Foundational Philosophy of Early Buddhism and Science

The First Principles

Foundational Philosophy of Early Buddhism: The First Principles

Author: u/rightviewftw
rightviewftw@gmail.com
Version: 1.5

Abstract

This work reconstructs the first principles of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) in analytic terms and compares them to the first principles of the Foundational Philosophy of Science. The Early Buddhism link to Analytic Philosophy here is inevitable structural because:

Vibhajjavāda (”doctrine of analysis” or “distinctionism”) was an early Buddhist school, an ancestor of the Theravada tradition, that emphasized analytical reasoning and discrimination of principles to understand the Buddha’s teachings more clearly.

Analytic foundations — Hume, Kant, and modern physics — articulate epistemic limits of phenomenological ontology: knowledge is model-relative, measurement-bound, and probabilistic where applicable. On the EBT side, the ontology is explicitly a two-category relativity: the synthesized (saṅkhata) and the unsynthesized (asaṅkhata), with a soteriology centered on cessation of phenomenological ontology (the synthesized). Verified insight into the unsynthesized is here delineated as distinct but not divorced from the meditative attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling (sannavedayitanirodha). “Predicate shifts” explain the non-classical logical and resolve paradoxes such as “pleasure where nothing is felt” by finding the symbolic referents.

Together, these frameworks yield an integrated philosophy where analytic humility governs qualified confidence claims within phenomenology, while Buddhist praxis provides the route to a definitive Truth. This synthesis produces a coherent foundational philosophy in which model-relative knowledge and soteriological certainty are mutually explanatory, reflective and pragmatically reinforcing.

Methodology

This work proceeds by analytic reconstruction rather than by commentary or historical exegesis. The Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) are treated not as theological scripture but as a philosophical data set — containing empirical reports, axioms, and predictive implications. The objective is to identify and formalize the foundational principles implicit in these texts in the same way that the philosophy of science abstracts the first principles underlying empirical observation.

When the aim is to reformulate first principles, collaboration and appeal to secondary scholarship can quickly become compromise. Independence preserves the integrity and coherence of the system, without reliance on secondary principles ─ and its the right condition for this kind of foundational reconstruction. But the work’s long-term weight depends on whether others can come to agreement, teach it and avoid analytic compromise.

I begin by framing the First Principles of Analytic Philosophy through core philosophical categories — epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, and soteriology. This will lay the groundwork for framing the First Principles of the Early Buddhist Texts within the same categories ─ before integrating the two into a unified system. The result is presented as an integrated, self-referencing and self-explanatory framework, meant to offer greater internal consistency, broader explanatory scope, and more predictive power.

Table of Contents

• 1. Framing the Data

• 1.1 Historical framing

• 1.2 Translations

• 1.3 Terminology

Part 1: First Principles of Foundational Philosophy of Science

In explaining the First Principles of Analytic Philosophy — I will show how Hume’s Guillotine frames phenomenological prediction to be of probabilistic confidence – and how this shows up in our models.

• 1.4 Introduction to Foundational Philosophy of Science

• 1.5 Foundational Epistemology: Kant

• 1.6 Kantian Tradition

• 1.7 Hume’s Fork

• 1.8 Hume’s Guillotine

• 1.9 Foundational Phenomenology

• 2 Foundational Ontology

• 2.1 Foundational Soteriology

• 2.2 The Difference between Mathematics and Physics

• 2.3 Framing the Problem of Measurement

• 2.4 Framing the Hard Problem of Consciousness

• 2.5 Framing The Copenhagen Interpretation

• 2.6 Framing Einstein’s Relativity

• 2.7 Framing Heisenberg’s Uncertainty

• 2.8 Framing Gödelian Incompleteness

• 2.9 Framing Bayesian-Probability Principle

• 3 Framing Korzybski’s General Semantics

Part 2: Foundational Philosophy of Early Buddhist Texts:

This part is framing the First Principles of EBTs in light of Foundational Philosophy of Science.

• 3.1 Introduction to Early Buddhist Philosophy

• 3.2 Framing the Soteriology of EBTs

• 3.3 Goals

• 3.4 Morality

• 3.5 Meaning of life

• 3.6 Framing the Epistemology of EBTs

• 3.7 Resolving the Ought - Is Problem

• 3.8 Foundational Epistemic Categories

• 3.9 Framing Phenomenology of EBTs

• 4 Change

• 4.1 Framing the Ontology of EBTs

• 4.2 Dependent Co-Arising

• 4.3 Foundational Axioms: Rebirth

  4.4 The Four Noble Truths

• 4.5 Logic of EBTs

Part 3: Novel Foundational Categories

This part highlights the extended epistemic components required to reconstruct the philosophical frameworks of the EBT’s

• 4.6 Integrated Soteriology

• 4.7 Integrated Epistemology

• 4.8 Integrated Phenomenology

• 4.9 Integrated Ontology

• 5 Integrated Foundational Axioms

Part 4: Notes

• 5.1 Notes

• 5.2 About This

• 5.3 About Me

• 5.4 Fair use

1.0 Framing of Data

The EBTs are about 12,000 pages (The Pali Text Society’s edition of the Tipitaka (English translation)) pages of foundational data.

In particular, proper integration of this data is required to explain the foundation of the oldest functioning organization in the world (Theravadin monastic order).

Transmission and preservation of the EBTs, when seen as a Data Set is incredible in and by itself.

This is foundational data, and it is essential to frame the entire scope of human knowledge and foundational philosophy, to make sense of our culture, and to consistently explain everything (including the data itself).

The texts consist of discourses of the Buddha, they were initially transmitted by disciples who had perfect auditory recall. There were only a few of these, but this was meant to be word-for-word of Buddha’s words kind of transmission, made error proof by communal recitation.

It would be good to realize the epistemic signal and the transmission effort behind it. There exists nothing like this, he set it up so that the monks essentially transcribed 40 years worth of speech and maintained the data for 2500 years ─ with not too much error.

