4

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.

So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.

So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.

So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react? If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view? Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

  • You only become master of your mind states and become completely objective and detached from them when you attain high enlightenment stages. So what you are describing is not particularly your problem but maybe 99.9% of the meditators problem. Untill you attain these very high stages it is a very normal thing to fall back to negative feeling and thinking without being able to observe them objectively. – Murathan1 Jan 25 at 12:44
3

Right View is actually not "seeing things as they are". "Seeing things as they are" (yathābhūtaṃ passāmī) is a high level of insight that leads to liberation; as follows:

For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they actually are feels disenchantment.

AN 11.2

Right View is much more basic. Right View is having an understanding of the basics and can be intellectual at first. Right View includes the following:

And what are the roots of what is unskillful? Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of what is unskillful, delusion is a root of what is unskillful. These are termed the roots of what is unskillful.

And what are the roots of what is skillful? Lack of greed is a root of what is skillful, lack of aversion is a root of what is skillful, lack of delusion is a root of what is skillful. These are termed the roots of what is skillful.

The Discourse on Right View.

So, yes, if you have dark angry thoughts is it too late. You have already entered into the territory of wrong view.

However, it is certainly good (actually ideal) that you are noticing then not reacting! You don't want to react because that leads to big trouble & danger.

When it happens in a split second, its OK. When its Anger - Boom; its OK. Just don't act upon it.

The suttas say:

One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

MN 117

Even the Buddha-To-Be had angry thoughts, as follows; but used reasoning to think about his angry thoughts:

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent & resolute, thinking imbued with ill will arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

MN 19

  • I tried to read that discourse but as usual I lost interest rapidly. I just can't maintain focus on that style of writing. Its so rambling and repetitive. I wish there was something simple and to the point. – Arturia Jan 23 at 9:40
  • Well, while you are reading you can skip the introduction and most repetitions. If you read a number of suttas you will realise that their essence is connected to each other and that it's all about abandoning evil and cultivating good – Val Jan 25 at 18:25
3

Right View means having a non-perverted - not upside-down, but right-side-up, understanding of how things work. Specifically this includes basic understanding that some things are good and some things are bad, and which is which. Generally speaking, peace and harmony is good, and war and pain are bad. Next, that some actions are smart and some actions are stupid. That stupid actions get us in trouble and smart actions get us out. That stupid means not understanding how things work, and therefore pushing wrong buttons - and smart means understanding exactly how things work. That if we act with this right understanding, we can actually improve things. And finally, that we can't jump there immediately, because our situation has restrictions that come from the past, therefore it takes time to build a chain of good steps and gradually the situation will change. This is right view, more or less. Basic understanding of how things work.

Then from this right view comes idea - oh, so if peace and harmony feels good, and conflict & pain feel bad - then maybe I should start paying attention, what actions get me into conflict & pain, and what actions get me in the direction of peace and harmony. Then you keep watching for a while, and see how that works in your life.

Specifically, I noticed that anger definitely gets me in trouble. Also, craving to be something I am not, and to be somewhere I can't be - definitely makes me feel bad. Also, thinking about society in terms of how wrong it is, makes me feel bad. There maybe other things in your case, you have to watch and take notes yourself.

And then from this comes very logical idea, that maybe I should stop being stupid and doing things that get me in trouble. Of course, the problem is, that we don't just do stupid crap because we enjoy it. We do it, because we think something is great, or because we think something is wrong. Something gets us triggered. These are called attachments.

Attachment is this deeply ingrained stubborn narrow-minded conviction that something is great or something is wrong. Usually these ideas were pushed on us when we were young and weak, and then we adopted them as truth and identified with them. Or maybe some situation did some horrible pain to us in the past, and based on that experience we came to a stubborn narrow-minded conviction about how things work. Either way, these attachments to narrow convictions is what gets us triggered and then we either get ourselves in trouble by acting, or just torture ourselves mentally.

