Analysis

**What is 'Dukkha' and do the Arahants have it?** There is a surprising controversy around this term 'Dukkha', usually translated as 'suffering'. Many people believe that one's attachment or clinging to the aggregates is what constitutes dukkha in the early texts rather than the aggregates themselves being dukkha. I will show that this is wrong. Let's look at some texts > There is no dukkha like the aggregates and no bliss higher than the peace. > Hunger is the worst disease, conditioned things the worst dukkha. - Dhp 197-198 > "These three, bhikkhus (monks), are suffering. What are these three? > The suffering of pain (dukkhadukkhatā), the suffering of formations (saṅkhāradukkhatā), and the suffering of change (vipariṇāmadukkhatā)— For the direct knowledge, full understanding, exhaustion, and abandonment of these three kinds of suffering, bhikkhus, … the noble eightfold path is to be developed." - sn45.165 Here it's important t...

**Introduction** In the study of the Buddhist texts, one encounters many subtle and intricate teachings on the nature of mind and suffering. Among the most peculiar of these concepts is the term pāpañca, often translated as "mental proliferation". I have studied this concept and want to present my take on it.  As I see it, pāpañca describes the process by which the mind expands on simple experiences, attaching excessive meanings, interpretations, and emotions to them. This results in a clouding of perception and an escalation of suffering. However, there exists an important counterpoint to this proliferation of thought—nipāpañca, the absence or cessation of mental elaborations. Understanding pāpañca and nipāpañca is crucial not only for deepening our understanding of the Buddhist path but also for refining our practice of mindfulness and wisdom. **Pāpañca: The Narrative of the Mind** The word pāpañca derives from the root pa (to spread, expand) and pañca (five), often linked ...

I will explain the terms "Dhamma-Eye" and "Seeing with wisdom" based on the sutta method, essentially analyzing MN26 by cross-reference.  > “Monks, there are three eyes. What three? The fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the **eye of wisdom**. Monks, these are the three eyes.” > This is the meaning of what the Blessed One said. So, with regard to this, it was said: > The fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the supreme eye of wisdom—these three eyes were taught by the supreme Buddha. The birth of the fleshy eye is helpful to obtain the divine eye. The arising of the ***knowledge of the Four Noble Truths*** is obtained by the unsurpassed **eye of wisdom**. Whoever obtains the eye of wisdom is released from all suffering. - Itv61 I will show how this is about knowledge & vision and there are different levels and kinds of knowledge & vision. Let's start with this excerpt from mn26 explaining how the Bodhisatta learned the Dhamma of Uddakka Ramaputta >...

Here I explain the foundational philosophy of physics and that of language. Question 1; In science, do immaterial or/and nonphysical things exist? Is thought non-physical and/or immaterial? Is science(math, physics etc.) non-physical and/or immaterial? Answer 1;  We think in these terms about things like the electromagnetic spectrum, eg particle accelerators where acceleration of the wave demonstrably requires thinking along these lines - immaterially about the material or materially about the immaterial. We are essentially using both physical and non-physical frameworks to predict and understand observed experiments/experience. Other than this, no, because the philosophy of modern physics, understood through the lens of modern epistemology, can't allow positing an existence of anything as divorced from the coming into play of subjective observation/existence. Thus, when we interpret experiments, we are fundamentally interpreting the workings of our own perceptions and nothing else...

Author: Rouslan Stian Stormoen, member of Buddhist Federation Of Norway (BFN). This post explores the application of epistemological razors to the early buddhist texts for analysis. 1. Problem Statement: In the landscape of philosophical and religious thought, there’s a recurring debate about the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as the nature of knowledge and truth. Traditional philosophical frameworks like Hume’s Guillotine and Kantian epistemology  have laid the groundwork for understanding this relationship. The emergence of radical postmodern thought further complicates the matters by challenging the very merit of looking for foundations of objectivity. Amidst this philosophical turmoil, there’s a need for a robust epistemological tool that can cut through the ambiguity and identify the fundamental flaws in various interpretations of reality. 2. Thesis Statement: The Postmodern Razor offers a powerful framework for evaluating philosophical and religiou...