Young Monks' Celibacy

If you wish to support the monks of the Hillside Hermitage Sangha and this channel you are very welcome to do so via:
www.hillsidehermitage.org/sup...
____________________________________
AUDIO FILES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF OUR KZbin DHAMMA TALKS
t.me/HillsideHermitage
____________________________________
MORE TEACHINGS:
www.hillsidehermitage.org/tea...

[@HillsideHermitage]

How to live a life perfectly withdrawn from sensual cravings... ____________________________________ If you wish to support the monks of the Hillside Hermitage Sangha and this channel you are very welcome to do so via: www.hillsidehermitage.org/support-us ____________________________________ AUDIO FILES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF OUR KZbin DHAMMA TALKS t.me/HillsideHermitage ____________________________________ MORE TEACHINGS: www.hillsidehermitage.org/teachings

[@znrctrnn]

They are always getting to the nitty gritty. The most helpful teaching always delivered by Bhante.

[@googleuser9624]

Thanks for not shying away from this sensitive topic.

[@beyondthoughtoffical]

Grateful to recently find your channel and hermitage. Wonderful talks and teachings 🙏🏼

[@ameliamnicol]

Novelty is so difficult to understand, I'm glad this video talks about that specifically

[@hariharry391]

🙏

[@cariyaputta]

Skillful usage of perceptions. I have also heard about the cultivating of the perception of a skeleton - he sees himself and everyone as a skeleton.

[@sahassaransi_mw]

another question Bhante, unrelated to the content of this video but I not sure where else to post it?: As I had understood from a former video, I had in the past month been practicing keeping the virtue/precepts and bearing the pressure of wanting to break them instead of acting, and while my precepts and virtue were not under immediate risk, I would, "do the work", and contemplate the value of the precepts and why they are wholesome. however, after a certain difficult incident occurred recently, bc of doubt, I ended up breaking the virtue due to not seeing the value and importance of it. after reviewing what happened, seems that if my contemplation resulted in me seeing the value of precepts, the contents of the particular situation wouldnt matter or be relevant to whether or not I keep the virtue. I've been considering, the reason for my not seeing the value of virtue is that my contemplation was not leading me to seeing the true WHOLESOMENESS of it. Rather , I took the value of the precepts as being that they make you FEEL GOOD (aka, security, reputation, not having to feel unpleasantness of anger), which is why when I felt truly angry, and the pressure of the precepts FELT WORSE than the anger, I chose to break them (since my standard for Wholesome was already "feeling good"). sorry for my overly wordy and long question, but I guess it comes down to: What truly is Wholesome, if not what is pleasant? I guess it sounds stupid, but if happiness, generosity, faith, kindness didnt actually feel good, I doubt if I would do or want them.....

[@HillsideHermitage]

What is truly wholesome is what leads you out from dependence on pleasant and avoidance of unpleasant. Having said that, some things can still be pleasant AND help you out of that dependence as well. The pleasure of such things (wholesomeness, sense restraint, etc) is not of the same type like the pleasure of craving and sensuality, so you don't need to fear it or try to avoid it. Quite the opposite, use it to help you get established in virtue and generosity even further.

[@cariyaputta]

"however, after a certain difficult incident occurred recently, bc of doubt, I ended up breaking the virtue". The point of keeping the precepts is that you would successfully keep it under hard circumstances, isn't it? Or else, what is the point?

[@sahassaransi_mw]

​@@cariyaputta for someone who is certain of the value of the precepts, it would make sense to keep them no matter the content of the situation... difficult or not. but for me, since I had placed the value of the precepts on a level that was inherently subject to circumstance (aka pleasantness), my determination was not keeping the precepts regardless of circumstance, it was keeping the precepts so long/as so far in as I was convinced they protected me from unpleasant situations and emotions. Your comment does bring up the interesting point that perhaps in order to see the value of precepts, you would first have to determine to keep them no matter what, no?

[@VeritableVagabond]

Buddha said this pleasure should not be feared when entering the 1st jhana so you’re good bro bro

[@sahassaransi_mw]

@@HillsideHermitage @HillsideHermitage sadhu Bhante, thank you very much for this answer. 🙏 When i first read your comment I honestly felt that your definition as wholesome being - what leads you away from avoidance of unpleasant and dependence on pleasant - was far too simple to be right. But after much contemplation and trying to discern, I find that the very generality of your answer is exactly why this answer is so true, and pertains to what is wholesome in ALL circumstances, and why your answer is verifiable in my experience no matter WHICH experience it is. For ex; Often, I would find that my logical reasons for not acting out of anger (contemplated in a state of non-anger), would be seen as completely ILLOGICAL when I was in a state of anger, thus proving themselves null. But even DURING anger, what you stated seems visible and verifiable to me: that anger is something I am averse to, and that fundamental aversion to the unpleasant experience of anger is WHY I would act out thru body/speech (and even in proliferating thought) in anger in the first place (thus fueling my avoidance of unpleasant even more). This makes it much clearer why restraint and virtue are wholesome and why non restraint is unwholesome.

