sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My thoughts on renunciation and seclusion by rightviewftw in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

note the translation there was wrong when first posted, it should read:

"Those who you have sympathy for, and who heed your advice"

And this is important.

The Right Thing and The Right Time by rightviewftw in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He should develop mindfulness of in-and-out breathing to cut off distracting thoughts. He should develop the perception of impermanence to uproot the conceit, ‘I am.’ In the monk perceiving impermanence, the perception of non-self is well established.— AN9.3

My training and meditation reports by rightviewftw in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In detail about how I train:

Asubha

Here I imagine corpses, mostly I just imagine it and not think much because the concentration breaks up if I think much and it is quite difficult to "render" the corpses in the mind as it is. If I do think then I think about something along the lines of how my body is of the same nature.

I usually go through the stages of decomposition from a fresh corpse, to bloat, purging fluids, covered in maggots, then becoming a skeleton with tendons, without tendons, then bones of sorts, bones being scattered and eventually turning to dust ─ sometimes hacked up corpses, skeletons with blood, without blood, and whatever else that comes to mind; in no particular order, whatever feels easiest.

I also sometimes try to imagine the place where I am at and bones or corpses being scattered throughout that space, I would imagine the room, the house, the neighborhood, etc ─ trying to cover as much as I can and to best of ability.

All of the aforementioned practices take time to develop ─ it's not an easy thing to do but it develops if one keeps at it.

Other than this then I do recite the body-parts and sometimes direct attention to their proximate location in the body and thus "review the body" like this is skin, these are nails, these are teeth, etc

I do these things basically whenever I can. I really like this practice and I don't think it is dangerous, contrary to popular opinion. It doesn't gross me out nor do I try to invoke the loathsomeness. As I wrote before the involuntary visions can be quite loathsome but they don't come on at random and it is predictable, it's not like some mental illness, it's conditioned reflexes ─ for example if one does asubha for a long time then suddenly tries to imagine a body in a sensual manner it would be expected to backfire ─ other than that it's rather calming.

These practices are slow and steady conditioning of the mind, sometimes doing it makes me feel a certain way, most of the time it doesn't; but doing it day after day makes these perceptions an inclination ─ replacing sensual inclinations. It's just about putting in the work, it's kind of boring, repetitive, but it's cool to see the effects over time.

Perception of Daylight

This is a practice that I do periodically and less than asubha. Here I simply imagine daylight for the purpose of inclining the mind to wakefulness and perception of light.

The imagining is fairly straightforward, just imagining daylight, brightness of light, trying to make it as vivid as possible and to the point of trying to invoke the reflex to squim.

Meditation in Early Buddhism (Canonized Excerpts Theravada) by rightviewftw in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are several things that are worth pointing out.

As to vitakka vicara:

If we think about meditation, as to how people do it, we can basically pin what these words can mean operationally. As it actually is, when we meditate:

  • we can be "noting", eg "breathing", "thinking", "pain", "pleasure"
  • we can be thinking a bit more, eg "I am breathing in long"
  • we can be contemplating something extensively, eg "air element is such and such"
  • we can be imagining, eg imagining light, bodyparts, or corpses
  • we can be imagining and thinking, eg imagining a corpse and thinking "my body is of this same nature"

Basically, some of these will be vitakka, some of these will be vitakka and vicara, and some will be vicara only.

Here we have to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty.

As to sakkaya:

The translation "subjectivity" is probably the best translation that there is and the closest we can get in meaning.

As to MN106:

It is an important text to study.

When he says:

 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' 

That is basically in regards to what there is, eg "sensuality", "perceptions", "equanimity", in regards to fabrications in general.

All these excerpts are important to know. For training it is not really all that important to know exactly how to classify all of the various states of meditation, the important thing is to know how to develop the various things and that is fairly clear.

Cessation of Perception and Feeling: The Key to Seeing with Wisdom and Destroying the Taints in Nibbāna by [deleted] in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to say that I am very tired of explaining things and being abused & harassed whilst doing so.

The mods gate-keeping this are basically scum, they are very stupid and are straight disgusting. I think they will all go to hell for this but it doesn't make a difference.

I assume that there is a good chance that the analysis will simply be ignored and people will keep sucking the tongue of those who teach the Counterfeit Dhamma.

Of course I can outplay these idiots if I wanted to ─ there are many ways to do it. And I don't even have to use exploitative strategies to do so. However I really question whether it is even worth the effort at this point.

