r/theravada

You say, 'Don't break my glass!' But can you prevent something that is breakable from breaking? If it doesn't break now, it will break later. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't, the chicken will! This is the way it is. When I want to use this glass, I just think of it as already broken. Whenever its time is up, it will break. Penetrating the truth of these things in this way, you see that this glass is already broken. Your mind is at peace. If you can see things like this, there will be no sorrow.

So I've been a follower of several Ajahns over the last couple years and have written down some of my questions. Although I've tried, I've never once had a single question answered which, I mean you know is to be expected since I'm just one of hundreds* in a crowd. Anyway, I thought people might be interested in some of my "Dear Ajahn" questions I've had up until now. This is just for fun, you can take it as seriously or not as you wish to.

> Dear Ajahn, can you please explain how the different path factors lead to cessation differently through the realization of each of the three marks? I'd like to understand your perspective.

> Dear Ajahn, What would a Sotapanna's progression look like on their 2nd through 6th lives as children and adults in terms of how they see the world and what's going on inside them? Do they feel compelled in each of their subsequent lives to become Sotapanna again until they become Sakadagami?

> Dear Ajahn, Why is me becoming an Arahant the best thing I can do for the world (Well aside from becoming a Buddha)? I recognize that this is the best thing I can do for me, but why is it the best thing for the world?

> Dear Ajahn, Anathapindika's daughter Sumana supposedly died of depression as a Sakadagami, how is that possible? (She stopped taking food and wasted away.)

> Dear Ajahn, was there a specific moment in your life when you decided to abandon Samsara and seek enlightenment and if there was, could you tell us about that moment?

> Dear Ajahn, a lot of venerables describe the battle with Mara of the aggregates in very colorful and fanciful ways. Could you please describe this process in a more grounded and mechanically useful way?

> Dear Ajahn, is there any situation where you can break precepts while asleep? For example I was dreaming and having one of those awkward conversations with someone that only happens when you haven't seen an acquaintance in years. I couldn't think of what to say so then I thought to lie to keep the conversation going and then I did lie. I haven't lied in maybe a year but the sense of deep shame lasted for around 15 minutes after that while I slowly woke up. When thinking about it, I know if I was awake I wouldn't have lied but I also know that I was conscious enough in my sleep to know that it was a lie, that there was an intention to lie and then I carried out that intention by saying it. At what point are we conscious enough to be responsible for our actions?

> Dear Ajahn, how large is the mind of a Buddha? What makes a Buddha's mind so large that it can range over hundreds of kilometers and cause earthquakes like in the suttas?

> Dear Ajahn, I haven't gotten all the way through the suttas yet but in the stories the Arahants always seem to recognize Mara in disguise whenever he shows up. Are the other ariya stages capable of that?

> Dear Ajahn, is there anything in the suttas about the kamma that belongs to people who actually give the orders to commit crimes or atrocities? In my reading, it seems the vast majority of the kamma from unwholesome actions belongs to the ones that actually carry it out. Even when Mara possessed some villagers to do things, those villagers went to hell for their actions of maligning the monks. This suggests that things like propaganda, stochastic terrorism, or even ordering genocide doesn't incur negative kamma for the one doing it. If it did, then how could Mara exist as an independent external entity for very long without falling into hell? -- Rephrase- Dear Ajahn, you've said in the past that the responsibility always karmically falls back on the individual. Does this mean there's no consequence for propaganda, stochastic terrorism or even ordering a genocide? Do we live in a world where Hitler might not have gone to hell?

> Dear Ajahn- According to the suttas exit from the 4th rupa should result in immediate enlightenment, but there's many people who say they have done the rupas and they're clearly not enlightened. I've tried as well but something is missing. Can you please explain what's needed to enter the rupas properly and is it even possible without first being a 4th jhana attainer?

> Dear Ajahn, I heard from another monk in a dhamma talk he was giving that actually seeing citta means that you're at least a sotapanna but I don't believe this is true. With the development of Satipatthana isn't it normal to have at least a little citta nupassana? Like seeing flashes of it for a couple seconds during the day or seeing it when you want to during meditation for example.

Hi, I’m new to Theravada Buddhism, I learnt about how there are different types of enlightened people:

1. The Arahant: a person who becomes enlightened with the help of a master, for example a Buddha
2. the Paccekabuddha: a person who becomes enlightened alone without the help of a master, they may can teach and offer guidance, but they can’t build a sangha of monks or teach the ultimate way to liberation
3. the Sammāsabuddha: a perfectly and completely enlightened being, a person who reached enlightenment on his own, he can build a sangha of monks, he can teach the ultimate way of liberation, it has universal omniscience and can guide people pur of the cycle of Samsara.

