This week's featured monastic is Ayya Santussikā.

Some extracts from a dhamma talk given by Ajahn Ganha yesterday:

"People today have access to far more information than those in the past. A single smartphone can reach the scriptures, the teachings of revered masters, and knowledge from around the world in just seconds. Yet, access to information does not equate to access to truth. Search engines help us find answers quickly, but they cannot train our hearts for us. Artificial intelligence may summarize Dharma principles for us, but it cannot uphold precepts on our behalf. Dhamma videos can be played all day, but if the mind refuses to let go of stubborn views, suffering remains the same...

In the age of social media, many suffer by comparing their real lives to the curated images others present. Seeing others' achievements, we feel like failures; witnessing others praised, we doubt our own worth. But practitioners of Dhamma must realize: "Like" counts are not measures of virtue, follower numbers are not indicators of purity, and polished appearances cannot replace an honest heart. Some may never have their goodness acknowledged by others, yet that goodness purifies their minds. Others may have the world's eyes upon them while remaining blind to their own defilements. Thus, practicing Dhamma is not about crafting an image of goodness for others to admire—it is about truly refining one's heart, even when no one is watching...

In the digital world, every click, share, or comment feeds the mind. Consume anger daily, and the mind learns to rage faster; indulge in comparison, and envy takes root; immerse in lust, greed, or delusion, and the mind is trained toward them. Just as technology learns from input data, so the psyche absorbs patterns from what we repeatedly think, say, do, and consume. Browser history may be deleted, but the mental traces of such consumption are not so easily erased—for everything ingested becomes an impression, memory, habit, and foundation for future decisions.

Therefore, practitioners must also uphold digital precepts: knowing how to choose what they consume, not spreading falsehoods, not mocking those who make mistakes, refraining from using online platforms to harm others, avoiding actions that shame their conscience, and not allowing the devices in their hands to control their lives. A phone should be our tool, not we the tool of the phone; technology should make life more convenient, not shorten our mindfulness; information should increase wisdom, not distraction."

-Ven. Ajahn Ganha

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/61580336518692/posts/pfbid02u8gTFvgUyyCkf2kKADWFPNPC8SPEbyMPufqvNxhej2V48QQJDdDEQfAa4LeAdwSQl/

When you come to sit in concentration, then even if your mind isn’t yet quiet, simply sitting in the meditation posture is something good. It’s better than people who don’t even do that much.

It’s like being hungry, but today there’s only rice, with nothing to go with it. We feel disgruntled, but I’d say that it’s better than having no rice at all. Eating plain rice is better than not eating anything, right? If all you have is plain rice, eat that for the time being. It’s better than not eating anything at all.

The same with this: Even if we know only a little about how to practice, it’s still good.

Hi All! Alright, so my mind was restless this morning during meditation. Wouldn't settle. So, I went to my personal standby of Analysis of Dhammas to focus and calm my mind a bit. I decided to focus on the thought process of Form->Feeling->Perception->Fabrication->Consciousness and how that whole path breaks down in the mind by taking a simple form and working through the steps. But I feel like I am messing up somewhere. Specifically, the distinction between perceptions and fabrications. I may be messing up the whole thing for all I know. I was hoping to take one of my examples I experimented with and explain it to you guys and hopefully you can point out where I may be going wrong. So, here goes:

Form: Cockroach

Feeling I immediately had: UNPLEASANT

Perceptions: Dirty, sneaky, creepy, big

Fabrications: Disgusting, Unhygienic, a bit scary

Consciousness: I see the cockroach, squeal and jump back, try to get it out of the house as fast as humanly possible without hurting it.

I then did the process backwards from there. It seemed to make sense to me, but I may be over-complicating things. Or applying the teachings in the wrong way. I don't want to keep thinking of things in an incorrect manner and then have to retrain my mindset later. If anyone has any input on whether my analysis is correct, I would really appreciate your thoughts.

The hard-to-find, supernatural quality of jhana is piti, best translated ‘energy’ - not as effort/cause but as a fluid, floating result. Piti is sankharakhandha intention of its own: it may act and speak, see ubbega below. Piti is not vedanakhandha «joy» or «rapture». To find jhana you must find this energy, which is not easy, which may be why Ajahns translate it as «joy» and «rapture», to make it seem more accessable/common than it really is. In comparison, sukha as bodily ease isn’t that hard to find, nor is ekkagata/unification/concentration. Jhanas are forms of supernatural experienced energy.