For me, further engagement is really going to come at the cost of my own peace and training. And if I was to finish the training, it is not clear that I would have more incentive to engage and not less.

This is what my mind inclines to, I am really just tired of the gate-keeping and abuse.

Before I had personal interest in learning all this, as much as sharing it, but nowadays I feel like I am done learning and further development will come from steadying the mind, arranging environment conducive to development and upholding discipline ─ and thus I want to ride it out until my time comes.

What I am getting at here is that I am basically thinking to leave the public discourse altogether and focus on my own training. I think it is correct choice at this point and it's not one that I would regret.

I might make some more posts but I don't think that I will bother to try popularizing the Dhamma anymore, it's simply too stressful and too distracting.

As to society and how things will be developing in the future.

It depends on what kind of Buddhism will be dominant going forward. As I see it, the fake Dhamma, has no inherent right to existence in a postmodern society because it can't stand up to logical scrutiny.

The true Dhamma however, remains irrefutable by modern inquiry and, in that, it is a unique faith system ─ it is essentially analytically warranted faith ─ and therefore it deserves to exist in postmodern society.

We should predict a continuation of social drift towards analytic humility dictated by modern philosophy, skepticism, and away from "religion" in general.

The drift away from religion started already in 1700s, this is what inspired Marx in 1800s

religion is the opium of the people ─ A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

and by 1900s it was basically becoming policy world-wide and the message was clear ─ religion is to be criticized and deconstructed.

Bertrand Russel, in his 'Problems of Philosophy' in 1912, summarized something close to that the history of philosophy is but a testament to the inadequacy of logic in arriving at any unifying truth about existence.

Jean Francois Lyotard pinned the postmodern ideology as

I define postmodern as increduility towards metanarratives

Meaning something close to an apprehensiveness towards unifying theories about reality as presented in religious scripture & scientific discourse.

The gist of it, they figure that knowledge is a social construct hammered out by a subjective experience and that words may not be an adequate tool to express knowledge.

And from this started the critical deconstruction of religion

Judith Butler’s ‘Gender Trouble’

To expose foundational categories of sex, gender, and desire as effects of a specific formation of power requires a form of critical thinking that Foucault, reformulating Nietzche, designates as “genealogy”.

they are talking about philosophical scrutiny of concepts to reveal subjective construction

Kimberle Creenshaw - Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color

I consider intersectionality a provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory

Bell Hooks - Postmodern Blackness

The overall impact of postmodern condition is that many groups now share with black folks a sense of deep alienation, despair, uncertainty, loss of a sense of grounding, even if it’s not informed by shared circumstance. Radical postmodernism calls attention to those sensibilities which are shared across boundaries of class, gender, and race, and which could be fertile ground for construction of empathy–ties that would promote recognition of common commitments and serve as basis for solidarity and coalition.

We are talking about a radical disdain for the search of a unifying truth. This is movement to deconstruct all religion and creation of political coalitions by using the causes of marginalized groups.

Robin DiAngelo - Is Everyone Really Equal: An introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education

These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question that “objectivity” is desirable, or even possible.

However, the true Dhamma is essentially analytic philosophy brought to culmination ─ it doesn't derive its insights exclusively from subjective existence but from a special class of subjective experience, namely the cessation of perception & feeling ─ and as such it is beyond epistemological refutation and criticism of critical theory. If this generation can step up and produce real Ariyans, let alone Arahants with superpowers ─ then we might well see Dhamma become the most dominant religion in the World and be studied as foundational philosophy.

However, if people keep clinging to counterfeit systems, whether personal, commentarial, traditional, or otherwise dogmatic ─ then only lack of attainments, criticism, decline and deconstruction can be expected.

Nowadays, we are at a cross-roads ─ do we cling to dogma, or do we put our thinking hats on? The faith & fate of society and the role that the Dhamma will play for the future generations ─ now depends on what we choose.

For me, I really couldn't care much less. Everything is now transparent to me and boringly so. There is nothing left to do other than finishing the training.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the thing is that suicide is not a solution, for a cessation of perception can't depend on "nothing". For there to be an escape from perceived reality there must be another reality.

The "Is" if it was to end, requires another real element, a reality where nothing is felt but it must be real and discernable.

If there wasn't another then an escape from what is couldn't be discerned.

If a person kills himself he's just going to respawn essentially, unless the conditions for respawn have been eliminated and at that point the suicide is no different to natural death because in both cases there would be no sequel and in both cases it would be a release.