All of this is beautiful, but can someone today become one of these? Can a person in this lifetime become a Arahant, Paccekabuddha or Sammāsabuddha? Because from what I’ve known they only appear in a time where there is no Dharma in the world, and currently the Dharma is really present and it’s actually growing, so can someone gain enlightenment even to this day?

​

People live lives, easily influenced by things such as what our family values and believe, what society values and believe. But those things are deeply tainted. Our ancestors were hateful and ignorant. Yet people choose to value their roots, as if there is great value in it. Repeating hateful behaviour and mistakes from our parents and social circles. There is an illusion of safety.

Our own family carry values that can potentially destroy and ruin our lives. Yet many choose to defend their values. There appear to be a desire to belong no matter what, to mantain a delusion of safety and stability in our roots. Even in abusive, miserable families.

Its not a pure loving world, made of great people. Its a hostile, non-generous, stressful afflicted world that carries many elements of hatred and greed. But people choose to be part of the later. This is their karma, this is their choice. Their destination and their future suffering.

TLDR ; wr people are born among non-virtious humankind, and have a strong likelihood of following the same steps of their ancestors. Being hateful and bad people, they overlook the moral failure of the herd. And face karmic consequences in next lives. Rarely someone is reborn in heavens. The moral work is overlooked and replaced by a life of nourishing identity and ego, repeating mistakes of their own blood and social group. Followed by a sense of belonging and existing that safisfies one's ignorant heart, but leads to potential bad karma and affliction and suffering to other people and self in this life.

so how do we know the exact effect of karma?

I can only give the Sri Lankan situation Simply imagine an 7 year old being head shaved infront of everyone and robed and taken to a temple (which are usually of very low living conditions) and abstained from all the normal childhood activities and being forced to learn religious texts

(This happens either with parents letting go of their child (due to poverty and religious reasons )

Or due to child saying so that he/she wants this )

They are subjected to numerous other physical,sexual abuse as well

We don’t even know what girls have to go through as there are even more rules and girls are even believed to be sinful (that’s believed to be the reason why they are born so!)

There is nothing to be done internally as the legal and constitutional priority is ‘protecting Buddhism) and monks have a huge authority over politics Which is why I believe the only way is the involvement of international organizations

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/car.70020\](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/car.70020)

https://sljfmsl.sljol.info/articles/7957/files/668ba4298954b.pdf

Two cited reports (you’d easily see how most of cases wouldn’t get reported)

I’m curious to see the perspective from India

I am trying to reconcile this aspect of right view with the modern understanding of childbirth.

In particular, I have been thinking about surrogate mothers. Who is truly the mother (in the metaphysical, karmic sense that the Buddha is describing) in such a situation? The egg donor, or the woman who provided nutriment to the developing fetus and birthed it? Do they both count as mothers?

I would appreciate any insight!

I’ve contemplated this question a year or so ago: Here’s what I got:

() Sakkaya Ditthi - The understanding that existence is not in your control. The understanding that there’s a lack of ownership and permanence of phenomena.

() Asmimāna - The understanding that there’s no being “doing” something. It’s the understanding that there’s just phenomena taking place. There’s just biofeedback. There’s no being making intentions and doing actions. In other words, there’s no ego.

What do you say?

Greetings to everyone, and thank you sincerely to anyone willing to read this post!

I (15M) am a teen, from western europe, (studying classical piano performance in a conservatory) deeply interested in the dhamma.

Over the last months, i began exploring buddhism. Initially this happened indirectly through interest in meditation, psychology, altered states of consciousness, and philosophical questions regarding selfhood and suffering. I have only read two books (i have though read multiple articles and texts) on this matter: "the practice of not thinking", by former monk ryunosuke koike; and later "what the buddha taught", work of walpola sri rahula.

I genuinely desire to follow the path, orient my life sincerely toward it. However, my greatest obstacle is confusion. Not disagreement exactly, but difficulty assembling the teachings into one coherent and comprehensive understanding. Every text clarifies some things while complicating others. I feel as though i possess fragments without yet grasping the structure of the whole.

For this reason, i would be extremely grateful for thoughtful responses to any of the following questions. I do not expect anyone to answer all of them. Even clarification on a single point may help significantly.

I ask especially for answers that are careful, analytical, informed, and intellectually honest. I simply mean that i am trying sincerely to understand, and brief answers such as "just go meditate" or "just practice" unfortunately do not resolve the confusion themselves.

