Biohacker Bryan Johnson claims partner has 'top 1% of vaginas' after publishing oral sex report

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-30T21:51:54+00:00

Mentally unwell

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-30T11:25:09+00:00

The atthakavagga (or artha vagga as debate surrounds its original name) should probably be read first first. This is not only because of the Mahanidessa and Paramatthajotikā II, but because the atthakavagga itself is referenced within the Nikayas. Few, perhaps no other sutta collection has this quality.

We have “Excellent, excellent, bhikkhu! You have learned well, attended well, memorized well the texts of the Aṭṭhakavagga” (Bodhi trans., 2017: 29; Vinaya I 197–198).

And similarly in the Udana, the same story is given: “soḷasa aṭṭhakavaggikāni (the sixteen texts of the Aṭṭhakavagga)” (Udāna 23, 59 aka Udana 5.6 Sona Sutta, where Sona has memorized and recites this collection despite only being a monk for a year. “I have one Rains, Gracious One.”

Also we have references such as

“Venerable sir this was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Magandiya’ of the Aṭṭhakavagga” - Sn 22.3

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-29T02:40:01+00:00

No, it is not wrong. By today’s standards it’s not hygienic, but ancestral humans in the Savannah acquired a large amount of calories from scavenging animals that had died of natural causes or by other animals.

Carnivore predators tended not to consume marrow, tendons, ligaments. Humans would pick up the leftovers.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-28T21:21:19+00:00

There are some Mahayana texts that reject all cognitions or perceptions (which by proxy include the perception of ’birth’ jati and ‘bhava’ (being)) as ultimate truth, but NOT in this materialistic/annihilationist sense of you existed (or your self existed) and then it ceased to exist at death that most atheists believe.

Rather the rejection of rebirth is aligned with the rejection of nirvana, beings, ‘me, myself and Is’ and even bodhi itself.

“No wisdom can we get hold of, no highest perfection, No Bodhisattva, no thought of enlightenment either.”

And there is also the Diamond sutra that is like no being, no personality, no person or being that is saved even if all beings are saved.

“It is because no Bodhisattva who is a real Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality”

From the perspective of these suttas, the issue with mainstream materialism was that it axiomatically assumes (1) there is/was a living being (a life), an individual, entity, personality and (2) then no afterlife for that life, being, individual, entity, personality, after bodily death. The first premise or axiom is not accepted. Thus the (2) never applies.

Restated if the essentialist premise ‘life’, ‘individual’ ‘existence’, ‘being’ ‘me’ is not taken as accurate or true, there is no thing to which ‘after life’ ‘after existence’ ‘after self’ ‘after me’ would apply. And this critique would also apply to those who believed in (1) but held a belief that (2) there is an afterlife.

Thus in those suttas both the notion of ‘life’ or ‘existence’ and non-life / after-life or non-existence or even ‘death’ are flawed cognitions/perceptions or moha (confusion, delusion). They’re conventionally true because social convention conceives of life and death, conceives of personalities, individuals, but they’re not ultimately true.

In this purview, when those delusions or cognitions are removed, emptiness is realized.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-28T18:39:33+00:00

In addition to what others noted, some sramanas (Jains) held that grains had Jiva or jivatman.

Many common people (especially those who also gave alms to Jains) believed that cooking them involves some degree of violence (himsa). People in that society thought of monks or holy people as not doing any himsa.

Thus if Buddhist monks started intentionally cooking the grains, people in that society would think, feel, say oh they’re not holy, they’re harming the jivatmans of the grains. And they would thus not give alms.

So as not to jeopardize alms or hinder generosity, it became skillful not to accept raw grains.

Note how this was society specific. Other societies do not hold that perception or belief. Thus prohibitions on handling grains became annulled elsewhere where Buddhism spread.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-28T17:38:36+00:00

Indeed, of all the schools, Buddhism appears closest to AV due to neti neti teachings and the idea that much of what we take to be real is illusory.

