thing is one's own grautitous choice of RESISTING the UNPLEASANT, ACCEPTING the PLEASANT, and IGNORING the NEUTRAL. And you cannot let go of that choice because an act of letting go is already underlied by the very thing you are thinking you are letting go of. Namely: craving. 2. - "When the Bodhisatta was going to cemeteries and fearful places where fear would arise, even before becoming the Buddha, he says that whenever fear arose in him while he was walking, he would keep walking until he had removed that fear. The same if he was standing, sitting or lying down. (MN 4) He doesn’t say that he would keep on walking until the fear went away by itself." No, I didn't mean you have to wait for the unwholesome state go "go away by itself". Dispelling is done by ceasing the RESIST the discomfort of the mental state that has arisen, not by "letting go" of the mental state itself. The Sutta refers to the Buddha NOT ACTING on account of the unwholesome that has ARISEN (moving, changing posture, or doing ANYTHING), until that state has been dispelled. And that's the point: for Bodhisatta fear arose while he was walking. And he had nothing to do with it. Arising of the fear as such was not the problem. Hence he had no reason to try and go against that experience of fear-manifesting-while-walking. All he needs to do is NOT act out of it, or try to GET RID of it, or try to CHANGE it. (Or as you say "REPLACE" it with compassion and kindness). All such acts would be rooted in the same attitude of wanting it to go away. That includes "letting go". So by not acting out of the arisen fear and the WAY it has arisen (to the point of not even sitting down since even such innocuous act would have been rooted in that same resistance to unpleasant and your attempt of CHANGING it), Bodhisatta got to contemplate the REAL cause of unwholesome. And that's not anything that comes through one's senses. It was his own resistance to the UNPLEASANTNESS of fear. That's also how one goes "beyond" fear. It's not by not having the fear manifest (i.e. significance of a threatening event), but by not resisting the unpleasantness of it, ever again. (continued in the next comment)...

(continued from above) - "The Buddha says, “With wise judgement, the monk doesn’t accept a sensual, angry or cruel thought that arises… he doesn’t accept any evil, unwholesome quality that arises. He drives it out, removes it, wipes it out of existence.”(MN 2)" That's it. "DOESN'T ACCEPT IT" is very different from "letting it go". It means you don't need to prevent its arising, all you need to is NOT ACCEPT it. It's like someone offering you a gift. You are not responsible for the gift offered (arisen) even if its of an unwholesome kind. You are responsible for accepting it. Refusing to accept the gift means you know the gift is not your problem or the issue, but it's your acceptance (or resistance) to it. And if you don't accept it, that gift will linger (i.e. "endure") for a while and then be taken away, since it needs accepting for it to remain. Trying to do away with the gift (prevent the giver from making it arise as an option), means you think the gift is the root of the problem which is why by removing it you think the problem has been solved. (Which is also why such mind would inevitably "blame the giver"). Consequently, "letting go of the gift" is an indication that you have mentally accepted it ALREADY. Even if you let go of it the second after you accepted it. Or it's like blaming the hunter for setting up a trap that you walked in. Or blaming Mara for enticing you. Your responsibility is not for the presence of gifts, traps, Mara's lures, it's for acceptance of those. (which is also exhibited through trying to get rid of them, or let go of them, instead of learning how to not be affected by them. That's what the Buddha meant by either "indulging" or "shunning" the bait, either of which result in you being hooked by the bait.) So, not accepting sensuality or anger doesn't mean interfering with its manifestation. So why would you need to let go of the angry mental state if your mind won't accept it for as long as it chooses to endure? - "He doesn’t say that the monk should “endure sensuality or anger that arises for as long as it lasts” - he says that he should not accept it, that he should remove it and wipe it out of existence." It means as long as its MANIFESTATION lasts, not as long as you might be mentally revolving around it. So, yes, people don't start as anagamis, which means the non-acceptance the Buddha talks about needs to be TRAINED and PRACTICED. How can you practice the non-acceptance of the MANIFESTED state of anger, if you are trying to get rid of that state? Impossible. And if you learn how to not accept it, without interfering or "letting go" of it, those states will not last very long since the real reason for their lasting and persisting can now be seen - RESISTANCE to discomfort. And that's how you would "wipe it out of existence" and prevent it from future arising. The giver will eventually cease to offer you gifts if for the last who-knows-how-many-times you refused it. - "Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. " (MN 21) He does not say that you should keep ill will and endure it as long as it lasts (you will die long before it has time to dissipate) - He says whoever keeps anger even in this situation is not a student of his teaching." No one here said you