So the gist of meditation, is to keep noticing these cycles in our minds that cause inner pain, to keep noticing these convictions about how things should and should not be, and about ourselves - what we should and should not be - and to really seriously let go of them. Because letting go of these painful cycles and convictions gets us out of trouble and leads us to peace and harmony, therefore it's the smartest thing we can do. So in terms of good and bad action, meditation is literally the process of sitting and doing the best thing one can possibly do - stop creating pain in one's mind and establish peace.

You see? So it's not sitting and suppressing your reactions. That sounds like torture. Meditation is noticing how you get yourself in trouble mentally and then actively letting go and stopping those cycles to attain peace. The noticing part is called "vipassana" (or watching the grazing cows) and the letting go part is called "samatha" (stopping the rogue cows and bringing them back to peace and harmony - these are traditional metaphors). It suddenly starts making sense, right?

In your example with anger, you need to watch yourself until you know your trigger, until you see the attachment. Then you can sit down and look inside that attachment to see where it came from, so you can deconstruct the illusion and free yourself from it. Then you won't need to catch yourself when it's stirring, you will remove it at its root. That's the idea.

2

In Buddhism, Right View refers to understanding and applying the Dhamma (teachings) correctly.

"Seeing things as they are" is insight, especially into seeing how the five aggregates and dependent origination actually works.

OP: If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react? If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? ... Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting?

As long as you're noticing that you're becoming angry and you can identify that this is bad for you and others, then this is already great. You're definitely not too late. Too late is never noticing it.

In fact, this is found in the suttas, in MN 20:

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

So, you're pretty much on track, doing precisely the right thing. As you soon as you notice the anger, think about the drawbacks of the anger, and it will subside. Perfect!

The sutta continues with the next step:

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

When you watch a sad movie, you may feel sad at some points. But you won't carry the sadness with you and become depressed, would you? When you stop watching the movie, you immediately forget about it.

Similarly, you treat the evil unskillful thoughts here like they were some movie appearing in your mind, and ignore them.

So, just repeat these steps from MN 20:

  1. Notice when you become angry (or another evil unskillful thought). It doesn't matter if you notice it only AFTER you become angry. The sooner the better.
  2. Switch to another theme of thought which is skillful and good. (I did not quote this part of the sutta)
  3. If that doesn't work, think about the drawbacks of the evil unskillful thought and emotion.
  4. If that doesn't work, simply ignore it, like it's a dream or movie in your mind that is unrelated to you.
  5. Repeat the above, in such a way that this kind of response happens sooner with practice. Practice makes perfect.

Another important point to note is that you should not feel guilt or remorse AFTER experiencing anger. That is not skillful. It only leads to another kind of delusion, which is remorse and anxiety.

What is skillful is to feel ashamed and responsible for one's thoughts and actions, and their consequences BEFORE thinking or acting unvirtuously.

From AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech, and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

I think you're on the right track. You just need some minor tweaks and you would be doing it just right.

  • 2
    Great. You have given me some confidence. Thank you – Arturia Jan 26 at 20:32
1

''seeing things as they are'' is wisdom, ie panna, ie

(7) “When it was said: ‘This Dhamma is for one who is wise, not for one who is unwise,’ with reference to what was this said? Here, a bhikkhu is wise; he possesses the wisdom that discerns arising and passing away, which is noble and penetrative and leads to the complete destruction of suffering. When it was said: ‘This Dhamma is for one who is wise, not for one who is unwise,’ it is with reference to this that this was said.

the arising and passing away is the knowing the condition for dukkha, knowing dukkha, knowing the condition for the nirodha of dukkha, as explained here http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-002.html. more generally it is knowing all that stuff here https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

If you want to be ''unreactive'', then you need the 3rd jhana, as explained

Then, by the fading out of zest, he abides indifferent, mindful and composed, and experiences ease through the body.

Having entered on the third trance, which the Ariyans describe in these terms:

'He who is indifferent and mindful dwells happily,' - he abides therein. https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.53.001-012.wood.pts.htm

the puthujjanas who invented the dry insights confuse udayatthagāminiyā with sati for instance, or discernement. Because they confuse ''changeability'' of vedana, of sanna, of thougths, with '''knowing the conditions for the arising and the condition for the cessation'' for sanna, vedanna, thougths, contact, karma and so on.