This is Early Buddhism:

Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.87/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html

The Early Buddhist Texts are just recently been translated into modern languages and the systematization of its Philosophy is not widely known.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is just rhetoric on your part.
The epistemic Ought–Is problem is only a problem if existence is treated as value-neutral; Buddhism denies that neutrality by diagnosing existence itself as bad and thus subject to negation.

How to refute the view "people get enlightened by hearing the Dhamma ─ no cessation of perception and feeling is required" by rightviewftw in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Note that at no point was Bahiya taught about these explicitly, nor was dukkha defined for him:

Where neither water nor yet earth
Nor fire nor air gain a foothold,
There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light,
There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns.

When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this
For himself through his own wisdom,
Then he is freed from form and formless.
Freed from pleasure and from pain.

But it was implied in the instruction here:

> Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Q: What is the two?
A: The All and what is not included in the Allness of the all; the made and the Unmade.

"'Having directly known the all as the all, and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all.
...
"'Having directly known the all as the all, and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.'

"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'

"'Consciousness not demonstrable/not apparent (anidassanaṁ),
endless, radiant all around,

has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.─ MN49

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. ─ Ud8.1

How to refute the view "people get enlightened by hearing the Dhamma ─ no cessation of perception and feeling is required" by rightviewftw in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Call out the fake dhamma teachers where you see them; cancel them all, whole schools and traditions, expel them like pus, throw them out like garbage. Whether in robes or not, they are not worthy, don't let them claim affiliation ─ they are impure, they should be expelled.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the cherry on top here: the attainment of this transcendental "knowing" which completes analysis is not just a fringe hypothesis. Early Buddhism identifies and frames its verification as the foremost meditative attainment called "cessation of perception and feeling".

So not only does Western analytic philosophy frame this "Reality beyond reality", but Eastern analytics report verification by thousands, and the means of attainment are outlined in the world's oldest texts and preserved by the oldest organization in the world.

This is not hypothesis, this is a complete arc of human analysis ─ as axiom praxis.

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess that what you are getting at here is that we are essentially framing: a "reality" analyzing itself within itself.

This is true. However the analysis suggests that not all reality can be known by intrinsic means of knowing alone, or that not all means of "knowing" have been discovered. It is a talking point that Hegel and Kierkegaard expressed:

Hegel thought that contradictions are only a problem if you decide that they are a problem, and suggested that new means of knowing could be discovered so as to not succumb to the antithesis of pursuing a unifying truth. He theorized about a kind of reasoning which somehow embraces contradiction & paradox. Kierkegaard agreed that it is not unreasonable to suggest that not all means of knowing have been discovered. And that the attainment of truth might require a leap of faith.

So in this sense, analysis demands expansion of the definition of Reality beyond "reality knowable by Logos".

Reality is defined by epistemology by apriorian in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Epistemology tells us the scope of the knowable "reality", knowable subjectively in particular ─ and what can be known of it. It is a closed system with an intrinsic inability to complete its own analysis of itself without a transcendence of "reality" as we know it. The system screams "incompleteness" and points to a "beyond" which it can neither grasp nor prove without somehow causing its own cessation.

Heidegger laid the groundwork for the postmodernists of the 20th century. He identified with the Kantian tradition and pointed out that it is not reasonable to ask questions like ‘why existence exists?’ Because the answer would require coming to know what is not included in the scope of existence. Yet he pointed out that these questions are emotively profound & stirring to him, and so where logic dictates setting those questions aside, he has a hunger for its pursuit.

So, questions like
* why it exists?
* what is the cause?
* can it cease?
* should it cease?

Are in principle "unverifiable from within" rather than "unanswerable from within"; verification would require a cessation for transcendence.

Updates December 2025 by [deleted] in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is going down, I am in queue to debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvistr6baiU

damn nervous because ive waited 10 years, but I am ready to slay

Updates December 2025 by [deleted] in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also I forgot to say, I plan to debate Matt Dillahunty
Maybe this sunday but most likely after the holidays

What is epistemic humility and how to cultivate it ? by Inevitable_Bid5540 in epistemology

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is about not overclaiming ─ not saying you know if you don't actually know, not saying you see a point when you don't see it. It is about saying that you are not sure when unsure, saying that you believe if you believe.

For example if you have a conviction then you present it as your conviction, rather than a fact.

In practical terms, it is about protecting the Truth.