should "keep" the ill will... You are confusing "not trying to get rid of anger" to mean "accepting it", and that's a mistake. - "So again, I don’t understand, when you tell that you should keep the anger, fear or sadness and endure it as long as it lasts, how it is in line with these teachings (and several others, but I keep it to these for the sake of brevity)" No, again, you shouldn't keep the anger. You should stop trying to get rid of it. Two fundemantally differnt things. By not keeping it, AND by not trying to get rid of it, you will see the middle way between it. The way that reveals RESISTANCE to unpleasant as the root of the problem, regardless if you want to keep it or get rid of it. 4. - "You can’t give up a habit of nail-biting while continuing to bite the nails." No one said you continue to bite them. By all means resist the urge to do so. - "It’s by stopping to follow a habit or tendency, whether physical or mental that you work towards removing that habit and tendency completely." Sure, stopping to follow is necessary. It is what Sila and restraint is. That's the necessary basis for the Dhamma, but it is NOT the Dhamma, as the arahants of the First Council themselves stated it. And that's, in the nutshell, what you seem to be confusing. Management (Sila) with Uprooting (Dhamma). Sila will NOT uproot the unwholesome. Learning how not to be affected by it in the first place will. Thinking that keeping the Sila IS the practice of Dhamma is one of the fundamental wrong views and the first fetter to fall off for the one who sees the ACTUAL Dhamma. - "I would be really interested to hear what you think about these points and to communicate more if you have time and are willing… but I would prefer not to do it like this on youtube! If you want to write to me directly, the email address is hermitagemeditation@gmail.com" Sorry, but I prefer to do it here, since it is a useful commentary and further clarification to the video that many others can benefit from. Also, it allows me to not have to repeat myself, when others of similar views would inevitably ask the similar questions. Also, I must commend you on well and carefully written questions and points. You clearly reflected upon what we said, regardless of whether you agreed with it or not. Hence the detailed reply to your long comment, which would have otherwise remained un-engaged with.

​@@HillsideHermitage Thank you for this explanation! I don't mind communicating on youtube :) I see I had misunderstood some points. So if I understand well what you have said so far now: 1. You should not give in to anger ( “anger” could be replaced here with fear or any other unwholesome state of mind) 2. You should endure anger for as long as it lasts. 3. You should not remove anger when it arises. 4. You should not keep anger 5. Anger arises because of resistance to discomfort, which you are responsible for 6. Yet you’re not responsible for anger arising 7. You should not accept anger 8. You should dispel anger (by not resisting the unpleasantness of anger) 9. You should not interfere with the manifestation of anger 10. You should remove anger and wipe it out of existence, but the "manifestation of anger" (what is this, please? primary school language if possible) should be allowed to endure as long as it lasts. 11. Letting go of anger or anything else is rooted in the attitude of wanting it to go away (based on craving.) I honestly find it all not a little confusing and I don’t know why it needs to be so complicated. If I’m going to die - I’m in a car and I suddenly see that there is another car coming straight towards me at 100km an hour and we are going to crash in less than one second, I don’t know how I can apply all of the above such that I will not die in fear. But if I know that it is possible to remove fear in the space of one breath and am practiced at doing so, I can even now die with a clear mind having removed fear. (You didn’t answer my point about the two monks and where they go when they die, by the way, did you think it was irrelevant? I found it the most important question.) On the last point. “an act of letting go is already underlied by the very thing you are thinking you are letting go of. Namely: craving.” Why so? If a poisonous snake comes into your kuti, should you leave it there or throw it out? It’s obvious that you should remove it, but that has nothing to do with you being afraid of it or not, being uncomfortable in its presence or not. If one of your fellows gets infected with malaria, should he go to see a doctor to be cured of the disease or should he not resist the discomfort of malaria, not interfere with its manifestation and let it run its course? Malaria is unpleasant, sure. It’s also a deadly disease. The wise thing to do is to get rid of it - this has nothing to do with resisting the unpleasantness of it or acting out of craving. You don’t need to be acting out of fear or resistance to get rid of something that is dangerous, deadly and a cause of problems, even if you should ideally have protected yourself and not gone close to it to begin with. Removing the unwholesome state that has arisen is rooted in the understanding that it is unwholesome, that it leads away from wholesome states and into more unwholesome states, that it leads away from freedom from suffering and into more suffering, that that it is a problem -it has nothing to do with pleasant or unpleasant.