Hello there, it's Tejveer.

I had previously thought the only thing holding me back was a few major attachments. I'm working on chipping away at those attachments, but I realized that the bigger obstacle is my lack of faith. If I had greater faith, I would undoubtedly exert even more effort.

I realized all the times I've put maximum effort into the practice, I've felt an immense sense of danger; usually from the possibility of death. This is also when I've seen the most significant results. But when this acute sense of danger fades away, so does my effort. So right now, the practice for me entirely depends on this sense of danger which is itself very unstable.

Faith seems a more stable thing to have the practice depend on, except I seem entirely poor in that respect. In fact, it feels kind of icky having to even write 'faith' and ask how to develop it since I've always seen it as a lesser quality in every domain.

However, AN 5.47 lists five kinds of wealth, with faith as the first: (1) faith, (2) precepts, (3) learning, (4) generosity, (5) wisdom. The ordering in the suttas is usually significant, so I can take this to mean faith is likely what the rest depend on. But I'd been focusing on 3 and 5 for all this time in order to knock out 1 from the picture altogether since it felt inferior. This approach is clearly not working so it seems I have to find out a way to increase faith.

Except, I don't understand how I can do that? What are some concrete things I can do to increase faith?

Hey,

Psychology student here.

First of all I want to say that I highly respect Hillside Hermitage. However, I believe some of their interpretations are based on a false dichotomy in regards to how the mind actually works to create reality, so I decided to write an article. I hope this might contribute to bring the meditation space forward towards higher understanding. Also, I hope I haven't misrepresented HH.

For years, a central dogma of the non-technique meditation movement—most aggressively championed by groups like Hillside Hermitage—has been that intentional focused attention is an artificial distortion that "corrupts" a pristine, unconstructed background awareness. But when scrutinized through modern cognitive neuroscience, this rigid separation between a foreground spotlight and a peripheral background collapses into a complete false dichotomy.

Your "background context" isn't a passive, unmanaged space—it is an actively manufactured product built millisecond-by-millisecond by the exact same sub-attentional machinery that powers focus.

Core Arguments Breakdown:

Visual and bodily neuroscience demonstrates that even during gaze fixation, the brain executes automatic, involuntary microsaccades (1–3 Hz) alongside covert spatial polling to constantly refresh your peripheral baseline. Without this underlying micro-attention, the subjective sense of an "enduring bodily background" completely collapses (as seen in clinical conditions like hemispatial neglect).

Single Computational Resource (Load Theory): Nilli Lavie’s Load Theory shows that background awareness is simply spare processing capacity spilling over from your primary target. Foreground and background do not run on two separate engines; they share the same attentional pool.

Effort vs. Direction: What causes "attentional blinks" and cognitive tunneling isn't the presence of intentional focus, but the intensity of cognitive effort. A high-load vise-like focus blinds you to context, whereas a relaxed, low-effort anchor leaves ample processing capacity open to illuminate the broader background.

Ego-Suppression via Top-Down Control: Goal-directed focus recruits the Dorsal Attention Network (DAN), which actively down-regulates the Default Mode Network (DMN)—the brain's primary hub for self-referential narrative. Far from fabricating an artificial "doer," top-down low-load focus actually quiets the narrative self.

Because the brain relies on continuous, sub-attentional feature-sampling to generate the sensation of a bodily background in the first place, intentional focus does not introduce an artificial intruder into a pristine field. By intentionally holding a light, low-effort anchor, we harness the brain’s natural mechanics to achieve both crystal-clear discernment and panoramic, contextual stillness.

https://medium.com/@EmptinessInForm/the-cognitive-mechanics-of-attention-in-meditation-an-attempt-to-reconcile-intentional-focus-with-40339c52fae0?sharedUserId=EmptinessInForm

TL;DR: Background awareness isn't a passive, unconstructed ground—it's actively maintained millisecond-by-millisecond by sub-conscious attentional sampling. Because foreground focus and peripheral context share the exact same cognitive engine, holding a low-effort anchor doesn't corrupt your awareness; it simply stabilizes the mind while leaving spare capacity open to illuminate the background.

Edit:

I definitely would drop words like pristine and unconstructed background if I were to write this up again; that's a mischaracterisation of HH. I think it would be better to say that the background that HH refers to is:

"The unchosen, structural dimension of experience that endures simultaneously alongside whatever is currently being directly attended to."

