Your feelings are not IN you. 

love it

The sixsense media comes from the form aggregate, that's why those reborn in the formless plane cannot hear the dhamma because they do not have a body. All they have is the mental aggregates. So the mental aggregates are not dependent on the form aggregate, if you can be reborn without a form aggregate. Also you can have cessation of perception (nirodha samapatti) and feeling (4th jhana) so the feeling aggregate are not dependent on anything either. That leaves us with consciousness and sankhara, and sankhara is just Volitional intention. You can also have form without consciousness which is one of the plane you can be reborn in. Checkout the 31 planes of existence

Because the former one frees a person from the three fundamental contradictions: lust, aversion and delusion.

Thank you. So, does this mean that seeing the body as already enduring is a skillful means towards ending the defilements, but even this view is to be eventually dropped?

Seeing the body as already enduring and un-ownable is the Right view that, if fully developed, leads to complete liberation. Then, even that view, as correct as it is, becomes redundant and dropped. That's why the Suttas say that an arahant has "gone beyond the views" altogether.

Yes and no. The body is not our perception, but there is no notion of the body in itself without the perception. Attention is the result of the six senses, but senses cannot be known by themselves without attending to them.

You can't observe your feeling. You can only feel it.

@@yunshen You can definitely observe your own emotions. Yes, this then tends to remove the association of oneself with a given emotion, which causes the emotion to dwindle fairly quickly since it can't grasp onto anything. But you can still see the whole process, it's not instantaneous. What did you mean by feeling?

The answer to this question would be greatly appreciated. :)

It's the two Suttas actually, AN 11:9 and MN 50. The same verbs are used in both, while the latter one adds the comparisons to animals that hunt, that people abused monks with.

@@HillsideHermitage Most appreciative, Bhante!

@@HillsideHermitage Bhante, the statements about meditation given in MN 50 were uttered by householders who were under the influence of Mara Dusi, not by the Buddha. I do believe your point about meditation is correct, and that it is supported by the suttas, but the fact that that particular simile was inspired by Mara, not the Buddha, may cause those who know its source some doubt as to whether the point is true, as it did for me at first. With much gratitude for your teaching

@@glircom it is not that it was inspired by Māra... please have some inference skills. Māra influenced the householder to criticise the Buddha and Sangha against their known standards (i.e. saying that they are not practicing what they preach). MN 50 makes it even clearer that it is what the Buddha taught

To me it was the opposite: this talk finally made me understand a lot of the things Bhante says in other videos. I'll try to relay my understanding with your permission. Basically, the "usual" order to investigate one's body/emotions/mind/objects of mind is from an external perspective: here is my body, I can observe it, it's breathing like this and I'm observing - because breath is impermanent I can see that I'm not my breath since there's nothing "solid", stable in it, that could form an unchanging self / personality / "soul". Likewise, here are my emotions, I can observe them, I'm feeling this and that emotion; I see that they are impermanent, they come and go so they can't be *me* since they're fleeting, not stable or solid, do not form an unchanging self / personality / "soul". Etc. Supposedly this is how you gradually understand, at the physical level, that there's nothing solid for you to hold onto and this will gradually remove more and more things based upon which you build your sense of "self" until there's nothing left, at which point in time you will supposedly feel an immense and permanent relief as nothing can disturb you anymore. I think what Bhante means here is that, in fact, to weaken and, eventually, eradicate an unskillful sense of self, which is prone to suffering, you should do the opposite and be more analytical rather than hyper focusing and losing sight of the large picture. So, you acknowledge: this is the body, yes it breathes this or that way, but it *always* breathes as long as I'm alive and at any given point in time there is some form of breathing going on and I can only observe it BECAUSE it already exists. I would not be able to observe anything if this breath would not be there. These are my mental states. Yes, moods can change, but there's SOME mood at any point in time, always. Because there is always a mood, and it's a constant, I can observe it (or anything else really). If I had NO mood at all, I would not be able to observe anything (or even function). Etc. Why does he suggest doing it this way? I believe it is because then you begin to physically understand that whatever you think is your self (say, your attention, cognition, etc.) is always based on something and that something just exists whether you want it or not. You have no control over its permanence (*endurance* in Bhante's words). "You" cannot force it to not exist. There is always some combination of physical and mental states present at any given time. So you begin to have a guttural, physical knowledge of the fact that your attention, cognition and mental functions are a *product* of some constant prerequisites whose existence you cannot change. Therefore, your sense of self is derived from these prerequisites and depends on them - therefore it is intrinsically impermanent, secondary to something else (body & feeling & mind & objects of mind), out of your control. If you were to do it the "usual" way, what happens is you subliminally hold onto the idea that you are whatever is observing all these impermanent and transcending aspects. And this sublime sense of self separates itself from all these elements as if they were unimportant to it. Where with Bhante's approach this very sense of self realizes: "Oh, I am a product of things I have zero control over. I appear and disappear depending on them, they control me. I don't, therefore, own any of that. Neither the body, nor emotions, not even any mental states". Imagine your cognition / attention is a software program that, among other things, monitors the state of things in your PC (memory used and processor load, hard disc space, etc., etc.) so this software program "knows" about the computer hardware it runs on. And at some point it understands: I am a product of this central processor, this memory card, these transistors, this operating system decoding signals from the transistors and running "me". I am not in charge of any of these aspects, but they form the basis of my existence. I only work because all these components exist and work at all time. Can I say I am or I own any of these then? Is there anything stable, permanent, transcending about me now that I know this?

Good to see you are sharing Dhamma, the sublime Dhamma, the gift of Dhamma excels all gifts. Dhammapada - verse 364 is a wonderful inspiration .. _The monk who abides in the Dhamma, delights in the Dhamma, meditates on the Dhamma, and bears the Dhamma well in mind - he does not fall away from the sublime Dhamma._ With Metta 🙏🙏🙏

Yes certainly friend that is an inspiring verse, truly there is no taste that surpasses the Dhamma. With Metta 🙏🙏🙏😊

love to learn more about the Dhamma