At present, my principal objective is not merely intellectual curiosity, but attaining a coherent and comprehensive understanding of buddhism overall, such that the teachings become intelligible together rather than as isolated concepts.

Because of that, i would especially appreciate answers to the first section below, since it is the most urgent and central issue for me right now. The remaining questions follow from it.

I am currently writing a philosophy essay whose central thesis can be stated as follows:

The traditional problem of free will arises from reifying the self as a substantial and independent source of action. What we call the ‘self’ is better understood as a dependently arisen continuity of causally conditioned and interrelated processes without inherent or permanent identity. Because of this, libertarian free will is rejected not only causally but ontologically: the idea of an absolutely self-originating agent is incoherent. Nevertheless, practical agency and moral responsibility remain possible through stable patterns of causal continuity, functional authorship and relational intelligibility. Morality is therefore reconstructed not around metaphysical freedom or divine command, but around the reduction of suffering and harmful conditions within interdependent systems.

However, although this initially seemed coherent to me, i now realize that my understanding may still be incomplete or confused.

The main problem is this:

If there is no self, what exactly is the relationship between the aggregates, consciousness, mind, continuity through time, rebirth, moral responsibility, and subjective experience itself?

I understand abstractly that the self is not a fixed entity, but i still do not clearly understand what an individual actually is conventionally.

What exactly unifies experience into the appearance of being 'someone'?

Why are there apparently separate streams of experience?

If there is no enduring self, what exactly acts, intends, chooses, suffers, or is reborn?

Likewise, i suspect my essay may still unconsciously preserve some subtle notion of self through terms such as 'functional authorship', 'organizational continuity', or 'agent'. I do not yet know whether these are legitimate conventional designations compatible with buddhism, or whether they still conceal attachment to identity in another form.

In other words:
How should one correctly think about agency without self?
How should one understand responsibility without an ultimate subject?
How should one understand continuity without identity?

Related to this, i would greatly appreciate rigorous explanations of the five aggregates, dependent origination, the buddhist understanding of mind, and the distinction between mind, consciousness, and awareness.

At present, i think my lack of understanding of these doctrines is the principal thing preventing both my essay and my understanding of buddhism overall from becoming coherent.

The second most urgent issue for me concerns musical performance and anxiety.

Music is one of the most important things in my life (as i am an aspiring pianist), but performance is often accompanied by severe anxiety, self-consciousness, obsessive self-monitoring, fear of failure, and attachment to judgment and results.

This destroys clarity and sometimes even the joy of music itself.

How should one work with this kind of anxiety?

How should one approach practice itself?

What attitude should one cultivate toward performance, judgment, mistakes, ambition, and refinement?

One of my biggest difficulties is that buddhism often appears fragmented depending on the source.

Sometimes it is presented almost psychologically, other times metaphysically, philosophically, religiously, ritually, or devotionally.

So:
What exactly is buddhism fundamentally?
What is essential and central?
What is secondary, symbolic, cultural, or sectarian?
How should a beginner construct a clear and ordered understanding of the whole?

Likewise:
How should one choose a tradition or school?
Are there serious and reliable buddhist teachers or communities in portugal that may eventually be worth seeking out in the future (i will, i believe, only be able to get a teacher in 3-4 years)?

I began meditation some months ago, but eventually started experiencing increasing internal stress and suppression, almost as though i was trying forcibly to silence thought.

So:
How should meditation properly begin for someone psychologically obsessive or excessively analytical?
What is meditation actually cultivating?
What should one generally direct the mind toward throughout ordinary life?

More broadly:
What exactly is dukkha?
What constitutes the absence of dukkha?
How should one relate emotionally to life itself without falling either into pessimism or naive optimism?

I also still struggle with several practical ethical questions.

For example:
What exactly is the basis of the precept against killing?
Why are animals generally included but plants excluded?
How should one respond to genuinely dangerous or violent people?
Is lying always wrong even when it prevents suffering?
How should one understand 'right speech' realistically rather than abstractly?

Likewise:
How should one deal with compulsivity?
How should one respond wisely to severely depressed people who threaten suicide if abandoned?
How should one deal compassionately with suffering within one’s own family?
How should one act regarding situations such as insect infestations at home?

Finally, i still remain confused regarding several metaphysical and cosmological issues.