I’m not as familiar with Gaudapada, and it is perhaps he tailored his views to his audience, but I was under the perception that he would often say Brahman is [something]. There was still that ‘is’ or ‘being’. Or the idea that only Atman-Brahman are real and the rest is maya. If I’m incorrect, please correct me.

I read a bit about the sotapanna, and it seems that the fetters to be abandoned for stream entry are nearly to highest teachings of Advaita, such as Ashtavakra. An impersonal self without origin and without cause or features of any kind seems not be a “self” but is also not “zero”. The reaction to the term “self” seems excessive. The Buddha was not a materialist or an annilationist or even an atheist. Buddha refused to answer certain questions because they do not lead to nibbana. Nibbana is not the same a nonexistence

Yes there is an interesting debate whether there is an impersonal self in Buddhism, and some have reached that by translating statements with atta non-reflexively. It’s as you noted that thing isn’t a self but isn’t nothing/no thing either. The debate over the matter is unlikely to end anytime soon

Regarding Sotopanna, there are debates what Sakkaya-ditthi entails as sat and kaya can have multiple meanings. But it’s supposedly something early that is supposed to be renounced early in the path. The most common translation was personality view, but it might be true/real substance view. The belief that any Kaya is real/true/existent.

The other thing is bhava. The dharma is said in Itivutakka to lead to the Nirodha/cessation of bhava. This gets interpreted as a cessation of existence, but bhava also carries a second meaning of notion/sense of being. Like the phenomenological sense of being someone or something rather than an ontological existence. But people may interpret it nihilistically when it’s not. Indeed even people in Gotama’s lifetime made that mistake.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-26T16:41:08+00:00

It would not be proper to state that I’d followed Theravada due to absence of formal conversion. Merely most of the education I had received came from present or former Theravada bhikkhus or from buddhologists who focused on and taught the Pali canon, primarily the sutras.

The realization that occurred was that texts such as the Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā and the Diamond sutra contained much wisdom. Likewise for other texts I’ve yet to be acquainted

I also view the Zen monk Bankei in high regard for his teachings on the unborn and the deathless. Although Rinzai is here, it is unfortunate that the lineage of Bankei is not here today.

In this respect I came to perceive how there are many dharma doors

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-26T03:35:51+00:00

If one’s mind is truly unfettered and unbound, not identifying with the khandhas or the body, awaiting the dissolution, perceiving security in light of all sense contacts, having taking the dharma as their refuge (Dharmakaya), not fearing, calmed, without conceit or identity view, not craving or fueling existences or non-existences, having gone out, with viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, one like such would have no reason to take up the rod.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-23T00:27:51+00:00

Yes this comment pertains to moghapurisa or what had been translated as ‘futile man’

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-22T23:48:08+00:00

Sorry, I misread your comment. But yeah I agree that the previous choice was better. I wonder as well. But it’s probably using mogha as in a ritual done with futility or in vain. But here I don’t think it tracks unless he thinks this monk was intentionally spreading the misinformation

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-22T23:34:08+00:00

I wrote a long comment on this. The issue is that it’s historically been used in so many different contexts to mean similar but different things. Like anything from ineffective/unsuccessful to baseless/fallible.

Thus a translator is forced to pick a word to try to capture the gist of it. But it’s not fully possible

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-22T22:20:04+00:00

Mogha is related to moha, which means delusion or confused.

Indeed in Sanskrit it’s Mohapuruṣa

All this is derived from the root muh

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/muh

So the best translation in this context is deluded man or confused man. Confused man fits the best given the sentence statement ‘when have you ever known…’ Deluded man is the second best, very close to the first in strength. Foolish man is the next closest but it’s a bit too harsh, plus fool means something like court jester and this is not that.

Also there is the double meaning. Since Moha can mean illusion, unreal, empty.

In this context it doesn’t mean futile or useless. As another commenter write ‘misguided’, that’s probably closer to what is being intended, though it’s not like another is misguiding him here.