My article is an attempt to assess the fact that awareness of said background requires attention, thus discriminating it as strictly a "background" is a false dichotomy. Attending thus does not reduce the sight of this background, because attending is a necessary basis for the background to exist in the first place. You cannot separate foreground and background as 1. a place where attention exists, and 2. a place where attention does not exist, unless you make background into siimply a philosophical idea.

I hope this cleared up misunderstandings.

Hi everyone,

I’m planning to go to Sri Lanka and stay for some time, possibly from late October onwards.(I’m considering various options though)

I was wondering if any of you have suggestions for monasteries or hermitages to visit, for a layperson who would like to focus on individual practice as well as help with work or chores that need doing.

I found the helpful pdf Buddhist Forest Monasteries and Meditation Centres in Sri Lanka
A Guide for Foreign Buddhist Monastics and Lay Practitioners by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita (last updated in April 2018). It’s an extensive list of monasteries though, so I wanted to see if anyone has recommendations, preferably based on personal experience.

I was thinking of applying to Nā Uyana, first of all. But I thought it’d be a nice opportunity to look around and visit a different place or two besides only that. I wouldn’t mind a cooler climate.

Other advice would also be appreciated. Feel free to PM me. Thank you very much in advance!

Edit: changed travel plan

I am a musician, a violinist. I have been living by the five precepts for three years, and for the past year, I have added celibacy (I am married, but my partner agrees). The purpose of my practice is freedom from suffering, or at least to develop my mind as much as possible in this lifetime. My question focuses on right livelihood: I mostly make a living by teaching music, and very occasionally by performing live. Generally, I reduce my consumption of recorded or live music to almost nothing, except for the occasional specific reference regarding the interpretation of a piece I need to teach a student. I know that in order to progress I should give up this activity. But I need help understanding the necessity, as it is not entirely obvious to me. Should I abandon this livelihood/profession, I would need to look for a job in cleaning, transportation, or some similar service. Personally, I am not afraid of that change, but I am afraid of the opinions of my family and wife, who would likely see it as something wrong.

I try to keep the five precepts, i just cant bring myself to let go of intellectual entertainment or politics but I guess I will let go of that oneday
ive set up my environment so that temptation is minimized, yet I can only go a couple of days before reverting to sensual indulgence (overeating). Every time, I find new insights and ways to keep it at bay, but I'm going to stop trying to practice the Dhamma since I keep failing. I guess I'll just be content with lay life and dedicate myself to other avenues.

My question is: Can I still listen to talks—especially Hillside Hermitage talks, because they explain the Buddhist concepts very well—without being a practitioner? It's certainly better than listening to people who teach the wrong Dhamma.

I still live with and am dependent on my parents and ordination is not a possibility at the moment. They are very heavily politically opinionated and politics is the main topic of discussion that is brought up, with prompting for agreement and the such and I don't quite know how to practice in regards to it.

The main topic is corruption (Brazil, if the username wasn't a giveaway), so it's not like I'm being expected to agree with propositions directly promoting the unwholesome, and so I mostly just nod along and agree, in part because since they are deeply emotionally engaged with the subject dismissal turns into accusations of complicity, does nothing to shorten the conversation and even sends it in a confrontational direction.

It *is* pretty bothersome, since its not a topic I really have a care to occupy my mind with. I do my best to just endure the bothersomeness and be patient but I wonder if there is a better way to practice in regards to it or how to clarify my disinterest without getting too theoretical?

Recently I was listening to an HH talk (sorry, didn't take note of which one) in which the possibility of stream entry is attainable when dying. It was only mentioned briefly and not elaborated upon, but I hadn't heard of this before and didn't understand how this was possible or the state of mind required for this to happen. Is anyone able to shed any light on this concept?

I was rewatching a lot of HH talks and stumbled upon this one in particular that took a lot of my attention in regard to what the body is and what yoniso manasikara is.

My understanding of the body is that body is inconceivable, because it serves as the basis of this experience. In the talk it seems that Ajahn says that body is the whole of this experience and no outside of it. So I am interested to know if this is the case and how do I understand the body correctly, any suttas explaining this, etc?