Such are:
What exactly is rebirth if there is no enduring self?
What, if anything, continues?
How should one understand traditional buddhist cosmology today?
How should teachings concerning mount meru, realms, heavens, hells, and non-human beings be interpreted?
Can emptiness meaningfully apply to atoms and particles, or is that a misunderstanding of śūnyatā?

Lastly, i would greatly appreciate comments regarding the following books, in order, and whether they form a coherent path of study for someone in my position:

"What the buddha taught", walpola sri rahula.
"The heart of the buddha’s teaching", thich nhat hanh.
"The miracle of mindfulness", thich nhat hanh.
"Why buddhism is true", robert wright.
"The dhammapada", translated by eknath easwaran.
"Buddhism in practice" donald s. lopez.
"In the buddha’s words", bhikkhu bodhi.
"Buddhist philosophy: essential readings", william edelglass.
"How to see yourself as you really are", the dalai lama.

I apologize sincerely for the immense length of this post. My intention is not merely to ask disconnected questions, but to seek a coherent understanding of buddhism as a whole. Metta

Is it fair to assume that if a monk speaks about dhamma very little, and when they do, it's mostly shallow or superficial, but they talk a lot about being inspired by other monks, or they talk a lot about non-dhamma things and trivial stuff, they likely aren't practicing or meditating very much? Even when asked direct questions on dhamma topics, they give surface level or generic advice.

I don't want to be too judgemental or harsh, but how should lay people guage whether listening to or being around particular monastics could benefit us on our own paths? I do get that meditation isn't everything, but I also observe these monks engaging in a lot of idle chatter amongst themselves and lay people. Maybe my image of a "good monk" is a little too idealistic.

I have a friend who's getting interested in Buddhism and I'd like to recommend a recent translation that uses simple English, while still staying faithful to the original texts. Any suggestions?

Seeking peace is like looking for a turtle with a mustache. You won't be able to find it. But when your heart is ready, peace will come looking for you. Do not be attached to the world, to your thoughts, or to your body. See that all things in this world are like leaves falling from a tree. When they have grown old, they drop off. We do not cry when leaves fall, because we understand their nature. It is exactly the same with our lives, our feelings, and our conditions. When you understand this, you do not grasp at anything. You simply look at all things with a peaceful and detached mind.

I recently tried attending the zoom meeting that my local temple puts on. It wasn't a good experience but i dont want to get into it. Can anyone recommend a zoom meeting, like specific one that you enjoy or get stuff out of?

Any help would be appreciated

Hello.

Forgive me if this is a controversial topic. It seems Hillside Hermitage and Ven. Nanavira are controversial entities within the Theravada world.

I heard that their ideas are quite different from mainstream Theravada ideas. But may I ask how exactly they differ from the rest of the Theravada world? How do their views differ (views on Jhana, the attainments, Dependent Origination etc.)? It would be nice to have a comment objectively comparing particular Hillside Hermitage views with mainstream views.

I unfortunately don't know much about what is going on in the Theravada world. I am a busy person so though I know the basic concepts, I am also not that well-versed in the Dhamma's intricacies. I just try to keep the precepts and listen to Dhamma talks and suttas every now and then.

But after listening to some Hillside Hermitage videos and applying their ideas, I feel like my practice deepened and progressed. So when I hear that their ideas aren't widespread in the Theravada world, I become puzzled. How is it that they're really different from the rest of the Theravada world?

Don't worry. I am not some zealous follower of Hillside Hermitage. It seems some of their followers do seem to be on the crazy side, which is implied on past posts I've been reading.

>The one who is happy and happily excellent, who has given up wholesome and unwholesome deeds,
Who found the deathless peace of the Deathless, who found the Matchless (nibbāna), and gives the Matchless (to others),
Who found the Refuge, and is the refuge for the world, the one without passions, who makes the passions fade,
The one without fear, who leads to that fearless place: I will revere (Lord Buddha), the Leader.

>Having body and limbs lovely to the eyes,
Endowed with a noble and sweet voice,
The receptacle of many measureless virtues:
I worship that incomparable One of Ten Powers.

>He who is Buddha, the bearer of steadfast knowledge,
Who underwent in the continual round of existence, both bodily
And mental suffering for the sake of the world:
I worship Him, who is a blessing for men and gods.

>He who has the thirty-two beautiful marks on his body,
Whose body shines with an effulgence of light,
Who possesses an ocean of wisdom, steadfastness, morality and virtue:
I worship that Sage who is in his final birth.

>Like a fresh sun rising in the morning,
With charming grace in the midst of those who strive,
Having a face like a full moon, lust-free:
I worship the omniscient Lord of Sages.