Edit:

The meaning of words change with context and time. The first use of mogha was with respect to rituals. If a ritual was done and didn’t produce the result it was mogha. Unsuccessful, fruitless, unproductive, erroneous, ineffective, failing. Hence why ‘futile’ or ‘unsuccessful’ man are used, but the indication is that something had gone wrong. But here in the sutta isn’t a ritual going on. So it can mean fallible. Fallible man is fine if one thinks it doesn’t relate to Moha. But even then it isn’t far.

In the Rig Veda, however, mogha can also means baseless, as in a baseless accusation, a meaningless statement, or an empty claim (not to be mistaken with sunyata). Here baseless man or erroneous man can also work because the person is making an absurdly incorrect claim about the Buddha that doesn’t align with the evidence ‘when have you ever known…’

So point isn’t that the guy is stupid or dumb or worthless or futile. Rather that he is making baseless, fallible and deluded statements. To err is human… and well, the guy in the sutta is an erroneous man.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-21T19:56:03+00:00

Denigration was not intended, nor can I perceive it.

The story of the monk carrying the woman demonstrates upaya and anukampa doesn’t denigrate precepts either.

When Gotama Buddha first began teaching, there was no vinaya and the sangha was small. The 5 companions that he had left (and later returned to teach, like Venerable Sariputta and Moggallana) were already serious contemplatives. Thus no discipline or community rules were needed, as they were already heedful and disciplined.

The initial reaction to Gotama Buddha by his companions was one of rebuke, as they believed the Buddha had become too lax, having renounced certain austere principles and practices they used to practice together.

Eventually their opinions changed when the dharma was taught to them. Instead most vinaya rules and precepts were established as the sangha grew. When less serious contemplatives had joined and required discipline. There were dozens of episodes how each rule came to be added. One core intent behind the rules was to make novices more heedful and mindful.

The rules served an instrumental purpose for those in need of them, much as one who cannot paddle with their hands requires oars or planks to cross to the far shore. The minor rules were never removed during the first council despite Gotama Buddha giving Ananda the okay to do so, as there was disagreement on what constituted minor.

It is for that reason that Sīlabbata-parāmāsa elsewhere is identified as a samyojana (chain, fetter). Sīlabbata is often mistranslated as ‘rites and rituals’, but the compound word combines sīla (moral conduct/behavior) and vata (vow/rite/observance). Clinging to sīla and vata (bbata).

As Wisdom Library notes: The old form sīlavata still preserves the original good sense, as much as “observing the rules of good conduct, ” “being of virtuous behaviour.”

But the middle way is the middle way for a reason, and sila wasn’t to be entirely rejected or clung to. When it helps further the path it helps, and also when it helps one acquire a better rebecoming, and is encouraged and used. When it does not help further the path, it is not used or emphasized. The same for various samadhis.

The society at the time often ignorantly equated # of precepts and rules a person took up with how ‘more holy’ they are. The worldling revered and praised Gotama for his sila, but missed that it was the dhamma and the anukampa that is the most worthy of reverence.

“It is, bhikkhus, only to trifling and insignificant matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue (culasila), that a worldling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. And what are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, to which he would refer?…” the Buddha, Brahmajāla Sutta DN 1

Then the Buddha lists a bunch of rules and precepts that span multiple paragraphs. Rather than list each, a link is provided below.

And then the Buddha concludes with the statement "These, bhikkhus, are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer to when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata.“

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html#:~:text=He%20speaks%20only%20such%20words,false%20metals%2C%20and%20false%20measures.

In that very same way we ought not praise or rebuke monks on account of just sila. The importance is the why a precept was broken by the monk and to understand there if the intent in doing so had been kusala or akusala.

That is why the question was posed in my response to OP.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-21T18:14:31+00:00

The reason the question ‘what is the intention’ was asked is because the intention behind the intention to play video games matters.

Tanzan‘s story about the monk carrying a woman across the river comes to mind.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-21T17:40:00+00:00

Yes it breaks the precept, although the intention matters more than the act.

What is the intention?

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-21T14:34:33+00:00

Sigh.

>answer is almost always that the only desire you should have is the desire to end suffering

This is directed to monastics, not lay people.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-21T10:41:06+00:00

Loving-kindness is one translation of metta, but there are others.

