Honestly, amazing video. Sometimes Samanadipa / Hillside Hermitage folks are too nuanced in their videos and it takes five rewatches to finally figure out most of the stuff they’re talking about. And I find that this was an amazing primer on source / womb attention and sampajanna, now I understand so much more. Very intuitive and clear. The co-host was very good too, I hope you can have more videos together (although I just realized that you already have more than 30!). Thank you!

@TheDhammaHub

21 күн бұрын

You are welcome!

The sense of self is challenged by two points - present memory and simultaneous attention. If there are two there cannot be one.

Excellent discussion. Thank you Flaus and Saif.🙏

Thanks!

Thank you folks 🙏

Question for Saif. Firstly, beautiful and precise description of clarifying awareness of the body as a basis for all experience, and the undermining of “self as a fetter” through that understanding. Late in the video you say that “whatever happens cannot touch you, because it’s not you who it is happening to.” Who or where is the “you” that you are referring to here? Secondly, my whole life I experienced an effortless cessation of craving whenever I was outside in nature. One day I had this clarifying insight like you described of the body being there on its own, not me or mine, but then the insight kept getting deeper, the context broader. I saw the body and nature as having no clear boundary. At what point did nature end and I begin? That distinction is impossible to discern in reality. It’s only a concept. So, my question is, why does clarifying the body as the basis/context stop there? Is the body an independent entity or an activity on a continuum? Why do doctors and neuroscientists still have craving when the body as a basis is so clear to them? And finally, Nietzsche would point out to you that your freedom from suffering as described here is just another form of Nihilism, denial of the world, what would you say to that? If you’re not embedded in this whole cosmos with no discernible boundary, then where are you? Apologies for the many questions. I see you as someone who can tackle them. Also, Flaus, feel free to offer your response.

@TheDhammaHub

2 ай бұрын

Since you asked Saif, I will let him answer for the most part xD But one ting that immediately comes up is the way you use "cessation of craving". The way you use it, it is momentary and conditional^^ It "ceases" for a time, only to come back when you are not in nature or when the conditions are no longer right. That however, is not the type of cessation of craving we are talking about at all. When we use the term, we use it as "cessation on the level of your entire _life_ and not just when circumstances are right^^ Once you have seen how craving works (as a breakthrough to the Dhamma), you stop it _forever_ - it is a _remainderless_ fading that does not lead to renewed arising in the future. A craving that only ceases in nature would not have ceased at all. If you see the body as something that is completly beyond you, impossible to control or own, in the past, present, and future and in all possible states of the aggregates, then you will stop _trying to_ and as such, craving becomes impossible (forever). What I see you describing in nature is a perception of non-duality which can be very freeing but falls short of the Dhamma. Many Eastern tradition say that it is not obejct/subject but "One" while the Dhamma states that there is not even "one" if that makes sense xD

@Mountain_Dhamma

2 ай бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub I referred to cessation of craving in nature as the original place when the insights began to arise on their own, not as my current experience. I’m still interested in Saif’s reply but what I’m trying to get at here is that this whole “seeing the body as a basis” and “freedom from suffering because it’s not happening to me” is not only incomplete and insufficient, it’s potentially moving in the wrong direction entirely. If you take the teaching on nonself as a metaphysical dwelling place, rather than as a minor perceptual tool for the same purpose as all the other teachings of the Buddha (a tool for the abandoning of craving) then that nonself teaching will lead to a growing alienation from life, which is precisely what the sense of self is in the first place. The sense of self that becomes a soul, an entity that stands apart from nature/reality, is a mental fabrication. Mentally alienating yourself from the body and nature is not a path to liberation, it’s a path to alienation and isolation, which depends on language and memory, which will degrade as you age anyway. This is why I keep saying again and again and again: the Buddha did not teach renunciation of life. He did not teach nonself as a truth. He taught the radical recognition of dukkha (to be fully understood), the abandonment of its origin (craving born of ignorance), and the realization of that cessation of craving and dukkha. The path then kicks in as an operating system to maintain that knowledge and vision, and liberation. This is all immediately effective, apparent here and now. There is no “leading to the end of suffering.” It ceases right here and now, and now, and now. Everything else without exception that the Buddha taught is a useful fiction, a perceptual tool (much like a raft one might say), for that purpose. Buddhism is purpose driven. Everything is for the purpose of cessation of craving because craving is “the builder of this house” aka “the world” which is not out there, it is the fabrication of sensation, perception, and cognition. But reality, nature, things as they actually are (“whatever you call it, it is always other than that”) tatatha, is always already ok, exactly as it is. That’s the point of cessation, where craving does not arise. Here, you don’t need to stand at a safe distance of disassociation, where things are not happening to you. You? Me? I? Me and mine? These are just the bubbles and foam of this whole cosmos, which is unknowable and already awake exactly as it is. Where is the path? Nowhere. It was all just a perceptual tool to lead us out of our dreams into reality where we always already are. Now the dream has ceased. We are ok here. The whole point of the Dhamma is to stop right here. To stop wanting things we don’t have. To be satisfied with things as they are. Breathe the fresh air and smile, laugh, or just relax. This is an island paradise, after all. It’s only that dream you were having last night (what was it about again?) that covered this all up.