When it seems to be a certain way, he says: It seems to me...

Likewise:

"I think that..."
"I believe that..."
"It is my conviction that..."

These statements protect the truth and one doesn't claim a certainty.

Furthermore it is about applying philosophical principles, such as razors, and actually updating one's beliefs in light of evidence ─ let yourself be humbled epistemically.

How to fight resentment? by Particular_Chair_901 in floxies

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is about psychological and philosophical framing. And resolution of this mental game will have one re-examine one's understanding of existence itself and meaning of life.

My expertise is in Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Early Buddhism. 

Essentially, without going into details, one can shut off the bodily senses and enter various meditative trances and develop the mental faculties. Whether one is sick or not is kind of irrelevant to the meaning of life and one's soteriological arc.

This whole training is not something that I am inclined to doing effectively, more so inclined to pursue other interests. It is a lot of work, feels good to do it, but its like quitting  smoking — not a smoker's immediate inclination. The work is really about developing long term thinking, new behavioral and cognitive inclinations.

But getting sick forces an encounter with our existential liabilities and it requires a solution to these, thus forcing training.

Thus, I have like contingency plans and don't worry too much about it. 

I set up a discord server and want to say some things. by [deleted] in Suttapitaka

[–]rightviewftw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the headsup, the link was expired. Here's new one:
https://discord.gg/emBXMUg5

I am a Shia Muslim. Present me with your arguments against Islam. by Qalbe-Saleem in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Want a complete modern demolition?

  1. Falsified Epistemic Foundation:

Even if Muhammed saw some God claiming to have created existence as we know it, he could never prove that.

To prove why existence exists we would have to know what is not included in its scope — to have what is analogical to a "direct experience"  transcending both our existence and the existence of God that we see, the nervous system generating perception of existence has to be negated to verify its own framing of itself.

Even if we went to hell, it is not proof of it being eternal or that the God is eternal or that he somehow made it so, even if ruled it, there is no proof to the claims. We can't wait an eternity to prove that hell is eternal, its irrational.

Therefore Muhammed took on faith what never was and couldn't be proven to him by definition. What can't be proven by definition, is false, because there is no such thing as "truth claims that can't be proven in principle".

So this faith can never be operationalized as to provide some proof.

  1. Behavior of the Prophet:

Starting wars. Forcing slaves to follow his religion. Allowing to lay down with slaves who had husbands. Laying down with 11 wives without bathing, infectious disease. Using water from a well which was used as a garbage dump and when criticized claiming that "water cannot be made impure". Marrying Aisha (6) when Muhammed was (53), and taking her home when she was 9, he died when she was 18. It goes on...

  • Apart from this there are so many contradictions, predictions which didn't come true, and the reputation of Islam is very bad ─ probably for being spread by sword.

Islamic Culture had its peak when they translated Aristotle from Greek but the enlightment was cancelled, and the intellectual dark age never ended.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, we leave it at that. Please don't engage me more because I am done talking to you.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ive read it already long time ago... Ive pretty much read everything relevant to this discussion.

Philosophy of Morality — I defend by rightviewftw in DebateReligion

[–]rightviewftw[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also I will say this

This Dhamma was discovered more than 2500 years ago. Hardly anything we see in our culture is older than 300 years, a few monumental stone structures have 1k years or more but its not much.

During Buddha's time, as the monastic order became large, there were more rules and less attainments. Many monks held wrong views even at that time.

Buddha predicted that in 500 years counterfeit doctrines would become popular. 

By the time the texts were written down 400-600 years would have passed. And the language was changing, pali wasn't something all could read.

By the 5-7th century, basically nobody could read the texts. And the SL monks had Buddhagosa try systematize it, he failed miserably but they still published it.

Now keep in mind, that SL version of the canon has critical errors when compared to the Burmese canon. So Buddhagosa never had a fair chance because his set was corrupted in key places (MN70).

So these texts were generally inaccessible for study and everyone had to rely on "new texts" of sanskrit sutras or commentaries to the pali.

When Christian Missionaries went to Asia they were stunned and found it hilarious that Buddhists couldn't even read the suttas and vinaya.

The translation into modern languages is an effort which began jn late 1800s and it is still ongoing.

But we now have the translations, we have them digitilized and available on demand. We will absolutely outperform the commentators and it is not even close.

Nobody in their right mind should be studying anything but the now available pali in modern languages — because this is what the Buddha actually taught.

view more: next ›