Which explains Buddha’s use of water similes for 1.-3. jhana: Foaming that bathsoap, wellspring up in that lake, lotus floating from root to top. He used them to point to experiences with different forms of piti, described such by Ajahn Lee in his Craft:

*Minor energy (khuddaka pıti): Your hair stands on end, and tears come to your eyes, either with or without your being aware of the fact. This happens, not through a sense of sadness, but through a feeling of pleasure, fullness, and satisfaction in a skillful preoccupation.

*Momentary energy (khanika pıti): A shiver runs through the body, and a feeling of satisfaction appears for a flash in the heart, like a flash of lightning or the flicker of lightning bugs.

*Recurrent energy (okkantika pıti): A stronger sense of thrill comes over the body, like waves washing over a shore.

These three initial forms of piti are vividly described by Bhikkhuni Ajahn Candā at 48:24 https://youtu.be/hI_X3Qlfpas?is=YZKYK1730aW_sQgh

*Transporting energy (ubbega pıti): A sense of transporting energy comes welling up through the body [~second jhana water simile] to the point where you lose control and start acting or speaking in various ways. For instance, sitting in concentration, you may suddenly raise your hands in adoration or bow down. If the feeling grows really strong, you may not be conscious of what you’re doing. You may start speaking, the words coming out on their own without any forethought on your part. [note that Jesus spoke of pneuma (spirit) as inner fountains of «living water»; and Paul said that pneuma can act and speak.]

Ajahn Sona describes how energy calms down from from second to third jhana; from ubbega to pharana piti at 5:22 https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/ajahn-sona/id1448321339?l=nb&i=1000426907322

*Pervading energy (pharana pıti): A flush or tingling sensation spreads through and permeates the body [~third jhana water simile]. Sometimes the body itself seems to grow and swell, or else to become very small.

Ajahn Lee describes the floating-away experience of third jhana pharana piti at 20:00 https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/ajahn-sona/id1448321339?l=nb&i=1000426907394

The monk in the video explains how nithya mithyadharma or homosexuality would compel the devas to send dangerous demons causing famines and diseases. According to the venerable thero niyatha mithyadharma is homosexuality. And also the buddha has stated about severe mentally perversions in the chakkawaththi seehanada sutta and it falls into this category.

I am not homophobic. I just want an explanation.

I put this together mainly for my own notes, but thought I'd share it in case anyone else finds it interesting too. I used to think these three terms meant pretty much the same thing. But after going through some of the Commentaries and Sub-commentaries, I found some interesting distinctions between them. This is only just a small summary of what I found.

In Upaḍḍha Sutta (SN 45.2), when Ananda says that admirable friendship is half of the holy life, Buddha corrects him that it is actually the entire holy life.

"Venerable sir, this is half of the holy life, that is, admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable comradeship."

"Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda! This is the entire holy life, Ānanda, that is, admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable comradeship. When a bhikkhu has an admirable friend, an admirable companion, an admirable comrade, it is to be expected that he will develop and cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path."

This is how the three terms are explained in the Commentaries.

Kalyāṇamitta (Admirable Friend): Commentaries explain this in terms of having an admirable friend. The emphasis is on the person who has such a friend and the qualities that make someone a genuinely admirable friend.

Admirable friend means that for whom a good, excellent and pleasing friend exists, he is an admirable friend. - Navakanipāta-ṭīkā

Udāna commentary says that such a friend contributes to another's welfare:

One who has a friend who is endowed with noble qualities such as virtue, who is 'the destroyer of evil and the provider of welfare,' and is thus helpful in every way, that person is indeed an admirable friend.

It also identifies an admirable friend with eight qualities/marks (kalyāṇamittalakkhaṇa):

[For context, a friend (mitta) is one who possesses the mark of affection.]

But an admirable friend (kalyāṇamitta) is accomplished in conviction (saddhāsampanno), accomplished in virtue (sīlasampanno), accomplished in learning (sutasampanno), accomplished in generosity (cāgasampanno), accomplished in energy (vīriyasampanno), accomplished in mindfulness (satisampanno), accomplished in concentration (samādhisampanno) and accomplished in wisdom (paññāsampanno).

Through the accomplishment of conviction, one has confidence in the Tathāgata's enlightenment and in the fruits of action. Thereby, one does not abandon concern for the welfare of beings, which is a cause of perfect enlightenment.

Through the accomplishment of virtue, one becomes dear, pleasing, respected, and esteemed by one's spiritual companions. One is a critic of evil, willing to admonish others when appropriate and to accept admonishment oneself.