>Endowed with merit, at the root of the Bodhi tree
the Happy One, after defeating Māra and his army,
Awoke to Wisdom as the dawn broke:
I revere Him, the unbroken one, who defeated the (five) deaths.

>That one having the sword of undefiled knowledge that cuts off passion and so on,
Who holds up the shield known as mindfulness,
Who is adorned with the decoration of an ocean of morality: Him
I revere, the one endowed with noble knowledge and psychic power.

>That abode of sympathy, who (overcoming) difficulties everywhere,
And, overcoming the ocean of existence, attained the highest,
The well-composed Lord of the Three Worlds who is a benefit (to others):
I bow down to the measureless All-Seeing One.

>In this place and that place he accumulated a store of perfections,
He has attained the happy resting place of the virtuous,
And is the origin and source of happiness for men and gods,
I revere the noble Victor, who (overcame) the disrespectful fools.

>The Sage and skilful mariner ascended the ship of the Path-factors,
Grasped with the hand of knowledge the oar of exertion,
And crossed over the manifold ocean of existence:
I revere Him, who understood, abandoned distress and crossed over.

>He who fulfilled the thirty perfections equally,
Who, under the noble Bodhi tree, saw the Four Truths,
Attained the noble psychic powers, which benefit gods and men:
I bow down to the Victor, who stilled (rebirth in) the three (planes of) existence.

>Having the marks that arose because of hundreds of merits, passionless,
Superior like the sky, firm like (Mount) Meru,
Cool, like the lotus, endowed with morality,
who endures (like) the Earth: I bow down to the Victor.

>He who is the wise Buddha, like the sun shining in the day,
Resplendent, producing delight, while sitting on his stone throne,
Taught the Abhidhamma, which gives the happiness of safety,
to the gods: I always revere Him who is Matchless.

>He who has tender skin on his lotus feet,
Who is unconfused, not lacking (in knowledge) about the three worlds,
Who has attained the incomparable,
Who is unequalled and honoured by the whole world: I revere Him, the Lord.

>The Buddha with steady mind, who brought together men and gods,
Who, with the lustre of the light of wisdom destroyed the darkness (of ignorance),
He who greatly desires the welfare and benefit of men and gods, Him
I worship, the great compassionate (Buddha), with infinite knowledge.

>The deposit of all virtues, the Lord of Sages, who, after approaching
The Wood called Isipatana, the abode of those restrained,
And rolling the Dhamma-Wheel, which cut off unwholesomeness in that place:
I revere Him of incomparable beauty, who should be worshipped.

>Surrounded by the pure, brilliant with beautiful radiance,
The abode of many glories, endowed with guarded senses,
And beautiful marks beginning with the disk of the sun and the moon:
I revere with respect the Happy One, worshipped by gods and men.

>With the raft of the Path, he crossed over the waves and currents of delusion, anger and desire
The ocean of existences; the fearless one fully crossed over, and he established humanity’s
Shelter, safety and unequalled refuge, the one (true) haven:
I revere the King of the Dhamma, that field of merit, who gives the ultimate bliss.

>The Lord of Sages sitting at the root of the Kaṇḍamba tree, seeking the benefit of others,
Quickly wrought a wonder by scattering water and fire that was pleasing to the eyes,
Destroying the false net (of views), this miracle was not left undone by the Sage:
I worship Him, the praised origin of supreme delight, endowed with psychic power.

>That clever Sage, who is the rising dawn of compassion, having extensive knowledge,
Who leads over the watery ocean what are called lotuses with the noble rays of his Dhamma,
And Awakens the pure of heart in the pit of the three worlds, widely-renowned,
The one (wisdom) eye of the three worlds, who endured suffering: I revere Him, the Great Sage.

>That Victor who, in countless lives, gave both his children and wife, his limbs and life,
Without a clinging mind, for love of Awakening, to he who desired it,
And after the perfection of generosity fulfilled the others, like the perfection of virtue and so on,
And reached the Highest through their (inherent) power: I revere Him, the one (true) Island.