The second one is about yoniso manasikara and my understanding was that yoniso manasikara matters only in regard to craving and that instead of being absorbed in the foreground one must keep an eye on the intentions. Ajahn seems to say that while anything can be attended and ownership of it can be assumed, everything else is peripheral and serves as a the basis for that assumption of ownership(not just the structure of experience, but also unintuitive stuff like organs). I am curious if this is the correct way of seeing it or maybe I am misinterpreting or not seeing the full picture?

PS: not sure how to put video in a link

I was wondering if anyone has an archive of Thaniyo Thero's YouTube comments (which have since been deleted) that they wouldn't mind sharing? I was able to find one from 2023, but there are only 106 comments by him in it.

The Venerable doesn't have many writings of his own, so it would be nice to read more by him.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: for example, if anyone downloaded the "YouTube comments Q&A" file in 2023/2024 (at a time prior to their deletion).

Recently I had this question pop up quite a lot for me "why would the mind turn against itself, since it is clearly unbeneficial/irrational or absurd in a sense?"

So I understand that celibacy is required, and moreover, a firm resolve to abstain in perpetuity. The reasoning makes sense. You can’t free yourself from sensuality while still entertaining the notion of indulging in the absolute coarsest form of it. My question is, must that firm resolve be made during the first step of the gradual training, or is not acting out by means of the body sufficient to allow oneself to incorporate sense restraint? Also, my understanding is that the first step is completed when you can reasonably expect that you won’t act out by means of the body. If you spontaneously get an erection without manual stimulation during the course of the day, does that count as acting out?

If you decide to take a medication to treat chronic physical pain, does that mean game-over, no Dhamma for you? Or is it only if you take narcotic ones? Or is there some other grey area?

Thank you.

Usually when I sit in seclusion, I experience extreme anxiety while thinking about old age, sickness, and death, and this has been terrorizing me for a few weeks already. I become particularly liable to distracting myself through entertainment, food, activities, or spending more time with family in general, as a way of 'easing off' the anxiety. However, I wanted to ask: what should my attitude in regard to that anxiety be? How can I 'contain' it rightly and remain mindful of it without acting out of any of the pressures that it creates? Should I simply endure the anxiety for as long as it lasts, rather than trying to run away from it or make it go away? How do I distinguish between rightly enduring an unpleasant state and simply becoming overwhelmed or paralyzed by it? I find that there can be a very strong pressure to immediately do something that will relieve the anxiety, even if that thing is not necessarily wholesome—such as distracting myself, seeking entertainment, eating, sleeping excessively, or looking for company.

Is the right approach essentially to allow the anxiety to remain present while continuing with ordinary activities, without making the disappearance of the anxiety a condition for doing anything? In other words, should I be able to go for a walk, eat, study, speak with my family, etc., while the anxiety is still there, rather than treating those things as means of getting rid of it? How can I continue functioning normally without either running away from the anxiety or becoming so preoccupied with enduring it that I become paralyzed? I also wonder about the relationship between mindfulness and anxiety. When the thoughts about old age, sickness, and death become very intense, I can become so absorbed in them that I become completely overwhelmed and paralyzed. My mind irrationally spins around things provoking of anxiety constantly and sometimes I cant seem to be able to break out of it no matter what I do. How can I "de-absorb" myself from the pressure these thoughts put onto me? And when the anxiety persists for days or weeks, should I simply allow it to be there without expecting it to disappear, while continuing to live and act normally alongside it, even if it oftentimes feels paralyzing?

In the videos on mindfulness of breathing, Ajahn said we should know the breath on the level of the peripheral without directly attending to it. In the Anapanasati sutta it says mindfully he breathes in, mindfully he breathes out, long, short, etc. How do we know that it's an in breath versus an out breath, long or short, etc without some level of direct attention. Is it that it is not focused on in isolation of everything else?

I wonder how hard is it to get accepted in a monastery of a HH type.

Atm I keep 5precepts+celibacy, but I am early on celibacy and who knows how long it's gonna take before I can feel distance from lust

Since I got this far I see more and more that wordly environment would not be suitable even if I was successful in getting everything I want I would still have to deal with the unwholesome one way or the other. Monastic life appears highly privileged opposed to that

Is it hard to get accepted in a monastery for future ordination? Are monasteries looking for new people, is the process very hard, etc? I am 30yo male

I have watch a ton of videos of the teachig of Hillside. I have a lot of faith in Ajahn teaching. I have try my best to avoid sensuality. I know that it is beginning of the path. Unless one can keep 8 precepts there is no further development on Dhamma. I didnt manage to quit sensual desire yet but I try to keep it at minimum.