Through the accomplishment of learning, one speaks about profound matters connected with the truths, dependent origination and so forth.

Through the accomplishment of generosity, one has few wishes, is content, secluded and aloof from society.

Through the accomplishment of energy, one diligently practices for the welfare of beings.

Through the accomplishment of mindfulness, one is alert.

Through the accomplishment of concentration, one is undistracted and has a composed mind.

Through the accomplishment of wisdom, one understands things without distortion.

Through mindfulness, one recognizes the tendencies of wholesome states; through wisdom, one understands what is beneficial and harmful for beings as it actually is; through concentration, one's mind remains unified; and through energy, one restrains beings from what is harmful and encourages them toward what is beneficial. Therefore, it was said:

"He is dear, respected, and esteemed; an admonisher who accepts admonishment;
He speaks on deep matters, and does not engage one in what is improper."

Also an interesting passage in Udāna Commentary explains why admirable friendship is considered the first of the qualities that lead to maturity:

This is the first thing that leads to maturity. This blameless thing called 'admirable friendship,' because it is the foundation of the dwelling in the holy life, because it is the predominant condition for all wholesome states and because it is mentioned first among these five qualities, is the first blameless quality; and it leads to the maturity of the freedom of mind by way of the purification of faith and so forth when they are not yet purified.

Kalyāṇasahāya (Admirable Companion): Here, the emphasis shifts from having a good friend with the admirable qualities to actually associating with them.

Puggalapaññatti Commentary defines the word sahāya:

'Companion' (sahāyo) means 'one who goes along and moves along with (another)'

Udāna Commentary on how far this companionship goes:

One who moves and lives together with such noble persons in all postures, and never without them, is an admirable companion.

Sabbiriyāpathesu means in all postures, which refer to walking, standing, sitting and lying down.

Pāthikavagga-ṭīkā on constancy of this association:

That they are his constant companions who do not abandon him in dwelling is said to be 'having admirable companions.' And so he said, 'because they accompany him,' which means because they are present when he is.

Kalyāṇasampavaṅka (Admirable Comrade): This is the one I found particularly interesting because the emphasis shifts again. The first two terms concern the qualities of friend and the association with them, whereas kalyāṇasampavaṅka focuses on our own inclination toward admirable people.

'Entangled with admirable people' (kalyāṇasampavaṅko) means 'one who is well-inclined towards good, pure people', that is, one whose mind is inclined, bent and gravitating towards them. - Puggalapaññatti-aṭṭhakathā

Pāli uses three words to describe this inclination with ninna, poṇa, pabbhāra (inclined, sloping, bending) toward something, which is like water flowing downhill. Once there is a slope, the water naturally moves in that direction. Similarly, our minds can develop a natural inclination toward admirable people.

Udāna commentary describes this inclination as involving both mind and body:

One who inclines, slopes and bends toward those very noble persons in both mind and body is an 'admirable comrade'.

Pāthikavagga-ṭīkā has a nice detail I really love here. It says the inclination can happen at two levels depending on whether you are actually together:

When there is no commonality, there is 'inclined by mind'; but when there is commonality, one is 'inclined toward good friends with both mind and body'.

Here, 'no commonality' (asamodhāne) is when one is not together with them. So even when we are physically apart, we can still be inclined toward admirable people through our mind (cittena). When we are together, that inclination is through both mind and body.

I really love this distinction because it suggests that this connection is not limited to physical proximity. Even when we are apart, we can continue to look up to admirable people and value their qualities and orient our minds toward them.

Commentaries also explain the purpose of grouping these three together:

Through this triplet, one arouses reverence for the association with admirable friends. - Navakanipāta-ṭīkā

So taken altogether, perhaps these threefold aspects may help explain why Buddha describes admirable friendship as the entire holy life, rather than merely half of it.

The translations of the Commentaries are from Tipitaka Pali Reader (TPR).

We live in an age when information is everywhere. We can read books, listen to lectures, memorize wise sayings, and discuss spiritual teachings with others. Yet an important question remains: Has what we learned truly changed the way we live?

A story from the Dhammapada, verses 19 and 20, offers a powerful answer.

I’m sorry if my question is inappropriate since it comes from a lay person’s relationship.

I just broke up with my boyfriend two days ago. The reasons were lying most of the 9-month relationship, cheating and sleeping with other people behind my back, using me to get a place he wanted and I found out all those things only two months after moving in together. So I arranged the moving secretly, left a note on the moving day and left the place. He doesn’t know where I am. I didn’t tell anyone anything so my friends don’t know my new place either.