1.1 Historical Framing

The EBTs have only recently been translated into modern languages. The translation efforts started in the late 1800s, mostly after the Panadura debates. During those debates, the Buddhists introduced a book called New Principia, by R. Morrison, F.A.S.L., described as a kind of post-Newtonian physics. I couldn’t find a surviving copy, but I believe it’s a historical link — because those debates showed that scientific literacy is the reason that Buddhism still survives.

After showing from Suryodgamana Sutra that Buddha had declared the existence of Mahameru, the Rev. gentleman stated that even a schoolboy could satisfactorily disprove his statement. The Rev. gentleman no doubt alluded to Sir Isaac Newton’s theory when he made that remark, according to which day and night were caused by the earth revolving round its axis, and not by the sun being hidden behind Mahameru. The little globe which the Rev. gentleman produced was one made on Newton’s principle; but even amongst Englishmen there were serious doubts and differences of opinion as to whether Newton’s theory was correct or not. Among others, Mr. Morrison, a learned gentleman, had published a book refuting Newton’s arguments, and he would be happy to allow the Christian party a sight of this book, which was in his possession. (Here he and handed around the “New principia” by R. J. Morrison, F. A.S. L., published in London.) How unjust, then, to attempt to demolish the great Buddha’s sayings by quoting as authority an immature system of astronomy, the correctness of which is not yet accepted.

I am not saying that whatever understanding of physics was correct or not, but rather to show that Buddhism needs to deal with science to not be criticized by outsiders.

There are now several lineages and generations of translations, the work is mostly done, and with minimal controversy.

So, this has not been studied much for millennia, locked away in libraries and those who had access wrote the commentary. The language was already an old dialect by the time the texts were written down — hardly anyone could read them after 1000 years. It doesn’t help that they are very difficult to understand and read analytically.

Here is the Panadura debate:
https://noolaham.net/project/1060/106000/106000.pdf

1.2 Translations & Definitions

Here are the particular translations I use. I use these particular translations for the purpose of formalization, coherence and standardized expression.

• Sankharā - Synthesis (synonyms: creation, formation, fabrication). I choose synthesis because of the Philosophical framing of this particular work, it is the correct philosophical term within the tradition. Otherwise formation/fabrication are my preference.

• Nibbāna — Extinguishment. This is the literal translation and I see no reason to change this.

• Bhava — Existence. Some occasionally use “becoming” but existence works consistently and I see no incentive to change. Bhava is effectively has the designation of phenomenological constructs framed as unpleasant/suffering [Dukkha].

• Dukkha — Suffering. The semantics are very clear here, the opposite of happiness/pleasure/comfort ─ dukkha frames what is categorically bad and shouldn’t be. Unpleasant as a category would be a good translation but for emotive drives we keep suffering. The utility of the framing should be generating a motivation to avoid pain and seek happiness.

• Dhamma ─ Phenomena/Phenomenology. I use this as Thanissaro’s translation of AN10.58, and it is a good fit as this work frames Buddha as the first Phenomenologist.

• Jīvaṁ ─ This occurs once in this work and I translate it as Anima, rather than popular translation Soul. This word refers to the living essence which animates and makes lively.

1.3 Terminology and Definitions

Effective Definitions:

• Philosophy — Foundational Systems of reasoning.

• Soteriology — Philosophy framing the meaning of life, goals and values.

• Epistemology — Philosophy framing the classes and categories of knowledge underlying the soteriology.

• Ontology — Philosophy framing epistemological categories as categories of existence.

• Phenomenology — Philosophy framing the ontology as lived experience.

• First Principles — These are foundational assumptions underlying all scientific models. They consist of axioms and rules derived from them, serving as prescriptive guidelines and bridges in our thinking.

• Axiom Praxis — Course of Practice deduced from the First Principles and verifying the axioms.

• Logic — The First Principles of Inference.

• Consistent logic: This is classical Aristotelian logic, eg: 2+2=4

• Predictive Shifts / non-classical logic: This is classical logic which needs to be contextualized to make sense, we can frame this as “Predictive Shifts” eg: “when mixing two cups of water the cook spilled some”. Here we could say that 2+2≠4. And it would look contradictory, but the contradiction is resolved by defining the semantic targets and context.

• Metaphysics: I effectively defined metaphysics as the introduction of contradictory axioms in providing an explanation. Whether rules or axioms, not subjected to experiment ─ are not analytic and not inferred from the evidence. This is essentially a breach in analytic integrity and what separates analytical explanation from fiction.

1.4 Introduction to Foundational Philosophy of Science

Analytic Foundations

The philosophy of science is grounded in the analytic tradition, which takes Reality as its foundational category. Within this tradition, reality is explored through four analytic lenses:

• Ontology — What exists? The fundamental categories of being and existence.

• Epistemology — How do we know? The limits and classifications of knowledge, including the conditions under which a belief can be considered justified.

• Phenomenology — What is experienced? How reality appears in consciousness, and how our models are constrained by perception.

• Soteriology (the “ought”) — Though often understated in analytic philosophy, science implicitly carries normative principles, such as the imperative to avoid error, uphold rational consistency, and refrain from making unjustified claims.

From this framing, the philosophy of science is not only about describing the world but also about clarifying the boundaries of certainty and doubt. Thinkers such as Hume and Kant established that absolute certainty cannot be derived from phenomenological observation alone, which means that scientific knowledge is inherently probabilistic. The philosophy of science thus approximates confidence rather than perfect prediction.

This framework sets the stage for evaluation and integrating Early Buddhist philosophy.

Here is a satirical framing of History of Philosophy, and the first joke ironically frames this work here as addressing a foundational issue:

1.5 Foundational Epistemology: Kant

Kant, in his “Critique of Pure Reason”, asserts that Logos can not know some external reality, for it’s scope is limited to it’s own constructs. Kant, thus puts a limit on “knowable reality”; states that one has to reject logic to make room for faith, because reasoning alone can not justify religion.

This was a radical critique of logic, in western philosophy, nobody had popularized this general of an assertion before Kant.

He reasoned that the mind can in principle only be oriented towards reconstruction of itself based on subjective conception & perception and so therefore knowledge is limited to the scope of feeling & perception. It follows therefore that knowledge itself is subjective in principle.