[@AlexKellyArtUK]

I hear the theme of ‘perverting the order’ often repeated in these discussions. Is that the orderliness of the Dhamma, causation, kamma-vipaka, dependent origination that you is being pointed to? For example when a contact is made at the eye lust may appear based on that contact. But DO points to lust already being latent present prior to that contact, intention in nama, intention in sankhara, unskillful intention in avijja. Because of inappropriate attention, not seeing in terms of what’s is skilful/unskillful not looking in the context of the four noble truths. In other words when looking you can ask what is doing the looking: is it lust looking, is it hatred looking? So guarding the sense doors wouldn’t necessarily mean not looking, but asking the appropriate question about what mental quality is doing looking.

[@samuelcharles7642]

🙏🏿

[@benfurman318]

Hello Venerable, I would like to ask for a clarification of terminology that I think would help me understand sense restraint and guarding the sense doors. When the Buddha was asked to give the training in brief he said something to the effect of, " Do good, abstain from evil, and purify the ( heart or mind? ) I've heard both, heart and mind. Also, I don't understand exactly what is meant by the citta. Is this the peripheral sign of the mind that we are to remember is always present? I think I may be trying to understand if we're training the mind or training the heart not to trust the mind? I know the phrasing is sloppy, sorry. Thank you for these teachings, they are very helpful.

[@HillsideHermitage]

1. It refers to purifying "citta" which is sometimes translated as "heart", sometimes "mind". 2. Think of citta as a background mood (good, bad or neutral) that your sense of Self always lingers around.

[@benfurman318]

@@HillsideHermitage Anumodana 🙏🙏🙏

[@thewisdomoption777]

I think most of people in the world would agree that there is a kind of "dark side" inherent in pleasures. Not directly visible, but looming somewhere. A destructive quality, like in a fire. But of course there skillful and unskillful.

[@292HaiHai]

Shadhu Shadhu Shadhu 🙏

[@AlexKellyArtUK]

Chanting and learning the 32 parts can be a good way to internalise them. Initially it might not have much of any effect on subduing lust. But over time one can’t help but start to develop the perception of ones own and other bodies as having these strange and unpleasant parts. This quite normal, verbal fabrication (thinking and talking)influences mental fabrication (perception and feeling), which influences bodily fabrication. So chanting/reciting rhe suttas in general when practiced often can be very effective in cultivating skilful tendencies.

[@sahassaransi_mw]

🙏🙏it almost seems like the householders questions are leading backwards , to the prerequisites for each former thing. A question for Bhante if I may: I have watched one of your very first videos on sense restraint, as well as this one, and I am still unclear as to the meaning of "signs and features"? "You see the "thing", but not the peripheral ideas", which made me think that these signs might be thoughts regarding that thing...but thoughts, relative to mind, are also sense objects or "things" in themselves, correct? I want to sense restrain more than just the precepts, but I am not quite sure how to go about "guarding the sense doors", and I'm not sure of the idea of simply watching or noting every single object of the senses is really restraint or just frenzied and distracted attention? thank you bhantes and forgive me if my questions are simple and ignorant, sadhu

[@HillsideHermitage]

Guarding the sense doors is done by recognizing the thoughts that are inclining you to look or go towards the objects of pleasure, BEFORE you actually act out and go that way. In other words, foreseeing and then preventing your senses from taking you there.

[@sahassaransi_mw]

​​@@HillsideHermitage thank you Bhante. if I may clarify my understanding with further questions: 1. Say I start wanting, desiring, inclining to wanting an ice cream, for ex. in this case, I should not go and eat the ice cream (not act), and endure that wanting of the ice cream on the mental level (thereby not getting "caught" in the "sign" of the thought of desire)? 2. Would it be possible to actually act on an intention or thought, without getting lost in the signs or features? Or in other words, I should not act when pressured by the thoughts of sensual desire, so when is it proper TO act? I guess why I ask is bc almost ALWAYS I act out of a certain desire... its almost impossible for me to think of acting without being pressured by wanting to do it, if that makes sense? 3. it seems to me from your explanation that guarding of the sense doors seems quite related with discerning the intentions (bc you would need to discern that you are being pressured by sensual thoughts)? Is this the correct way of viewing it? 4. forgive me, Bhante, if I misunderstand, but is this Guarding of the Sense doors on the mental level or on the level of the senses? To clarify: when I have the thought "I want ice cream", it is a conception and idea. But if I were to go and eat the ice cream, it is on the level of the sense of taste. But this being so, since I restrain and guard when I recognize the pressuring, inclining THOUGHT, isnt SENSE restraint actually MENTAL restraint, on the mental level? thank you so so much Bhante for your above reply, and sorry for troubling you with more questions . sadhu sadhu

[@HillsideHermitage]

1. Correct. Unless your intention to eat it is because you are genuinely hungry and there is nothing else more suitable that's available. In which case eat it mindfully with the original purpose (alleviating hunger) in mind, and don't lose the context on account of the pleasant taste. 2. Yes, it would be possible if intention or thought are not directed towards sensuality, ill will or distraction. When it's proper to act towards sensuality? Never. When you do, it will always be a compromise for which you have to take the full responsibility and accept the consequences. Thus, it is equally important to be clear with yourself and see how far do you REALLY want to go with the Dhamma practice. 3. Yes. 4. Always the mental level. Furthermore, senses "meet" in the mind, as the Suttas say. "Conception and idea" is a phenomenon that endures and gives the context and meaning to your senses and its objects. In simple terms: it is because thought/concept/idea "I-want-ice-cream" endures in your mind throughout, that you go and know what to look for (i.e. ice cream), take it with your hand, bring it to your mouth, eat it, etc. When you don't accept to act on account of the pressure that that thought/concept/idea exerts on you, you won't be going out and seeking things for sensual gratification.