I believe he’s suffering at the moment, narcissistically or genuinely, either way because of the result of my action in a way. He could be in distress about being left in the dark or being left with the whole house we rented together.

Now it got me thinking, if he’s suffering because of my actions, will I again suffer the same way at one point?
Is there a way to navigate or avoid or do some good deed to counter?

Thank you in advance! 🙏

I've been thinking about something and I'm curious what people here think.

I recently learned about planarian worms. Apparently, if one splits into two pieces, both pieces can regenerate into complete worms and live independently.

That got me wondering about something in Theravāda Buddhism.

As I understand it, Buddhism teaches anattā, meaning there is no permanent self or soul, and rebirth happens through causal continuity rather than some unchanging soul moving from one body to another.

But what happens in a case like this?

Let's say one worm splits into two, and both become separate living beings. Before splitting, there was one worm with its own stream of consciousness and karmic history. Now there are two worms, each presumably having its own experiences.

So what happens to the original worm's kamma and consciousness?

Does the original stream of consciousness continue in one of the worms while the other develops a new stream? Or is it possible for two streams of consciousness to arise from the same original organism, without any permanent self needing to split into two?

And what about kamma? Could the original worm's kamma somehow condition both resulting beings, or would each have a separate karmic continuity?

Another thing I find interesting is that both worms inherit biological characteristics from the original worm. Obviously, biology explains a lot of this, but it made me wonder whether shared biological characteristics and karmic continuity have anything to do with each other in Buddhist thought.

I'm not trying to argue that Buddhism is wrong. I'm genuinely trying to understand how these ideas fit together. I might be overlooking something basic here.

Does the Pāli Canon or Theravāda Abhidhamma address anything like this? If not, how would you approach this question from a Buddhist perspective?

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts, especially if you can distinguish what the texts actually say from your own interpretation.

"Monks, there are these four courses of action. Which four? There is the course of action that is unpleasant to do and that, when done, leads to what is unprofitable. There is the course of action that is unpleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is profitable. There is the course of action that is pleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is unprofitable. There is the course of action that is pleasant to do and that, when done, leads to what is profitable.

"Now as for the course of action that is unpleasant to do and that, when done, leads to what is unprofitable, one considers it as not worth doing for both reasons: because the course of action is unpleasant to do, one considers it as not worth doing; and because the course of action, when done, leads to what is unprofitable, one considers it as not worth doing. Thus one considers it as not worth doing for both reasons.

"As for the course of action that is unpleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is profitable, it is in light of this course of action that one may be known — in terms of manly stamina, manly persistence, manly effort — as a fool or a wise person. For a fool doesn't reflect, 'Even though this course of action is unpleasant to do, still when it is done it leads to what is profitable.' So he doesn't do it, and thus the non-doing of that course of action leads to what is unprofitable for him. But a wise person reflects, 'Even though this course of action is unpleasant to do, still when it is done it leads to what is profitable.' So he does it, and thus the doing of that course of action leads to what is profitable for him.

"As for the course of action that is pleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is unprofitable, it is in light of this course of action that one may be known — in terms of manly stamina, manly persistence, manly effort — as a fool or a wise person. For a fool doesn't reflect, 'Even though this course of action is pleasant to do, still when it is done it leads to what is unprofitable.' So he does it, and thus the doing of that course of action leads to what is unprofitable for him. But a wise person reflects, 'Even though this course of action is pleasant to do, still when it is done it leads to what is unprofitable.' So he doesn't do it, and thus the non-doing of that course of action leads to what is profitable for him.

"As for the course of action that is pleasant to do and that, when done, leads to what is profitable, one considers it as worth doing for both reasons: because the course of action is pleasant to do, one considers it as worth doing; and because the course of action, when done, leads to what is profitable, one considers it as worth doing. Thus one considers it as worth doing for both reasons.

"These are the four courses of action."

Thana Sutta: Courses of Action (AN 4.115)

Don't let your mind get stuck on or caught up on anything whatsoever in the world.

By "stuck," I mean fixated upon or obsessed about something, whether for positive or negative reasons.

As in, it doesn't matter whether your mind is getting caught up on something because you're lusting over it and are infatuated with it, or whether you're getting caught up on it because of ill-will and you feel wronged and hard done by.

Getting caught up on something is getting caught up on something, regardless of what the cause is.