"There are, bhikkhus, these three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned. Which three? Arising is manifest. Disappearance is manifest. The changing of what persists is manifest. These, bhikkhus, are the three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned." (AN. i. 152)

They also claim that knowledge of the path happens before stream entry, they also claim that ''fear of dissolution'' belongs to the dhamma. They also confuse anatta with anicca, since they claim that phenomena are not self, because they change a lot, instead of saying that phenomena are not self because they are dukkha (and they are dukkha because they are anicca).

Right view is about knowing what to do and not what to do. Right resolve is mobilizing your energy towards the culture of right actions, right sati, right samadhi, right release. Right sati is the tracking and judgement of vedana, sanna, thoughts, to know what is a toxic mind and what is not a toxic mind. Right samadhi is the result of right sati, because only thoughts and good will and renunciation remains when sati is done, ie the jhanas from the perceptive of right view which is knowing that samadhi is about renunciation and cessation. Just like sati is already about renunciation. Puthujjanas always ask what is the object of the contemplation,well it is cessation and renunciation. It is not the breath or vedanas or whatever aggregates puthujjanas are infatuated with.

This is what the philosophers who created dry insights and mahayana and vajrayana will never ever understand. The result of sati and samadhi is right discernment, meaning vipassana.

THis is how samadhi is viewed from right view,

For one who has attained the first jhāna speech has been tranquillized.

For one who has attained the second jhān, ought and examination have been tranquillized.

For one who has attained the third jhāna rapture has been tranquillized.

For one who has attained the fourth jhāna in-breathing and out-breathing have been tranquillized.

For one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have been tranquillized.

For a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, lust has been tranquillized, hatred has been tranquillized, delusion has been tranquillized."

(instead of the Brahmins who cannot help themselves from using the word ''self'' or ''true nature'', so when they manage to set the citta into samadhi, they see that the personal self [=likes and dislikes] does not make senses, so they resort to idea of cosmological self, of fusion of the personal self with god, of ultimate essence, nature).

But then puthujjanas always ask how to combine samadhi with discernment. THat's because puthujjanas do not have right view. Right view is what converts sati-sila into samadhi and what converts samadhi into release. So when you set the citta into right samadhi, you do what the buddha did. THe buddha explains how he got right samadhi here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html#renunciation a page witha few quotes on nekhamma is here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/nekkhamma/index.html

for instance, since ānāpānassati begins with the theme of renunciation, you get right sati and right samadhi and the 7 factors of enlightenment and of course right release.

This is what to do with ānāpānassati :

Thus cultivating, bhikkhus, thus developing ānāpānassati-samādhi, when he experiences a sukha vedanā, he understands: 'it is aniccā', he understands: 'it is not grasped at', he understands: 'it is not relished'. When he experiences a dukkha vedanā, he understands: 'it is aniccā', he understands: 'it is not grasped at', he understands: 'it is not relished'. When he experiences an adukkhamasukha vedanā, he understands: 'it is aniccā', he understands: 'it is not grasped at', he understands: 'it is not relished'.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn54-008.html

the usual formulas for samadhi is here:

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/arupajjhana.html#9-cl http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/4jhana.html#3-cl

  • removed the word "idiotic", which may be offensive to some readers. – Andrei Volkov Jan 23 at 15:05
1

When you typed the following, it really caught my eye:

"I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom."

It took me a lifetime to find the answer. I found it in MN1:

delight is the root of suffering

Look for the delight that gave rise to the anger. Relinquish the craving for that delight. This one phrase unlocked a door that stumped me for decades. That one phrase clarified my Right View. Instead of fighting anger, I relinquished delight, equanimity returned and anger vanished.

1

For a start I guess I'd recommend this answer, to help explain what's meant by a "view" -- as opposed to a momentary state -- a transient state which happens but which you don't necessarily hold to.

The examples in this answer were of "conceit" and "greed" (i.e. distinguishing those from "view"), but I expect the same may be true of "anger" (i.e. that too isn't necessarily "a view") as well, i.e.:

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.

As a simple example, one might eat a whole packet of cookies in a few moments of greed.

