u/Representative-Age18

My question is essentially whether it would be wrong to cultivate generosity, kindness and a mind of friendliness if I’m still not yet fully developed in restraint. (Not yet fully celibate). Will it help me towards deepening renunciation and understanding, or will it just be another escape from pressure.

Assuming I’m not doing it when pressured to do so, but with the right intention of calming aversion to pressure, instead of getting rid of pressure thru sensuality.

Btw, I understand metta better as friendly (non illwill) bodily, verbal and mental action, not just repeating phrases in my head.

Should I make it a serious focus of my practice to not only never harm, but also do kind acts to other beings, charity and generosity and train the mind in friendly attitude?

In this post I will attempt to explain Hillside Hermitage's teachings as I understand it, in an attempt to simplify their stance and make it a bit more palpable to most meditators.

Unfortunately, they have come out a little overly aggressive with some absolute statements about other traditions being totally off, and often strawmanning other traditions. They also seem to throw all traditions under one buss as, making it a polarising "technique tradition" vs nontechnique traditions. However, I believe it is much more nuanced.

I won't try to explain why they've come out so hot, but I think they are pointing to something real.

First of all, paraphrasing HH's stance:

Up until Sottapatti stage, any meditators attempt at using a technique will be fundamentally rooted in wanting to change ones current state of being (aversion/ craving). A meditator will still be stuck in wanting to escape/ change/ run from discomfort, and has now simply found a more subtle way of doing so than more coarse sensuality. There is some truth to this for sure, but sometimes I believe technique can be rooted in the idea of "This method of improving mindfulness is appropriate right now".

Other teachers that share the view that techniques shouldn't be used or at least very noninterfering is Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Brahmali, Stephen Procter - MIDL meditation (some technique/ setup, but largely noninterference based), non duality traditions, Eckart Tolle, Rupert Spira, etc etc.

Now I'm not saying these teachers say the exact same thing as HH, but they are largely not using interfering techniques, and actually often warn against interference largely on the same ground that HH. They just don't take as sharp of a stance that HH does.

I think Ajahn Brahm and Brahmali might be the best comparison. I will try to explain their view in short on how meditation should proceed.

1. Purify sila (ethics, sense restraint, kindness, generosity)

2. Contemplate in order to undermine the sense of self and sense of permanence

3. Sit and do nothing, allowing the good qualities of renunication previously built to do the meditation for you

They stictly warn against doing the meditation.

The idea is that if you "do" the meditation, the sense of a separate "doer" will never disappear.

This is more or less identical to HH's view in practice. Ajahn Brahmali is also an excellent sutta reader, so I choose to give him lots of credibility. The difference is that these dudes present their perspective of dhamma in a non-arrogant and less seemingly conceited way.

I believe their way of practicing is super effective, and it's also quite straight forward compared to a lot of techniques. You simply focus more on being a good person and sense restraint, you contemplate often, and when you sit down you just let it be.

Does that mean all technique is wrong? Here is where I believe they may have gotten it wrong. I will use Noting as an example here. It is super obvious that noting has produced great results for many, myself including, yet I noticed myself that when I decided to stop noting, although I'm fairly developed and likely a stream enterer, I had to go through a massive period of darkness and emotional releases. This was due to my heavy reliance on the noting as a technique itself.

Where can technique come in handy? First of all, mindfulness is just clear knowing of what is happening now - an unabsorbed state. It surely isn't to squeeze your mind into feeling tiny sensations mindlessly, that's at least not what noting is about. I believe the MIDL guys got it right. Use technique to set up clarity and mindfulness, but then just allow things to be. The HH guys would say, establish the context and then let it endure. If you completely slip into absorption in thoughts/ sensuality/ whatever, perhaps you can establish it again by doing some noting. Why note, if you are clearly lucid and perceiving with clarity? One has to learn to let go.

Is this so different to HH, however? They totally advice you to keep mindfulness, well first through sense restraint and understanding the context, which prevents the mind from being inclined into absorption (really important concept to understand btw - in short, you won't be absorbed in drifting if u understand the context really well; anatta, anicca, dukkha), but then subsequently they DO use reflexive questions to guide the mind into what I would call non-absorbed states. For example, they would ask "What is happening in this moment?" or "What posture is the body currently in?", not answering the question, it will lead you to actually be aware of the present moment. How is this so different from noting "thinking" "feeling" "walking" unless you're not squeezing your mind into the content of those things, which you shouldn't do anyways.

It is harder to bridge the gap between HH and samatha schools that just tell you to return return return to an object, or to say "buddho" "buddho" "buddho". That is obviously a way of supressing reality and steering away from what you do not want to feel. However, could even this be appropriate because the calm that is gained, can then be used to do insight meditation more effectively? Entirely possible. But their warning of using meditation as a means to an end or chasing states is totally valid, and if you don't decide to abandon your technique, you should at least be aware of whether you are doing it to escape some currently felt reality. These replacement techniques will also create a mind that is really averse to modern society, as it instills the habit of constantly wanting to escape situations. You'll get a lot of aversion to things that regular people don't resist at all, because you've created a strong "wholesome must go towards" and "unwholesome must abandonned" habit. A new form of craving and aversion, a new form of doing.

I wish HH would present their position in a more humble fashion, such as Ajahn Brahmali for example.

Maybe this is helpful to some.

Hello,

I was wondering if there is still some benefit for a layperson to make a smaller cage for the animal (citta) in terms of sensuality, although it doesn’t get as small as the eight precepts.

Can I still contemplate and undermine my sense of self only following 5,6,7 and sometimes all 8+ strong isolatoon? Or is it a waste of time to do all these contemplations if one is not firmly established in solitude and all 8?

I’m living a moderate life. I don’t masturbate often, I only engage in sexual acivity every now and then, but I have a job where music, TV etc is unavoidable at times, friends that I maintain relationships with etc so I mostly only keep 5-6 precepts.

I’m not asking if I’ll catch fire and become a sottapanna, juat asking if some progress is possible

I spend about 2-6 hours a day sitting still eyes closed dedicated to «meditation», but not doing a technique currently

I try to quite frequently ask questions like «What is pressuring now?» «What way is my mind leaning?» «can I control this aspect of my body?» etc

Does HH practicioners established in precepts sit and do nothing, or are you supposed to always contemplate?

Edit: I’m essentially asking if HH is for «do nothing meditation» or if you’re always supposed to ask questions directinc the mind