@TheDhammaHub

2 ай бұрын

​@@Mountain_Dhamma The danger you are mentioning is not apparent to me and I frankly do not understand where it comes from xD We talk about the cessation of craving and renunciation all the time and mentioned in a good Hundred different ways that you renounce the world by giving up your mental dependence on it. Yet, you keep getting back to another interpretation of it that we supposedly use. And tbh, the Buddha taught us the renunciation of _even_ our dependence on life, health, wealth and ultimately the "all" in literally Hundreds of Suttas^^ If you practice rightly, you will understand quickly that literally nothing in the entire world is worth holding on to. Yet, that does not mean that you deny the world either. You just lose interest in it for the most part like you would discard an old toy as a child once you grow up. In one Sutta, the Buddha compared clinging with a child playing with feces. Once you outgrow it, it becomes disgusting. Ajahn Chah compard it with a pile of dung we keep crawling back to. The Buddha compared it with a Lepre burning his wounds and taking pleasure in it.Who would go back to that once healed? And why would the Buddha enyourage a "going forth" as a monk? The mindfulness of the body that Saif described is likely among the most frequent teachings of the Buddha that he described as the very foundation of the entire practice many times. Yet, you seem to view it as a basis for the development of conceit^^ I also do not understand where you get the idea from that the memory of non-self is a metaphysical dwelling place and to be honest, I do not even know what you mean by that xD All of this "remembering the body rightly" is a preparatory expercise for those who have not yet seen dependent origination for themselves or for those who yet have to polish it more to make it to arahantship. Once you have seen the Dhamma, you do not have to do anything to maintain for freedom. Every bit of craving you have seen through like that is permanently gone. That said, I am kinda puzzled what you are really debating here or why you keep bringing up those topics in multiple places again and again.

@Mountain_Dhamma

2 ай бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub it’s just the subtle difference between renouncing life and renouncing craving, which is where clinging arises from, that I’m pointing out. I don’t usually see that mistake in the way you and Saif talk about Dhamma, and honestly I still don’t. It was just the use of “you” in his description at the end that had me wondering. Because somewhere in there is a logical fallacy. If all is not me, then who or what is the “I” that is now unaffected. So my point here is that the “I” sense ceases with the cessation of craving (and clinging). And that does not leave a you who is free. It just leaves freedom. But I understand the constraints of language. As to why I keep bringing it up. These types of conversations help me process my own understanding, especially when put to intelligent and insightful people like you. So thank you and I hope I’m not being too irritating (though I know I am). I’ve said all I’ve needed to say on it.

@TheDhammaHub

2 ай бұрын

@@Mountain_Dhamma The entire chain of dependent origination is a condition statement... with ignorance there is _factually_ craving clinging, self and suffering. Without ignorance, there is none of that. With _some_ ignorance there is _some_ craving, clinging, self, and suffering. Every unenlightened person factually "has" a self that is born from ignorance and it vanished once its foundation is fully seen through. reality is neither really without self or really with self - thsoe are both two extremes that should be avoided. The Buddha never said there is _no_ self, he just repeated for every possible hiding place that "there too is no self to be found" if you read carefully^^ There is nothing wrong with using the term "I" as you teach for those people who still have it and not for those who are free already. Thinking that there is no self when you factually live with one will not liberate you at all. First you acknowledge it and then you dissect it bit by bit until there is no room for any of it any more. That too is one of the many methods explain in the suttas to overcome suffering. Yet, for as long as you are not an Arahant yet, there it _at least_ a "lingering aroma" of being/self. So why not speak about it? I am not irritated, I am just confused why you keep coming back to those topics... if I did not know any better, I would suspect that you are trolling - but thta might be because I am used to being around people in the past who were like that^^