It also follows that minds can not align on matters of metaphysics because of running into contradictions and a lack of means to test hypotheses. Thus he concluded that reasoning about things like cosmology is useless because there can be no basis for agreement and we should stop asking these questions, for such unifying truth is inaccessible to mind

1.6 Kantian Tradition

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.

Schopenhauer asserted that logic is secondary to emotive apprehension and that it is through sensation that we grasp reality rather than by hammering it out with rigid logic.

Nietzsche agreed and wrote about ‘genealogy of morality’. He reasoned that succumbing to reason entails an oppressive denial of one’s instinctual drives and that this was a pitiful state of existence. He thought people in the future would tap into their deepest drives & will for power, and that the logos would be used to strategize the channeling of all one’s effort into that direction.

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 it’s pursuit, and he entertains a pursuit of knowledge in a non-verbal & emotive way. He thought that contradictions & paradoxes mean that we are onto something important and feeling here ought to trump logic.

Here is a brief summary framing the epistemic limits:

I read Bridgman’s The Logic of Modern Physics and found a similar criticism of language. With four good men in substantial agreement as to the basic difficulty, I seemed to be getting on. “The true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not what he says about it.” Scientists, through observing, measuring, and performing a physical operation which another scientist can repeat, reach the solid ground of agreement and of meaning. They find the referents. “If a question has meaning, it must be possible to find an operation by which an answer may be given to it. It will be noted in many cases that the operation cannot exist and the question has no meaning.” See them fall, the Great Questions of pre-Einstein science! It is impossible as yet to perform any kind of experiment or operation with which to test them, and so, until such operation be discovered, they remain without meaning. May time have a beginning and an end? May space be bounded? Are there parts of nature forever beyond our detection? Was there a time when matter did not exist? May space or time be discontinuous? Why does negative electricity attract positive? I breathe a sigh of relief and I trust the reader joins me. One can talk until the cows come home—such talk has already filled many volumes—about these questions, but without operations they are meaningless, and our talk is no more rewarding than a discussion in a lunatic asylum. “Many of the questions asked about social and philosophical subjects will be found to be meaningless when examined from the point of view of operations.” Bridgman cites no samples, but we can find plenty on every hand. ─ Stuart Chase (Tyranny of Words).

sourced mostly from this:

Tyranny of Words: https://brax.me/f/_OceanofPDF.com_The_Tyranny_of_Words_-_Stuart_Chase.pdf/T4AZ656c0b55b24828.64364638

On Kantian Foundations:

1.7 Hume’s Fork

Hume’s Fork which separates between two kinds of statements

Analytical - definitive, eg a cube having six sides (true by definition)

Synthetic - a human has two thumbs (not true by definition because not having two thumbs doesn’t disqualify the designation ‘a human’).

One can derive that:

Any variant subjective interpretation of what is - is a synthetic interpretation.

The objective interpretation of what is - an analytical interpretation.

1.8 Hume’s Guillotine

Hume’s Guillotine which asserts that: ‘no ought can be derived from what is’

The meaning of Hume’s statement is in that something being a certain way doesn’t tell us that we ought to do something about it.

Example: The ocean is salty and it doesn’t follow that we should do something about it.

Analogy 1: Suppose you are playing an extremely complicated game and do not know the rules. To know what to do in a given situation you need to know something other than what is the circumstance of the game, you need to know the rules and objectives.

Analogy 2: Suppose a person only eats one type of food all of his life, he wouldn’t be able to say whether it is good or bad food because it’s all he knows.

The popularized implication of Hume’s Law is in that: no morality can be derived from studying what is not morality.

It follows that no objective interpretation of existence can be derived from studying subjective existence exclusively.

In other words, what should be cannot be inferred exclusively from what is.

In general, Hume’s Guillotine separates descriptive facts from prescriptive claims. The meaning can be framed thus: normative statements require justification beyond subjective observation.

1.9 Foundational Phenomenology

The category of Phenomenology frames epistemically knowable (discernible) Reality as an Experience of knowing or discernment.

The phenomenology is epistemically boxed in by Kant, and the subjective emphasis of phenomenology grounds observed classes & categories of “things” within the context of subjective experience and thus constantly within analytic boundaries. This is most important for grounding experimental in experience ̣─ as the etymological links would suggest.

2 Foundational Ontology

Foundational Ontology can rightly be called “Phenomenological Ontology” because it frames experience as existence.

Ontological frameworks are the basis of scientific thought and are used to explain things and make predictions about what will be experienced, as what will come to exist ─ these are the foundations for our models.

In explaining what exists and in predicting what will exist, in particular ─ we are essentially trying to make an analytic phenomenological prediction which can be framed as a Proposition or a Proposition Bet.

To make accurate predictions about what we will observe, we use various models; conceptual, classical, non-classical, paraconsistent, etc. - but these are not “things” in themselves. They are model frameworks that aid us understand and anticipate our existence.

2.1 Foundational Soteriology

At first glance, it might seem that Analytic Philosophy has no soteriology at all. Yet, in a certain sense, it does—albeit a negative one. Analytic thinkers recognize limits: for instance, one ought not claim to make exact phenomenological predictions based solely on present observations. This principle echoes Hume’s Guillotine, keeping philosophers grounded in epistemic humility. In this framework, “salvation” consists not in transcendence or liberation, but in avoiding error and foundational commitments — refraining from fooling oneself and preventing others from doing so. It is a soteriology of intellectual caution rather than metaphysical deliverance.

2.2 The Difference Between Physics and Mathematics

In the first analogy, I will use the difference between *mathematics* and *physics* to illustrate the basic principle of establishing something as unreasonable doubt, the second analogy is complementary.

Analogy 1:

In mathematics we can conceptualize a perfectly weighted coin and that coin-flip. We here assert that the probability of flipping tails is exactly 50%. In a thought experiment with this perfect coin, we can flip it twice or more. The probability of flipping tails doesn’t change as we throw — because the coin is perfect and conditions remain the same.

In physics no coin is perfectly weighted, as a matter of fact we our best models would be describing the electromagnetic forces in play ─ rather than “a coin”, at least some of the time.