One may or may not have the "view" that it's "proper" to eat a whole packet of cookies. Perhaps one would hold the view that it isn't proper. Even with "right view" (which might be the view that it isn't proper), though, it might be possible to eat the packet in a moment of greed.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?

I'll tell you my experience, and not say what you do or should do.

I haven't been exposed to the "just noting" theory of what meditation is, so it may be that what I do could be at odds with what you've been taught to do.

  • When I first become aware of anger, I don't necessarily think of it as a "reaction".

    Sometimes it's obvious what the rising anger is a reaction to (e.g. somebody has been shouting at me).

    Sometimes it's not obvious what the anger is a "reaction" to (e.g. somebody has been talking to me normally, e.g. making a reasonable request)

    Anyway I think of anger as arising "unbidden" -- I can feel it, but the feeling surprises me, I don't expect it, and I don't know what caused it.

    I see it as an "action" on my part, not a reaction -- but maybe not yet an "intentional action" on my part, it's as yet unintentional.

  • It's not that my anger is a reaction but I have a reaction to the anger. I don't just "note" it, I react to the feeling, the feeling of anger, of beginning to feel angry.

    My reactions are -- This is unpleasant! I don't like feeling anger. I'm out of control. This is inept (on my part). A person in this state becomes difficult to love ... unsympathetic ... a victim. And I might become socially ostracised for this behaviour (e.g. showing anger -- in a work environment, or with friends).

    If I had to justify my reacting like this, from Buddhist scripture, some suttas end with the Buddha's saying ...

    "Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

    I take that as a summary of the entire Buddhist doctrine, a summary of the four noble truths -- "I describe unpleasantness and how to end it." ("stress" and so on being a translation of dukkha of which IMO anger is one manifestation).

    Maybe my reaction to rising anger is to note it -- what I'm noting is, "this is the arising of dukkha".

    That reminds me of the Zen story titled The Gates of Paradise (sometime titled, Heaven and Hell) -- so my reaction to anger is like, "here open the gates of hell!"

  • Another reaction I have to it is, surprise. I'm angry so little, so rarely -- I have so little reason, so few occasions, to be angry -- that it surprises me to find I'm capable of it, that I'm not immune to it.

    I guess there's a lot I could feel angry about, if I wanted to. War for example, famine, political repression, the news from various countries, what's to like about that? The way that animals get treated, by humans and by other animals, is that meant to be seen as fortunate? People assaulting children, that happens. Assaulting each other. Lying, boasting, stealing.

    But, that's not happening here, and I'm not sure it's good to get upset about it.

  • The "surprise that anger is happening to me" is probably I guess a form of "conceit" (as defined by the answer I linked to at the top).

    Because a view that "I am not" (or that conversely, "I am") "the sort of person who gets angry" derives from some kind of self-image, a view of self (which, i.e. holding any self-view, is something that Buddhism maybe warns against as being a source of dukkha).

    Instead of having a "view of self" -- e.g. "I exist" in some way that's distinct or independent of other things -- I think we're instead supposed to understand things as being "dependently originated".

    So, "things arise" when the conditions for their arising exist -- and cease when the conditions cease.

    The question then, is, "What are or were the conditions which allowed or caused this anger to arise?"

    And the answer tends to be some combination of external and internal circumstance (external environment and other people's actions, versus my internal expectations).

    And so to cause the anger to cease again (since I find it unpleasant) I'm motivated to understand its cause -- "what caused it, why did I act/react like that?" -- and to change something of myself, e.g. my expectations, what I'm ready for, how I relate with that person. I'm motivated to change myself somehow because that's the one thing can change.