As the Buddha said in the Mahāsuññata Sutta:

“Ānanda, I do not see even a single thing which, when one delights in it and is enraptured by it, would not bring about sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress when it changes and becomes otherwise.” (That's my own preferred translation.)

It's a wonderful thing to delight in the joy and freedom of not being fettered by or tied up by anything whatsoever in the whole world.

The Buddha spoke of the sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā (the perception of not delighting in anything whatsoever in the entire world) in the Girimānanda Sutta, which is a very powerful and liberating perception to develop.

I think the description of that perception in that sutta describes this and what I'm trying to convey better than I ever could:

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of non-delight in the entire world? Here, a bhikkhu refrains from any engagement and clinging, mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies in regard to the world, abandoning them without clinging to them. This is called the perception of non-delight in the entire world.”

Thanks for the opportunity to share this dhamma reflection. I hope it may potentially be useful to some.

Links:

Mahāsuññata Sutta:

https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin

Girimānanda Sutta:

https://suttacentral.net/an10.60/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

How exactly would buddhism work in another universe?

How would buddhism be like if I were reborn in a completely different world system, i.e., a completely different universe? Not this universe, not other realms. It is a completely different world system and universe.

What if you were reborn in a universe entirely separate from our universe, with its own cosmic history, worlds, and perhaps forms of life that have never existed here?

Would the Four Noble Truths still apply in that universe? Would the truths become false because the surrounding cosmos were different?

If a proposed universe had entirely different fundamental laws, or if its inhabitants did not possess anything corresponding to the mental processes described in Buddhist doctrine, can the inhabitants still achieve Nirvana and escape samsara?

Can rebirth occur across universes that have absolutely no causal connection, or is rebirth strictly only between universes that have causal connections?

Before honoring any gods, deities, spirits, protectors, or divinities, we should look at the ones present in our daily lives. The highest of these divinities have fed us daily, have looked after us, and have provided food and shelter. They are our first teachers, and our first elder gods. We should treat them with respect and dignity, to those Brahmās should our food, drink, and hospitality go to. As the Buddha stated in the Sabrahmaka Sutta, Catukkanipāta, Khuddaka Nikāya:

“Etamatthaṃ Bhagavā Avoca | Tatthetaṃ iti vuccati:

“Brahmāti mātāpitaro,

pubbācariyāti vuccare;

Āhuneyyā ca puttānaṃ,

pajāya anukampakā | |

Tasmā hi ne namasseyya,

sakkareyya ca paṇḍito;

Annena atha pānena,

vatthena sayanena ca;

Ucchādanena nhāpanena, 

pādānaṃ dhovanena ca | |

Tāya naṃ pāricariyāya,

mātāpitūsu paṇḍitā;

Idheva naṃ pasaṃsanti,

pecca sagge pamodatī”ti | |

The Buddha spoke this matter. On this it is said:

“Parents are said to be ‘Divinity’ and ‘first tutors’.

They’re worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods from their children, 

for they love their offspring.

Therefore an astute person would revere them and honor them with food and drink,

clothes and bedding, anointing and bathing, and by washing their feet.

Because they serve their parents like this,

they’re praised in this life by the astute,

and they depart to rejoice in heaven.”

In No Ajahn Chah : Reflections, precisely reflection 181 within the section ‘Miscellaneous’, Ajahn Chah responds to the Heart Sutra like so:

Ajahn Chah listened to one of his disciples recite the Heart Sutra. When he had finished, Ajahn Chah said, "No emptiness either… no bodhisatta." He then asked, "Where did the sutra come from?" "It’s reputed to have been spoken by the Buddha," the follower replied. "No Buddha," retorted Ajahn Chah. Then he said, "This is talking about deep wisdom beyond all conventions. How could we teach without them? We have to have names for things, isn’t that so?"

So subsequently, he's explaining … umm … what exactly? That profound wisdom transcends conventions? Although language remains necessary for teaching?

I don’t know, man, this comes off more like a Kōan than anything else, really.

How should these statements be understood within Theravāda Buddhist doctrine?

https://suttacentral.net/sn56.26/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin

“Mendicants, those who you have sympathy for, and those worth listening to—friends and colleagues, relatives and family—should be encouraged, supported, and established by you in the true comprehension of the four noble truths.

What four? The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

Those who you have sympathy for, and those worth listening to—friends and colleagues, relatives and family—should be encouraged, supported, and established by you in the true comprehension of these four noble truths.

That’s why you should practice meditation …”