Hence in physics, before the first flip — the probability of flipping tails, is also epistemologically assumed 50/50, but not because the coin is perfect; rather because we are agnostic — there is no reason to assign whatever bias there is in either way, not yet, but we will update the odds as soon as we flip.

Therefore:

In physics, we are not dealing in abstracts — on the second flip the epistemology of probability changes in favor of the previous outcome. And at that point the imperfection is reasonably assumed to be slightly more likely to be on the side of the previous outcome.

It becomes the de facto reasonable assumption based on the evidence available. And the contrary proposition becomes an extraordinary claim which is not inferred from the evidence.

Analogy 2:

Suppose you have two people and you know that one of them is a nurse — you don’t know which is the nurse.

The only known difference otherwise is that one of them is closer to a hospital by 1 meter.

Agnosticism says the odds are 50/50. But common sense says: the one closer to the hospital is more likely the nurse — even a small difference in conditions shifts confidence intervals. Given this information the epistemology dictates that the weight here ought to be proportionally placed on the person being closer to the hospital.

Here we can summarize Foundational Philosophy:

Physicists, in making experiments are relying on various analytical models in making predictions. Prediction involves models of the electromagnetic spectrum, eg particle accelerators where acceleration of the wave demonstrably requires thinking along these lines. We are essentially using both physical and non-physical frameworks to predict and understand observed experiments.

Other than this, 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 phenomenology.

Thus, when we interpret experiments, we are fundamentally interpreting the workings of our own perceptions and nothing else. And the models are calibrated by measurement, this is evident in how the concept of Gravity calibrates the Weak and Strong electromagnetic force models.

And, while modern physics does not posit the independent existence of purely classical or non-classical entities, it necessarily relies on classical and non-classical reasoning to make sense of our perception. But these frameworks are conventional and have limitations, this is why we see paradoxes where the framework overextends itself — it is a feature, not a bug.

• Here Richard Feynman explains this:
  

2.3 Framing the Problem of Measurement

Foundational Philosophy predicts that when we do our measurements, we are only going to get an approximation, limited by our epistemic weight.

For example:

When we are flipping the coin, we are never going to be certain about the exact weight, no matter how many times we flip. And this doesn’t get resolved by changing the method of measurement and experiments ─ because what we are chasing (certainty) doesn’t exist in a purely epistemic sense, and what constitutes the classical absolute of “a coin” can not be pinned down as a Reality divorced from phenomenological ontology.

This epistemic principle is most evident in Cosmological Measurement:

The Stars are not where we observe them to be, because of the time it takes for the light to reach us ─ because of causality delay, the time it takes us to make the measurement frames temporal inference. Ontology here remains unproblematic; what is bounded is our epistemic access. The distances in play make this example most glaring but this principle is always in play.

It follows from Hume’s Guillotine: essentially making an exact prediction would be an over-extension of one’s model-frameworks ─ just as we can’t derive an ought from the Is; we can get certainty from uncertainty.

We can intuitively frame the Problem of Measurement by using the Butterfly Effect Principle:

The Butterfly Effect was first proposed by Edward N. Lorenz, an American meteorologist, in the early 1960s. Lorenz, while simulating weather, discovered that tiny changes in initial conditions could produce massive differences in outcomes — the first formal observation of what we now call the Butterfly Effect.

The Butterfly Effect is a now concept from chaos theory which says that small changes in the initial conditions of a system can lead to vastly different outcomes over time.

The name comes from the metaphor: the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil could set off a chain of events that eventually causes a tornado in Texas.

Key points:

• It applies to complex, dynamic epistemic systems

• It highlights sensitivity to initial conditions

In short: small causes can have huge effects in complex systems.

This captures beautifully the paradoxical predicament of the meteorologist. Their own intent/action of making the prediction will affect the prediction and they can only model phenomenology with uncertainty.

Essentially this shows why absolute prediction of future phenomenological states is impossible in principle even if the system we use is deterministic. In other words, even if we can predict the outcome of a replicable experiment, we can’t actually predict that the experiment will occur and something won’t go wrong.

2.4 Framing the Hard Problem of Consciousness

The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is rather a class of philosophical talking points which frame the effective definitions of “Consciousness”.

In general the Ontology of Consciousness is framed by its implication in measurement.

The Hard Problem is essentially in what is called mind or consciousness having to explain itself. What is It? Is it good or bad? Why is it? Answering these questions requires foundational ontological relativity, meaning multiple foundational ontological categories, not only phenomenological ontology.

This ties back to being epistemologically boxed-in by Kant and Hume’s Guillotine, the phenomenological system would inevitably overextend itself in making definitive statements about itself ─ any single phenomenological ontology is insufficient. The system can’t frame this without coming to know something other than itself, as a whatnot that it is. In other words there is a need for a not-is to analytically frame the is. Thus, Consciousness as a system of cognizance essentially can’t verify it’s own analysis framing itself ─ not by studying its constructs and categories exclusively. In other words: the system can analyze itself and frame itself correctly ─ but it can’t verify the analysis, without causing the system itself to cease.

2.5 Framing Framing The Copenhagen Interpretation

Framed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics was developed to formalize the phenomenological foundations of modern physics, particularly in experiments such as light diffraction* and the double-slit experiment. The CI emphasizes that phenomenological ontology is dependent on measurement; firmly grounding physics in analytical philosophy, saying that Reality is effectively defined in relation to the act of observation.

The CI, together with Einstein’s theory of relativity, has become the effective foundation of modern physics. It frames the philosophical categories and models where the conceptual math provides a probabilistic description rather than a deterministic account of reality. In epistemic terms, this illustrates the principle that certainty is constrained by observation, and our models serve to manage expectations about potential outcomes rather than to capture an independent, fully determinate reality. Again, Foundational Epistemology is in play here.

From the perspective of foundational philosophy, the CI resolves apparent contradictions, such as the limitations of classical frameworks ─ by explicitly defining the phenomenological context of measurement. In this sense, the CI is not merely a physical theory but a foundational analytic framework.

The Copenhagen Interpretation emphasizes complementarity: measurements constrain classical descriptions to experimental contexts. Apparent paradoxes reflect the limits of modeling, not contradictions in reality.