    Or not "myself" since there's no such thing. Buddhism is also classified as a Threefold Training -- virtue, concentration, wisdom. To fix anger (to let it cease and prevent its reoccurring) I guess I want to learn from the experience, and gain something good or to let go of something bad. A "something gained" or "learned" might be in any of those three categories:

    • virtue (learn to become more harmless, perhaps, more generous)
    • concentration (a reason for anger is if something unexpected happens, I'm interrupted; maybe that was me not concentrating, or concentrating on the wrong thing)
    • and wisdom (an area ripe for improvement, can I be wiser, bring more wisdom to, my interactions with people? note that "views", what views you choose to have and hold, are included in the "wisdom" category ... views might be wise or unwise)

In summary, anger is caused by, and causes, some unskillful interaction between "me" and whatever the situation is, and the goal is to change/improve that, perhaps by letting go of what ever (e.g. view or attention) is unskillful, or by adopting/learning what could be more skilful.

If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view?

I think it's maybe "too late" and "wrong view", if you think not only "I'm angry" but also "And my anger is justified and good, righteous, and by heck I'm going to beat this guy or girl to a pulp, or at the very least I'll give them some really harsh words for my troubles".

You might have a little little residual bit of that view in you, since you said, "Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat."

I like the opening verses to the Dhammapada ...

  1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

... especially verse 5.

Assume that "anger", "hatred", "aversion" are all the same side of the coin ... there's a "fake Buddha quote" which says that "anger is like swallowing poison", IMO another colloquial analogy is that anger is like "trying to put out fire by pouring gasoline on it".

You don't have to be a doormat but you can try (and prefer) to get by without being angry.

There are other emotions recommended (instead of anger) as appropriate for all social interactions -- i.e. the "brahma viharas".

There's also, maybe, seclusion -- don't associate with fools, avoid bullies, etc.

And this answer recommended, "Find wise people who cause no fear or worry". These people may -- and/or may not be -- teachers, monks, doctors. Maybe there are neighbours like this. Maybe there are fellow-students. One of my early introductions to people like this (who fit this description) was when I took up some Tai Chi lessons/practice -- so I met a group of 20-or-so neighbours of different ages, and what they had in common was that they wanted to spend a couple of hours on Saturday mornings in the park, practising Tai Chi -- quite a harmless, beneficial activity, low-fear and low-worry (with a competent Tai Chi teacher).

Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people.

That reminds me of this Zen story: Obedience.

"You see, I think you are a very gentle person.

0

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are

That might be slightly incorrect, vocabulary-wise.

I think that "right view" (samma ditthi) means something like, "knows the difference between 'right' and 'wrong', understands what causes 'stress', and perhaps more specifically sees things through the lens of the Four Noble Truths".

What you're describing might be something slightly different (e.g. something to do with Yathā-bhūta, and yoniso manasikāra something else again).

I know you don't want an answer which parrots religious scripture, I just wrote this in case it's important to not misunderstand/misstate what "right view" is.

A style of meditation that involves "just noting" may be intended as a kind of vipassana, or intended to lead toward vipassana, but I don't think it's meant to be the definition of "right view" though (and that's important because right view is important).


I'm not sure but there may be some difference in emphasis between e.g. Theravada and Mahayana: with the former emphasising "right view -- there's right and there's wrong" (i.e. quite dualistic); and the latter "everything is empty" (and just is, or isn't even that, i.e. non-duality).

-1

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.

It's after the virtual and concentration meditation. It's good to see things as they are, but it can't develop to be perfect if your virtual and concentration meditation still not be perfect.

See: Sutta. Ma. Mū. Rathavinītasuttaṃ.

So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.

So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.

You told us "right view is seeing things" then you said "I don't need to see it" because you think "I have some pain it is just pain" is the meditation, but actually it is not the meditation. The meditation is when you thinking(seeing) to avoid to think 'I hate this pain, why me' and 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'.

So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.

Check your virtual and concentration meditation first. The problem comes from your unstable basis, virtual and concentration meditation.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?

Yes, everyone should do. But if you can not you should check your virtual and concentration meditation first.

If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late?

Yes, it's too late. It's because you have not concentration meditation, such as Ānāpānasati, to control it.

Have I already entered into the territory of the wrong view?

Angry is not the wrong view. But when your angry increase to be immoral, i.e. hitting the other, that angry comes from the wrong view. Check your virtual and concentration meditation first.

Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

Check your virtual and concentration meditation first. Because you never meditate the concentration meditation, you can't control your angry, pariyuṭṭhāna.

For virtual: https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.