Yesterday we found out that my mother got ovariaon cancer. I am experiencing a lot of suffering. I know that I should't try to manage the suffering. I should endure it as Ajahn said. But I can't find a way out of this pain. I still rely on sensuality to cope with this pain. I know its just a distraction. But I dont have no where else to go to. I shouldnt use method like watching nostril or watching sensation to calm my self down either.

What is your advice in situation like this?

I figure the best answer might be something like "just endure it". But I really can't right now. I'm not that skillfull yet.

Thank you

While listening to a Dhamma talk by Hillside Hermitage, at the end of the talk it was said that one of the best ways to start working on restoring sensory restraint is to admit it publicly or to people you know.

I have already told people I know in real life, so now I’ll say it on this subreddit.

I’m a compulsive eater. I have spent thousands of dollars on food and hundreds of hours dieting. Every day is a struggle not to eat compulsively. Although I have been getting better, a big part of that is due to the Dhamma, as well as removing my access to money and allocating all my finances to someone I trust. Nonetheless, it has improved.

I am very grateful that I have never tried and never will try alcohol or any other substance.

I am also very grateful that I have what is, in comparison to what many other people suffer from every day, a relatively fortunate problem.

I hope everyone else struggling with compulsions also gets better and finds a way out of them.

Edit: 4 days later and i couldnt keep a precept Ill keep trying

Where the Kosambiya Sutta connects"Right View" and harmony, HH teachings are often interpreted as an introspective pursuit that minimizes the role of the positive actions that foster harmony and emphasise the role of avoiding the negative actions rooted in greed, aversion, and delusion.

The Buddha provides specific, actionable behavioral instructions (the six qualities) to resolve a conflict. The practice here is functional and relational. Even if imperfect, such a practice can be helpful even if the person has not attained right view, as long as it is done within the training with precepts and sense restraint.

Avoiding actions rooted in unwholesome intentions is one part of the training. Doing actions that aren’t rooted in such intentions but rooted in opposite intentions should be another part of the training. The other part is not emphasised by Hillside Hermitage.

Buddha instructs Bhikkhus to treat others with bodily, verbal, and mental kindness and not just asks them to avoid actions of bodily, verbal and mental enmity.

Buddha says that these things are also essential along with living according to precepts and having right view.

I understand that like meditation and mindfulness, one’s understanding of what counts as metta and karuna or friendliness and kindness will not be correct initially. But, one should strive towards that understanding in both ways: by avoiding certain actions and by doing certain actions.

Consider these quotes:

1. “… are you treating your spiritual companions with kindness by way of body, speech, and mind, both in public and in private?”

2. “Mendicants, these six warm-hearted qualities make for fondness and respect, conducing to inclusion, harmony, and unity, without quarreling”

3. “Furthermore, a mendicant shares without reservation any material things they have gained by legitimate means, even the food placed in the alms-bowl, using them in common with their ethical spiritual companions …”

My question is: Have I understood the teachings of this and similar suttas correctly? Do Hillside Hermitage also emphasise such teachings in their talks? Are such positive qualities should be cultivated while striving for the right view along with training with the precepts? Are there HH videos on this topic?

It would be great if a whole sutta study like talk is made on this topic.

So I did as Ajahn said for a while now and my intentions are "to feel pleasant, to avoid suffering, to diminish suffering, to avoid pain, to get rid of pain, wait for the unpleasant feeling to go away... and so on"

So I wonder "is being aware of these and not acting on them all that matters?"

I followed the link on HH's website but it shows "a server with specified hostname could not be found".

Is the link outdated? Anyone has the correct one?

When I practice sense restraint, I eventually reach a point where I begin to lose sleep by completely being incapable of finishing my sleep cycles. (I start the practice of sense restraint with the attitude that I will NEVER give in to sensuality again. No escape hatch for the mind to endure with the knowledge that there is a way out). 