• Here a single slit diffraction experiment: https://youtube.com/shorts/yjrYxd8iD3c?si=ulLGlezdUs9M9xIW

2.6 Framing Einstein’s Relativity

Albert Einstein’s contributions formalized the mathematics of phenomenological relativity, providing precise tools to describe how observations vary depending on perspective and context. In this sense, relativity aligns closely with the analytic emphasis on observer-dependent phenomena.

Einstein introduced two foundational models:

Einstein’s relativity formalizes frame-dependent showing that measurements are frame-relative; ontology is stable, but epistemic descriptions vary by observer.

• Special Relativity (SR) shows that measurements of space and time vary with the observer’s inertial frame. Phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are not paradoxical but predictable features of the model.

• General Relativity (GR) extends SR to include gravitation and acceleration, providing a coherent framework to reconcile measurements across observers.
  These theories highlight analytic philosophy’s lesson: apparent contradictions can be resolved by carefully framing the model’s context. ‘Observer dependence’ refers to frame-relative measurements, not subjectivity or probability. Thus providing:

• A coherent framework for integrating multiple perspectives.

• A systematic method for reconciling observer-dependent measurements.

• An analytic structure for harmonizing and framing phenomenological observations.

From a foundational philosophy standpoint, Einstein’s relativity exemplifies how analytic models can systematically manage uncertainty stemming from observer-dependence. It shows that apparent contradictions (e.g., time dilation and length contraction) are not paradoxes but features of a framework that properly accounts for phenomenological context.

• Here is a famous thought experiment:

2.7 Framing Heisenberg’s Uncertainty

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP) formalizes the fundamental limit of what can be simultaneously known about properties such position and how special measurement frames the ontological structure of the general system.

From a foundational philosophy standpoint:

• Phenomenological Ontology: HUP illustrates that the act of measurement frames and contextualizes the phenomena being measured. The principle sets epistemic bounds on preparation and prediction; it does not imply ontological indeterminacy of properties.

• Foundational Epistemology: The principle enforces a form of epistemic humility—we can predict probabilities, not deterministic outcomes, reflecting Kantian limits on knowledge and Hume’s probabilistic interpretation of “what is.”

In practical terms, HUP exemplifies the general analytic principle that models do not capture an independent, fully determinate reality, but instead manage expectations and guide reasoning in the face of uncertainty. Like the Copenhagen Interpretation and Einstein’s relativity, it grounds physics in observer-dependent phenomenology, reinforcing the analytics linking epistemology, ontology, and measurement.

HUP sets preparation limits, bounding what can be known simultaneously. It is not merely a disturbance of measurement but a fundamental constraint within quantum mechanics.

2.8 Framing Gödelian Incompleteness

Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness reveals fundamental limits in formal systems: any sufficiently rich system cannot be both complete and consistent. Gödel shows the epistemic limits of formal systems. By analogy, ontological systems modeled within phenomenology exhibit scope-limited predictions. This does not imply that being itself is incomplete. In other words, no system can be complex enough to explain everything (including itself) without running into contradictions due to epistemic limitations established by Hume’s Guillotine.

From a foundational philosophy perspective:

• Epistemology: Gödel’s results formalize the limits of deductive reasoning. In closed epistemological frameworks, certainty is inherently constrained. This aligns with Kant’s insight that the mind can only access reality through its own constructs, and with Hume’s restraint of epistemic overextension.

• Phenomenological Ontology: Gödel shows that a closed ontological system can not complete itself within itself exclusively. Any model of reality, like a model of consciousness, quantum mechanics, or relativity, will necessarily need a transcendence for proof. Any foundational model, therefore, cannot be fully proven without transcending the foundational ontological category.

  In practical terms, Gödel complements the principles illustrated by the Copenhagen Interpretation, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty, and Einstein’s Relativity: all highlight limitations on absolute knowledge, whether in logic, observation, or phenomenology. The analytic task is to frame models and predictions with explicit boundaries, acknowledging that some truths exist beyond the epistemic threshold of any single ontological system.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems demonstrate that within any sufficiently expressive axiomatic system, some truths are unprovable. By analogy, models of reality have scope-limited predictions; this analogy informs epistemic humility but does not imply ontological incompleteness.

• Here a popularization video:

  
  

2.9 Framing Bayesian-Probability Principle

If Gödel, Hume, and Heisenberg establish the limits of certainty, the Bayesian-Probability Principle provides a framework for reasoning within those limits. Where deductive systems cannot guarantee completeness or consistency, Bayesian inference offers a method for updating epistemic confidence as new evidence arises.

In the coin-flip analogy:

• A priori (before evidence): With no knowledge of the coin, we assign a neutral 50/50 probability. This is epistemic agnosticism.

• A posteriori (after evidence): Once flips are observed, probabilities are updated in proportion to the outcomes. If tails appear more frequently, the probability of tails increases, not because the system has become deterministic, but because Bayesian reasoning requires us to weight models according to available evidence.
  
  From a foundational philosophy perspective:

• Epistemology: Bayesian reasoning formalizes the principle that knowledge is never absolute but always conditional and revisable. It is the mathematics of confidence, not certainty, and is therefore aligned with the probabilistic character of phenomenological prediction emphasized by Hume’s Guillotine.

• Phenomenological Ontology: Bayesian models acknowledge that what “exists” for us is always mediated by prior expectations and updated experiences. Existence, in this framework, is not a static category but a dynamic probability distribution, continually reshaped by observation.

• Soteriology (analytic sense): The imperative is not to be “certain” once and for all, but to eliminate error. This reframes salvation, in analytic terms, as disciplined adjustment of belief in the face of uncertainty — intellectual humility made operational.

In practical terms, Bayesian inference is the bridge between the impossibility of perfect prediction (Gödel, Heisenberg, Relativity) and the necessity of practical action. It transforms uncertainty from a problem into a principle: the very structure that allows us to move forward with reasoned confidence, even when absolutes are inaccessible.

This is like epistemic survival ─ we have our foundational axioms and are constantly assigning odds, and thus operating with Uncertainty in Phenomenological Prediction.