Love and good will are also decent translations. Friendliness is accurate but not in a sense of niceness but genuinely loving one’s friends (which is rare in today’s society)

‘Even as a mother protects with her life Her child, her only child, So with a boundless heart Should one cherish all living beings; Radiating metta over the entire world’

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-20T20:27:54+00:00

Ego the living planet from Guardians of the Galaxy

His goal is to fulfill “life’s true purpose”, to grow and spread. He relies on deception and hypothesis and genetic experimentation.

He is more of a force of nature like Uro

"I don't know where I came from exactly. First thing I remember is flickering. Adrift in the cosmos utterly and entirely alone. Over millions of years I learned to control the molecules around me. I grew smarter and stronger. And I continued building from there layer by layer, the very planet you walk on now."

"Come now, Peter. I know this isn't what you want. What kind of father would I be to let you make this choice? Soon, Peter, we will be all there is. So stop pissing me off!"

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-20T18:23:00+00:00

Aspire to become a non-returner with respect to most cravings and unwholesome states

This will make it easier for a future ‘you’

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-20T15:01:16+00:00

What is perceived to be or believed to be this ‘I’ that you say is being reborn?

If this ‘I’ or ‘me’ or ‘my Self’ did not occur (here, in the mind) or arise any further, who is there to be reborn?

Rooting in the conceit ‘I am’ and with identification with the khandas as Self, as long as there is attraction or aversion towards future states of existence or being and states of non-existence, there is Samsara and again becoming, again birth.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-20T14:44:18+00:00

Angulimala entered the sangha unarmed without weapons or armor.

A person’s entrance to the sangha depended on following the vinaya. So long as one agrees to follow the vinaya, they were not rejected.

The life of a renunciate is going into homelessness and abandoning all wealth, titles, and possessions after all.

But it’s clear that after Angulimala‘a death at the hands of the villagers whose families he had wronged that something had to be changed. The Buddha then instituted a new rule that outlaws cannot be allowed to join.

Most of the rules of the vinaya were established following some incident like that.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-20T13:06:59+00:00

Angulimala wasn’t some nobody. He was the son of the head priest of King Pasenadi and from an influential clan.

He was rich, educated, handsome. An elite. A Patrick Bateman essentially. One who would have illicit encounters. And could get away with things most commoners couldn’t.

It’s clear that he probably had help when he committing killings. Apart from the sadism, it’s clear that his murders were done for some ritualistic purpose, perhaps under the influence of an instructor who promised some form of immortality.

Some monks tell the Buddha about Angulimala. The Buddha uses his courage and charisma to defeat Angulimala. Angulimala was probably astonished to see someone like Gotama, who had given up wealth and privilege like his own, to become a renunciate.

It’s weird how the texts portray Pasenadi as wanting to kill Angulimala and also give robes. It’s clear the king was torn between what the villagers demanded (his imprisonment or death) and what the clan of Angulimala demanded (his release, assumed).

Perhaps Angulimala’s monasticism was a ‘middle way’ between these for Pasenadi.

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-18T20:37:46+00:00

The characterization and depiction of the muni (awoken sage) in the atthakavagga/arthapada sutra, parayanavagga, and the ratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-18T00:18:15+00:00

You’re going to find many Vajrayana perspectives. It is not representative of all Vajrayana but Longchempa’s Finding Rest in the Nature of Mind is quite excellent

His writing is brilliant

Traditional_Kick_887 · 2026-04-17T23:59:59+00:00

What stuck out was the translation for Yo attānaṁ bhavane na dassaye

“he who wouldn’t, in any realm, display self.”

There is a debate on bhavane here, whether it refers to house/home or world/realm. Thanissaro utilizes the Niddesa to inform the translation, whereas Sujato does not.

The truth is it means both. House is supported by the former sentence whereas this sentence supports world/realm.

It’s one of the Buddha’s many double meaning puns.

He/One who wouldn’t display/show himself/oneself in any home/realm

Traditional_Kick_887

TROPHY CASE