[@sahassaransi_mw]

​​@@HillsideHermitage ​@Hillside Hermitage thank you so much Bhante for your answers! i will reflect on them more. Forgive me Bhante, but I just have one last question to clarify: Based on your answer to question 2. , Bhante, you replied that if the intention at question were not directed to sensual desire (as well as ill will and aversion), it would be okay to act out of that. But, my understanding of desire or sensual desire is: "wanting". And what I had meant (altho on my part I expressed it unclearly) , is that I don't see how I can INTEND to do a particular thing without WANTING do to it. therefore, according to my current understanding, it would actually be impossible do anything at all... which is just impossible in itself..... For ex: I WANT to drink water. If I act on that, would it be acting out of desire? Or are desire and sensual desire different two things? I guess my issues is: I'm actually not entirely sure what sensual desire even means (please forgive my stupidity)?? Is what is "desirous" determined by the particular OBJECT of sense (ex: water bottle or maybe something more obvious like ice cream or alcohol) ? Or is it determined by the MENTAL STATE (aka am I pushed to/wanting it)? How do I draw the line and know for myself EXACTLY what constitutes as desirous and what doesnt? im so sorry Bhante to trouble you with questions due to my slow grasping of things, but I think it must be due to my wrong grasping of things that has led to me being a bit...paralyzed....in acting or not in my daily life.

[@User3367al]

​​@@sahassaransi_mw These discussions also address the issues that you have brought up: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZSciYp_j5tnjcU kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2PCmqiDhtesraM

[@zorananda]

"...They'll be taking things that don't apply to you and thinking that they are practicing the Dhamma...why would you then look for how to practice the Dhamma, i.e. get the right view, when you already have a view that you are practicing the Dhamma by doing all these things that you read in the suttas..?...and there are so many of them....." It means that, before one has established the right view in regards to the body and its impurities, its permanent decay of health and hence the unownability of the body, one will not be able to develop dispassion for one's body and therefore will continue to be subjected to lust. As the Buddha states, sexual desire starts with the infatuation with the own body , (with the powerful and healthy aspect of ones own body, i suppose) and then only after one is infatuated with one's own body,one gets infatuated with the opposite bodily principle i.e. man-woman. Ajahns words (above)implicate that it would be futile to try to practice the vast array of Suttas without having established the right view in regards to the body. Which in turn means to have thoroughly reflected upon the ever changing nature of the body with the continuous deterioration of its organs and its senses , the unsatisfactory nature in regards to feelings which arises on account of the truthful reflection of impermanence and thus the conclusion of impossibility of ownership. So by having those rightful reflections on the first place, on the forefront of one's mind, so to say, one will not be able to get infatuated with lust towards one's own body and therefore will also not experience sights, smells, sounds, tastes and touches as lustful. And on the other hand, you will only be able to get infatuated with lust if your reflection on the body has not lead you to dispassion and the conclusion of impossibility of ownership in regards to the body. Am i concluding rightly?

[@k14michael]

Lust is lust. Just an emotion. Why make a big deal out of it? Why would it be disturbing to the mind unless you have the idea that the mind is not tranquil when it has wanton thoughts.

[@Lipinki.luzyckie]

It's not that hard to understand, some people just want to have nothing to do with it

[@sahassaransi_mw]

I think you are correct, but backwardly so.... what I mean is, lust is, by nature, at least according to my experience from my POV, disturbing. For the normal person, lust is "passionate, arousing", and these words are not used without reason. Lust literally stirs, presses, disturbs, rouses the mind to action. thats why everyone runs after satisfying their desires. Bc if, as you say, lust was experienced by the average puthujjana as NON DISTURBING, then why would one NEED TO ACT on account of it? You could just say and feel: "oh yeah, x is my greatest desire in the world, but it doesnt really matter to me and Im not gonna chase after it". Now, why I say I feel this is not wrong, but backwards is: For me, at least (and abstractly), what the GOAL (note: NOT the starting point) is IS the STATE IN WHICH lust is actually experienced (as you say) as JUST AN EMOTION. undisturbing.

[@cariyaputta]

"Why make a big deal out of it?" Are you totally celibate? If not, then you have no saying in this matter.

[@houmous942]

@@sahassaransi_mw but an emotion IS disturbing, that’s the very definition of an emotion.

[@sahassaransi_mw]

​@@houmous942 yes. Lust, as well as other emotions are disturbing. Which is exactly the opposite of what the original comment says. which is why I replied in that way.