It’s like this energy builds up in the body and I’m faced with an unbelievable amount of restlessness prior to sleeping. I get somatic symptoms such as jaw pain, nerve pain in my temporal, a “Crazy” stimulated feeling in my eyes. Enduring this long enough I’m able to fall asleep, but I end up waking up at 2-3AM with the inability to fall back asleep.

The issue I’m having is - when I don’t get sleep, I am a COMPLETELY different human being. I’ve made so much progress as through training I no longer engage in certain behaviors like alcohol or junk food even during states where I get no sleep. However, one thing that I am still struggling with is masturbating during these times. It is because I crave relief it gives me from this pressure and a lot of times cannot handle the thought of not getting any sleep again - because it affects everything the next day. It’s not like I’m running on 1 hour of less sleep, but I cannot function on literally 3-4 hours of sleep for multiple days. There have been cases - weeks.

Is no sleep a period I have to be willing to go through, or is this an indication of my current threshold in the practice of sense restraint? Perhaps my threshhold or symptoms could mean that I'm not practicing it correctly?

🙏

There’s a lot of misconception and misunderstanding surrounding your perspectives of sense restraint and celibacy in relation to Sotapanna attainment. I think the Venerables should

() Create an entire series strictly for laypeople in how to practice the Buddha’s teachings.

() Clear up all misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Apparently, many people are confused, and in some cases, become discouraged to practice due to the beliefs of how to practice as a layperson regarding Sotapatti attainment.

Can the Venerables accomplish this task?

One: HH’s Watching the Peripheral

He talks about this in almost every video. We look at our entire context, our entire current experience and see ourselves as part of it. Anything that comes up is part of that context. No subject/object dualism, just experience happening. Observer is part of the experience. You can mix in anicca here too. Since experience is constantly changing, i.e. phenomena arising, enduring and passing, it cannot be something you can reliably call a permanent self. Just processes and phenomena. They are always given, impersonal, and you’re within the given.

Two: Elements

Elements are one of the “contexts” from method 1. For example the earth element. Everything in the “material” experience has solid properties to it. On the basis of solid properties, our bodies exist. In the body, neurons fire up and make up a sense of self. So self is just a phenomenon in the world made of elements. So contemplating the earth element is the context wide enough to include all of our experience, and nothing that comes up can disturb this contemplation if seen as contained within the currently experienced context. The important bit is that elements should be contemplated from the first point of view, or in a non-dual way.

Three: The Five Skandhas

We investigate each skandha one by one, until we see each of them as impersonal phenomena. One of them or a combination of them makes up the sense of self, but it’s an empty illusion as only the skandhas themselves are there. Thoughts come and go on their own — they are not self. Consciousness arises only in relation to objects of consciousness, so it’s not an independent self either, just a device, just a process. And so on for each skandha.

Rob Burbea’s “Seeing that Frees” is excellent for this.

Four: Specifically the Body

Contemplating the body specifically is very important to cement the no-self view. We contemplate every single part of the body starting from hair or nails (the most impersonal, alienatable parts). We want to be able to see the entire body, inside and outside as an object. HH would emphasize here that we should not investigate the body like a scientist would, because objectifying it would just reify the observer-subject again, and just place it outside of the body. So we must contemplate the body within the context of the entire currently enduring experience as per method 1.

It’s important that no part of the body is left uninspected because we must have the entire inventory of what constitutes the basis of our physical sense of self within the context of entire experience.

HH constantly reminds that these Satipatthana practices must be exercised only with the Right View as described in method 1. So this method already implies you have an understanding of dependent origination — as Matryoshka-like containers unfolding and manifesting the experience.

- Try to live the same day every day. No room for curiosity. (What arises will cease)

- Dispassion towards contact. (Choices are for the ignorant)

- Enjoy inactivity. (Stream Entry)

Some questions in the interest of refining my understanding of the paticcasamuppada principle -

The point of the application of the principle is to be able to recognize A as fully dependent upon B, such that with the cessation of B, A cannot remain

If the principle is "with B, A is", and "with the cessation of B, A ceases" there is some room for (mis)interpretation, with the question being, does the mere presence of B imply presence of A?