For example: we just assume that it is effectively (physically) impossible to flip a fair coin heads-up 5000 times in a row, yet we can count the probability of this mathematically.

Another example: is in how we would go about predicting things in general, like I might predict: In one minute my alarm will go off (ontology) and I will hear it (phenomenology). But even if I set this up to the best of my ability — I might die or something unforeseen might happen and my prediction doesn’t occur. One might say that other people will hear the alarm, but what if they also die ─ we don’t get to divorce ontology from phenomenology: an observer frames the entire phenomenological “world-system” and it is effectively the only context framing a discernible “world”.

And because we always tie ontology to a phenomenological frame of reference ─ can never make an absolute prediction. We can only model our best guess, until our analysis overextend itself, whether it is measuring the position of planets or an electron.

So we don’t actually have definitive certainty, the framework of one foundational category of Reality (as ontological phenomenology) doesn’t allow it.

Western Analytics have the problem of the system pointing beyond itself in it’s inability to verify its own analysis and they haven’t found a way to deduce the second ontology (which is not phenomenological) without introducing metaphysics (contradictory axioms).

To sum up, Bayesian updating formalizes how prior credences are revised by evidence. For instance, flipping a coin once slightly shifts the probability of bias but does not determine it conclusively. This illustrates probabilistic inference as bounded and model-relative, aligning with analytic humility.

3 Framing Korzybski’s General Semantics

Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics highlights the structural difference between phenomenological ontology and our symbolic mapping of it. His central axiom, “the map is not the territory”, captures a foundational principle of being epistemologically limited: our words, models, and categories are models, models are one thing and what is being modeled is another.

From a foundational philosophy standpoint:

• Epistemology: General Semantics demonstrates the limitations of language as a system of reference. Just as Gödel shows that no formal system can prove all its truths from within, Korzybski shows that no linguistic map can capture the totality of the territory. Knowledge is always mediated by abstraction, and abstractions inevitably exclude as much as they include.

• Phenomenology: Experience itself is filtered through layers of abstraction — from raw sensation, to perception, to conceptual framing. What we take as “reality” is already structured by these semantic maps. And the danger arises when the map is mistaken for the territory — when symbols are reified as the reality they point toward.

• Ontology: Korzybski emphasizes that categories of being (what we label as “objects,” “selves,” or “things”) are themselves semantic constructs which ought to be grounded in phenomenology. They function pragmatically within experience but are not pinned down as reality. This recognition aligns General Semantics with both Einstein’s relativity (observer-dependence) and the general analytical framework,

• Soteriology (analytic sense): The practical implication is intellectual humility: by recognizing that all knowledge is mediated by symbolic maps, we avoid mistaking partial abstractions for complete truth. Salvation here means freedom from semantic delusion — the refusal to equate symbols with realities, models with truths, or maps with territories.

In the broader arc of foundational philosophy, Korzybski provides the linguistic and semantic complement to Gödel’s logical limits and Bayesian probability. Together they point toward a systematic recognition: all systems of knowledge are mediated, provisional, and representational. This insight clears conceptual space for the Early Buddhist Texts, which frame the very problem of suffering as rooted in clinging to misapplied abstractions.

• Applied demonstration:

Here is an important video framing what OP frames as the “Communications Studies”, a essentially the type of communication sought after by an Analytic Philosopher:

3.1 Introduction to Early Buddhist Philosophy

Early Buddhist Philosophy (EBP), as preserved in the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs), presents itself not primarily as a religion or speculative metaphysics, but as a rigorous analytic framework. Its concern is not with transcendent absolutes or theological assertions, but with the structure of experience, the limits of knowledge, and the conditions for liberation from analytic error and suffering. In this sense, EBP is foundational analytic philosophy ─ one that anticipates, parallels, and surpasses the insights of later analytic and scientific traditions.

Whereas Western philosophy from Kant to Gödel emphasizes the epistemic limits of reason, and modern physics formalizes observer-dependence and uncertainty, grounding the entire philosophy in epistemic rigor. The EBTs begin from recognition of the base analytic category framing Reality as grounded in epistemic principles.

However, where western analysis simply entertained foundational ontological relativity as metaphysics, EBP framed the second element as an axiomatic rule deduced from the possibility of a phenomenological cessation. So these texts have the Not-Is required to define the analytic horizon beyond the Guillotine.

At the heart of EBP lies the principle that phenomenology is to be understood in terms of arising, persistence, and cessation. Thus, the EBTs avoid the pitfalls of asserting eternal substances (as in classical metaphysics) or denying all reality (all is illusion). Instead, they articulate a middle position: what exists is with a cause, the cessation must be caused, and this can only be possible if there is an Uncaused Element. In analytic terms, this is the second ontological category of the unsynthesized: a second foundational Reality apart from phenomenology, which is unconstructed and uncaused.

The orientation of EBP is thus both epistemic and soteriological. Its logic is consistently pragmatic and Its soteriology is analytic: liberation is achieved not through speculative doctrines but through disciplined analysis of experience ─ deduce the causal relations, deduce the axiomatic implications, deduce the course of praxis and consequently verity the axioms.

Framed in this way, Early Buddhist Philosophy can be read as complementary to the analytic tradition outlined earlier. Where Kant, Hume, Heisenberg, and Gödel disclose limits, the EBTs frame transcendence. They accept the impossibility of absolute certainty being derived from uncertainty, but instead of despair, they frame the certainty of phenomenological cessation.

In short, Early Buddhist Philosophy is not merely a historical curiosity or religious dogma, but a foundational philosophy that operates with the same categories as modern analytic thought — epistemology, ontology, phenomenology, and soteriology ─ while providing an inherently more complex and complete system.

3.2 Framing the Soteriology of EBTs

The Soteriology of EBTs is unique because all other frameworks take persistence of phenomenology for granted and base the entire arc exclusively on phenomenological persistence.

The Soteriological basis of EBTs is unique, they frame it around a special category: a cessation of phenomenology in particular.

In other words, the Soteriology of Buddhist Philosophy (BP) depends on a special class of experience, namely its cessation. This attainment is explained as an attainment of cessation of perception & feeling (sannavedaniyanirodha).

