You Don't Need To Say NO To Everything 

So thank you Hillside Bhikkhus for following this example: AN 2.46 Ukkacita Sutta: Bombast "Monks, there are these two assemblies. Which two? The assembly trained in bombast and not in cross-questioning, and the assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast. "And which is the assembly trained in bombast and not in cross-questioning? "There is the case where in any assembly when the discourses of the Tathagata - deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness - are recited, the monks don't listen, don't lend ear, don't set their hearts on knowing them; don't regard them as worth grasping or mastering. But when discourses that are literary works - the works of poets, artful in sound, artful in expression, the work of outsiders, words of disciples - are recited, they listen, they lend ear, they set their hearts on knowing them; they regard them as worth grasping & mastering. Yet when they have mastered that Dhamma, they don't cross-question one another about it, don't dissect: 'How is this? What is the meaning of this?' They don't make open what isn't open, don't make plain what isn't plain, don't dispel doubt on its various doubtful points. This is called an assembly trained in bombast, not in cross-questioning. "And which is the assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast? "There is the case where in any assembly when discourses that are literary works - the works of poets, artful in sound, artful in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples - are recited, the monks don't listen, don't lend ear, don't set their hearts on knowing them; don't regard them as worth grasping or mastering. But when the discourses of the Tathagata - deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness - are recited, they listen, they lend ear, they set their hearts on knowing them; they regard them as worth grasping & mastering. And when they have mastered that Dhamma, they cross-question one another about it and dissect it: 'How is this? What is the meaning of this?' They make open what isn't open, make plain what isn't plain, dispel doubt on its various doubtful points. This is called an assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast.

most practical explanation given about intention, Thankyou Bhante... much appreaciate!

This was extremely informative and helpful, thank you.

Thank you venerable sirs.

Rāhulovāda Sutta: Reflect before, after and while performing your actions.

🙏

Dear Bhante, Would you please consider a talk on thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty; but in particular about the happiness of renunciation? The sublime Dhamma. May beings, human & non-human, listen to it, delight in it, be inspired & practice in accordance. With Metta Raymond 🙏🙏🙏

It's on the level of perception and intention that we spin a story that what we are experiencing is not really what it is, but putting things in the proper order makes it impossible to confuse again.

Much Appreciated Venerable Sirs !

Wow sadu nice view .🙏🙏🙏

For the summarised transcript: t.me/HillsideHermitage/84

Here is the discussion in writing: docs.google.com/document/d/1FCbrdpZZKXKRqvo88F43zRWVMbFGZ68MhUO6XrhIu14/edit?usp=sharing

26:25 on knowing intent for right view/

If you are going to contemplate and question whatever you are doing its like growing and watering a tree. That tree would then serve as mechanism with dealing with life. The problem is that since perception and circumstance is unstable that kind of tree can not be grown to the effect of actually being able to deal with everything.

Ajahn🙏🏽 may I ask, if something is being done with the intent of comfort, is that not body sense pleasure?

And all of the satipatthāna instructions make it clear that our experience is not obscure in reflexion. We know a lustful mind as a lustful mind and a hateful mind as a hateful mind. The delusion comes from attempts to excuse these feelings / moods because they are "justified by your circumstance". They are not.