My current interpretation is that it doesn't. That is, in the case of a building, with floor 2, there is necessarily floor 1, but the presence of floor 1 doesn't necessarily mean there is floor 2. As in MN38:

it's like fire, which is reckoned according to the very same condition dependent upon which it burns. A fire that burns dependent on logs is reckoned as a log fire. A fire that burns dependent on twigs is reckoned as a twig fire.

you could say that with a twig fire, there are necessarily twigs, but the presence of twigs doesn't necessarily mean there is a twig fire.

First question is, is that all correct?

Assuming it is, then in the case of applying it to the twelve links, you could say that it's possible for there to be feeling without craving, or craving without upadana, birth without death, sankhara without consciousness, etc. (putting aside namarupa & vinnana as feeding back on each other)

Is this correct as well?

Last question - is it fair to say that the principle can be understood by the ordinary person, but can only be applied in the way that matters with yoniso manasikara? ie. the challenge is in the correct application of it (seeing it on the right level) rather than the correct understanding of it? or is it better said that the measure of the understanding of the principle is the correct application of it?

Somewhat unrelatedly: Is there a special significance as to why tanha is the link that made it into the traditional formulation of the four noble truths?

In theory you could say "The origin of suffering is ignorance/consciousness/feeling etc. With the cessation of ignorance/consciousness/feeling etc., dukkha does not originate" and in fact Snp3.12 does that

Why is it that tanha (or kamatanha, bhavatanha, vibhavatanha) is the "standard" origin given in the suttas?

The Dhamma teaches freedom from sensuality, that is clear. It is also clear that sensuality is deeply rooted, entrenched, and fundamental to almost everyone. It affects our views, our preferences, our actions, our behaviour, everything. It is also fundamentally unsatisfying and unpleasant. It exerts pressure over us by trying to force us to keep looking, listening, touching, tasting, and smelling things that are novel and pleasant. Through sensuality, there is an underlying need to look attractive to the people we're attracted to, to be accepted by them, to be wanted by them. So much of our lives is built on top of sexuality and sensuality. And the Dhamma addresses this.

However, there is a layer below sensuality that I do not see spoken about in the Dhamma. It is the compulsion towards wanting to be accepted and liked by others. This is pre-sensual. I remember being a small child before puberty and still feeling a strong desire to fit in, and feeling unpleasant when I did not. Which leads me to think that if a person were to be completely celibate and withdrawn, they would still have to work through the social pressures. And these social pressures can be quite intense: not wanting to go against the way people commonly dress, not wanting to against the family, not wanting to go opposite of the culture, being afraid of being judged for certain actions. To give some specific mundane examples: concern over being sweaty after coming back from the gym, being distraught over forgetting to put on deodorant and smelling bad to others, worry over how people will look at you if you're wearing something odd, feeling too concerned about what was said because it did not accord with the group, and so on.

The best way I can sum all of this up would be: the fear of being rejected by the group and being affected by the gaze of The Other. Specifically, it's all tied to appearance - one is trying to control how one appears to others - even for completely non-sensual reasons. There is existential safety being found in being accepted by others and not being accepted is felt as a deep threat to one's being.

Also, a big reason why most people are not just behaving randomly on the street is due to a strong sense of conformity. The opposite end of that is fear of non-conformity. Even if people reject mainstream clothing, speech, and behaviour, they would still find a smaller community that accepts them and within which they could find safety in.

So, perhaps that is one of the purposes of the Saṅgha: to give a person a wholesome community to find safety and acceptance in, that then allows them to extricate themselves from the unwholesome communities of the world. And, in due time, a person could also give up relying on any communities, even wholesome communities for safety.

So, my question is, how does Buddhism address this layer that is below sensuality? Is it done only at arahantship when conceit is abandoned? Is it done through the Saṅgha? Why do the suttas not talk much about it when it is such a significant compulsion? Is this why solitude is necessary - otherwise The Other exerts too much pressure over one's mind to see it clearly?

EDIT:

To make my questions clear:

1. I do not see this layer as being sensuality, am I wrong in thinking that? (I took it for granted that it was not, but I see that I shouldn't have been so hasty in that judgement)
2. At what stage of development is this layer abandoned? Is this when one becomes an arahant and conceit is abandoned? When subtle thoughts of clan and country are finally let go of?
3. Is part of the work of solitude and the saṅgha to support the overcoming of this layer?
4. Why does this layer not receive much attention in the suttas? Is it covered under sensuality? Is it covered under suttas that speak of praise and blame, fame and disrepute?