The element of the cessation of perception and feeling is an attainment of cessation.” —SN14.11

Bodhisatta and other people were looking for the Deathless because they thought much about the endless rounds of rebirth and whether an escape could’ve been possible.

If one asserts the predicament of being locked into a self-perpetuating phenomenology system, which one defines as “a bad” and “a suffering”, and considering whether an escape is possible — one would inevitably see that any transcendence would have to entail a cessation of phenomenology — and cessation would require an Unsynthesized element with its own ontology — hence the Deathless search.

One essentially has an axiom and what lacks is a how to cause the cessation, as to prove the axiom.

So one would go off looking for the Unsynthesized.

Western Philosophy hasn’t dealt with this — it deals in epistemic limits and phenomenology but not much about cessation. It’s more foreign for a relative lack of reflection on the implications of rebirth. This is what remains overlooked in postmodernity. The persistence of synthesis is taken for granted, the causes unexplored, and this has been a philosophical dead-end defining postmodernity.

This is philosophically universal and could’ve been inferred without any reference to EBTs.

Somebody could’ve simply asked:

• What would it take for a moral claim to be beyond criticism based on Hume’s Guillotine?

If they really thought about this long enough and drew from Heidegger’s hunger to know — they could have seen that any transcendence would have to entail a cessation — and the cessation would require an unsynthesized element with its own ontology. This is the only way the system can logically point beyond itself.

In other words:

There is an implication of Hume’s Guillotine: morality, if it can be known, can only be derived from cessation of what isn’t morality. And that would entail a cessation of phenomenology for transcendence.

Then one essentially has the same axiom as the Unsynthesized and a basis for the Soteriological transcendence based on absolute certainty.

Here is the EBT framing:

“Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.

“And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

“And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver [2] are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

“And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Extinguishment. Himself being subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Extinguishment. This is the noble search.

“I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth, sought what was likewise subject to birth. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, I sought what was likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement. The thought occurred to me, ‘Why do I, being subject myself to birth, seek what is likewise subject to birth? Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, why do I seek what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement? What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Extinguishment? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Extinguishment?’ — MN26

Once he has the framing, the causal axioms a sense of the goal, he trains thus

Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, synthesis, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering [unpleasant], as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all synthesis, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Extinguishment.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. — MN64

Here is the deduced necessity

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unsynthesized [unfabricated]. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unsynthesized [unfabricated], escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. — Ud8.3

Here is why that element is framed as the Truth

His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna. Therefore a bhikkhu possessing this truth possesses the supreme foundation of truth. For this, bhikkhu, is the supreme noble truth, namely, Nibbāna, which has an undeceptive nature.” — MN140

Here another framing Consciosuness as deceiving:

“Form is like a lump of foam;feeling is like a bubble;perception seems like a mirage; synthesis like a banana tree; and consciousness like a magic trick:so taught the kinsman of the Sun. ─ SN22.95

Here are more of the implied logic:

“What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant pleasant or suffering [unpleasant]?”

“Suffering [Unpleasant], lord.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, suffering [unpleasant], subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”...

“Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”...

“Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”...

“Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant pleasant or suffering [unpleasant]?”

“Suffering [Unpleasant], lord.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, suffering [unpleasant], subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard synthesis as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In synthesis?... Elsewhere than synthesis?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-synthesis-consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without synthesis, without consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“And so, Anuradha — when you can’t pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life

Why now do you assume ‘a being’? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap [aggregate] of sheer synthesis [formations/constructs]: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There’s the convention ‘a being.’ It’s only suffering [unpleasantness] that comes to be, suffering [unpleasantness] that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering [unpleasantness] comes to be, nothing but suffering [unpleasantness] ceases. ─ SN5.10

And so this is how the system doing the analysis:

• Frames itself as Suffering [Unpleasantness]

• Its inability to verify its own analysis points to a Beyond as being otherwise (not unpleasant = pleasant).

• And the system causes its own cessation for verification.

There can be no other type of proof for what they are trying to prove here. Buddha offers the experiment verifying the Unsynthesized and it requires a pragmatic leap — not into metaphysics, but into praxis. It must be realized, not reasoned.

Here is how the Usynthesized is framed:

There is that base/dimension/reality (ayatana), monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support. This, just this, is the end of unpleasantness. ─ Ud8.1

Theravadin commentary to the U8.1 text by Dhammapala called Udanatthakatha explains

... at the same point therein also the absence of this world and the next world, he therefore says “Neither this world nor the next world”.

This is it’s meaning:

Thererein there is neither of the two, viz. That world of the khandas (aggregates of form, conscioussness, perception, feeling, constructs) that has acquired the designation “This world belonging to those seen conditions, this state of affairs” and that world of the khandas that has acquired the designation “The future state, that which is other than, subsequent to, that”.

Nor both sun and moon means that since it is possible to speak of the gloom and of a need for that gloom’s scattering to be maintained by sun and moon (only) when there be something that has taken form - so whence the gloom, or a sun & moon scattering that gloom, wherein simply nothing at all has taken form - therefore there is therein, in that nibbana, neither viz. sun and moon; in this way he indicates the fact of nibbana having it’s own nature solely that of light.

And as the Dhamma-king was explaining to those lacking complete penetration, the ultra-profound, extremely hard to see, abstruse and subtle, Deathless nibbana, that is beyond the sphere of logic, perpetually calm, capable of being experienced only by the wise, extremely choice (yet) not formerly experienced (by them), even in a dream, within this samsara that is without beginning, he, having, thus far, first of all dispelled their lack of knowledge and so on to it’s existence, saying “There is, monks, that base”, then explains that (same nibbana) via elimination of things that are other than that saying “Wherein there is neither earth... nor both sun and moon”, whereby there is elucidated the fact that that which is the unconditioned element, which has as it’s own nature that which is the antithesis of all conditioned things, such as earth and so forth, is nibbana, for which (same) reason he (next) says “There, too, monks, I do not speak neither of coming (and so forth)”.