>The Great God above all gods, bearing his last body, having broken the (five) killers, unbroken (himself),
Who spread the light of wisdom on people, and attained Awakening on the noble victory seat,
Surrounded by brahmas and others, speaking with a noble voice, having given up low actions,
Greatly delighting the worlds: I always greatly revere Him, the Lord of Sages, the Lord of the (five) Sages

>The Buddha, having a form like the banyan tree, soft hands and feet, a voice like brahma, calves like an antelope,
And a foreskin that covers the organ, the Happy One, with steady feet,
Soft hair between the brows, the Happy One, straight-limbed (like) a brahma,
Having blue eyes, long heels, exquisite skin, whose taste buds are the very best,

>Having forty of the best teeth, even teeth, a full back between the shoulders,
Wheel-marked feet, unflawed teeth, He who defeated the killers, having high ankles,
Who, while standing, without bending, with both his soft hands, can touch his knees,
Whose body is round, the Victor, having eyelashes like an ox, the upper half of whose body is like a lion,

>Having seven fat areas, long fingers, the Happy One, with one hair to a vesicle,
Full white teeth, smooth, golden skin, with black hair on the top of his head,
The Sambuddha, having a broad tongue, then a lion-like jaw, webbed feet and hands,
Whose head has a crown, the Lord endowed with these (thirty-two) qualities: I revere Him, the Great Sage.

>The sound, “Buddha, Buddha” is extremely rare in the world, what to say of Buddhahood?
Therefore the wise and good, wishing for various sorts of benefit and happiness,
Desiring their (true) welfare, should always revere Him, who is fearless, worthy, honoured by gods and men,
The incomparable One of Ten Powers, who increases the happiness of the world.

>May I, through this merit in the future (become) subtle-minded, mindful, satisfied,
Clever, with wise and upright view, not lacking in energy, wealthy, generous,
Quick-witted, strong, resolute, living for others’ benefit, long-lived, healthy,
Rich, beautiful, famous, powerful, renowned, endowed with patience.

>In the here and now may I be faith, generous, glorious, detached,
Modest, having spiritual friends, delighting in the good, protecting the five precepts and so on,
With no desires, no anger, being upright in heart, having psychic power, immeasureable (qualities),
Praiseworthy, with loveable words, one who knows a good person’s virtue and may I be devoted (to the Triple Gem).

>Thus the wise one who recalls even one of the verses
Amongst the verses which indicate the characteristic virtues of the Lord

>Will be free from the four downfalls, accomplish a double welfare,
Destroy the net of misfortune, and be one who receives benefit and happiness,

>He will be master of men and gods, or rule the four continents,
And in his last body, with a white umbrella (over him), he will attain final knowledge,

>And, having mounted the vehicle of meditation, he will come by peace and good conduct.
Also in this existence (he will be) healthy, long-lived,

>Worshipped by the whole world, with a mind that greatly delights in meditation,
Dear to the people and pleasing: what to say of those who remember the (whole) collection (of verses)?

---

Source: Namakkārapāḷi translated by Ānandajoti Bhikkhu

Pleasant x Unpleasant.

These are difficult to deal with me.

Not in a sense of them causing suffering, nor it is things i really " desire " - the issue is that if it´s pleasant, i follow it. If it is unpleasant, i go away from it.

That itself is not very convenient as it´s being like that of a slave.

If desire is present for something pleasant, i can certainly say No to it, but the desire will remain, and that is unpleasant and inconvenient, as it impairs ability to think as arising thoughts will be more about the desire. Not a fan of that.

While saying Yes to desire offers some pleasure and makes the desire disappear until it rises again, it however makes one a slave to do it´s bidding, and the " pleasure " is often quite limited, and it also isn´t very " real " as lot of pleasure comes from removal of desire, and lot of pleasure is also enhanced by the desire itself.

Without desire, the object of desire on is own is nothing special.

But even knowing this, i still tend to follow desire.

Is it because of habits? Some ingrained way i have been living my whole life, almost subconsciously following that what is pleasant, and avoiding unpleasant, even on the mental level?

Should i slowly try to go against it, until the habits are overwritten?

However, i do not want to just develop good habits, i would rather not be slave to pleasant x unpleasant at all.

Anagami should be free of sensual desire, and i am rather curious how gets there.

For me, it is not that i desire this and that. For me, it boils down on the most fundamental level - of pain and pleasure. The more complex something is, the easier it is for me to break it. But pain and pleasure seems to be as basic as they can be.

What seems like a logical course of action is to be more mindful of pleasant x unpleasant and catch myself to not do that, to reduce the power of habit, and over time it should bear the fruits?

That also sounds like it might be rather difficult, as one would essentially remove lot of " pleasure " and add more " unpleasant ". Without one going for jhanas for some " free pleasure", it does sounds difficult.

Any suggestions, recommendations, tips ,suttas, to deal with it?

It would certainly be more convenient dealing with those once for all. Rather difficult it seems though.

Looking for dharma talks, any recommendations are greatly appreciated.