The commentator makes a reference to

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars don’t shine, the sun isn’t visible. There the moon doesn’t appear. There darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has realized [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed. ─ Ud1.10

and this

“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”

“On the western wall, lord.”

“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”

“On the ground, lord.”

“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”

“On the water, lord.”

“And if there is no water, where does it land?”

“It does not land, lord.”

“In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.” ─ SN12.64

Here is the process of verification being framed:

“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of concentration like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ ─ AN11.7

and here a parallel

“Reverend Ānanda, this one time I was staying right here at Sāvatthī in the Dark Forest. There I gained a state of immersion like this. I didn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And I didn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And I didn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet I still perceived.”

“But at that time what did Reverend Sāriputta perceive?”

“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ At that time I perceived that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.” ─ AN10.7

Here Buddha himself dictates the necessity for Frame Shifting in understanding the model he teaches:

Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, ‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’” ─ MN58

3.3 Goals

Even though the attainment of cessation (sannavedayitanirodha) serves as the soteriological foundation purifying the mind — the attainment is framed as a means to finishing the work, thus it is the arising from the attainment with a completely purified mind which is the final soteriological goal of EBTs.

Here is the framing:

This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Extinguishment (Nibbāna): the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.”

The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Deathless ─ SN45.7

The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Unsynthesized (asankhātam) —SN43.12

The end goal is also framed thus:

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, synthesis [formations], and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all synthesis [formations], the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, extinguishment (Nibbāna).’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters. ─ MN64

Note what is happening here, he pragmatically frames the ultimate goal and immediacy through several frameworks ─ both the proximate cause and the effect are framed here.

3.4 Morality

If we assume Rebirth as a given: then morality can be framed in terms of game theory over several lives. This dictates balanced cooperative roles where no person has incentive to take advantage of another — integrity checks immediate identity interest.

The morality prescribed by BP is thus pragmatically framed by the axiom praxis verifying the axioms.

In other words:

• Whatever is conducive to the goal is good, right, and moral;

• Whatever is not conducive to the goal is bad, wrong, immoral.

• Essentially the highest good dictates the best course.

After the goal is attained, this framework becomes inapplicable and overextended. This occurs because people keep moral guidelines out of fear, and one who has completed the training no longer has fear.

Whoever here (in the Dispensation) lives a holy life, transcending both merit and demerit, and walks with understanding in this world — he is truly called a monk. ─ Dhp267

What sort of person is restrained by fear?

The seven (kinds of) learners are restrained by fear and those average persons who observe the precepts: the Arahants are not restrained by fear. ─ Abh.PP2.1

“Mendicants, there are these four fears. What four? The fears of guilt, shame, punishment, and going to a bad place.

And what, mendicants, is the fear of guilt? It’s when someone reflects: ‘If I were to do bad things by way of body, speech, and mind, wouldn’t I blame myself for my conduct?’ Being afraid of guilt, they give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, keeping themselves pure. This is called the fear of guilt.

And what, mendicants, is the fear of shame? It’s when someone reflects: ‘If I were to do bad things by way of body, speech, and mind, wouldn’t others blame me for my conduct?’ Being afraid of shame, they give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, keeping themselves pure. This is called the fear of shame.

And what, mendicants, is the fear of punishment? It’s when someone sees that the kings have arrested a bandit, a criminal, and subjected them to various punishments—whipping, caning, and clubbing; cutting off hands or feet, or both; cutting off ears or nose, or both; the ‘porridge pot’, the ‘shell-shave’, the ‘Rāhu’s mouth’, the ‘garland of fire’, the ‘burning hand’, the ‘bulrush twist’, the ‘bark dress’, the ‘antelope’, the ‘meat hook’, the ‘coins’, the ‘caustic pickle’, the ‘twisting bar’, the ‘straw mat’; being splashed with hot oil, being fed to the dogs, being impaled alive, and being beheaded.

They think: ‘If I were to do the same kind of bad deed, the kings would punish me in the same way.’ … Being afraid of punishment, they don’t steal the belongings of others. They give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, keeping themselves pure. This is called the fear of punishment.

And what, mendicants, is the fear of rebirth in a bad place? It’s when someone reflects: ‘Bad conduct of body, speech, or mind has a bad result in the next life. If I were to do such bad things, when my body breaks up, after death, I’d be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’ Being afraid of rebirth in a bad place, they give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, keeping themselves pure. This is called the fear of rebirth in a bad place.

These are the four fears.” ─ AN4,121

Because the philosophy is generally impersonal and the ontological system self-contained and self-directed ─ the entire system is perfectly just ─ as in there can exist no injustice in consequences to be experienced.

3.5 Meaning of Life

The Soteriological framework of EBTs effectively frames this Arc:

First a person has to find out what the meaning is and this mirrors the analytical error-avoidance and search for truth. The search for meaning is at that point the qualified meaning of life. When the meaning has become known and sense of the goal acquired, one verifies and eventually the training culminates.

“I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth, sought what was likewise subject to birth. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, I sought [happiness in] what was likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement. The thought occurred to me, ‘Why do I, being subject myself to birth, seek what is likewise subject to birth? Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, why do I seek what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement? What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: extinguishment? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: extinguishment?’ ─ MN26

Effectively because phenomenological complex is defined as a predicament, subject to death, and something that ought to cease, and its cessation being the definitive pleasure ─ that is essentially the development Arc:

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends an ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: “weighs,” “compares”). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

“To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.

“Yes, Master Gotama, to this extent there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. We regard this as an awakening to the truth. But to what extent is there the final attainment of the truth? To what extent does one finally attain the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the final attainment of the truth.”

“The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth.”

“Yes, Master Gotama, to this extent there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. We regard this as the final attainment of the truth. ─ MN95

3.6 Framing the Epistemology of EBTs

As previously discussed, the epistemology of EBTs is made distinct from other systems by the immediacy serving as the soteriological foundation.

As the framework is based on a special phenomenological category of cessation — the epistemological framework frames this as a special foundational category divorced from phenomenology but associated with the realization of phenomenological cessation.

Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, ‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’ ─ MN59

Here we see the demand to utilize non-classical logic in reading the texts, relying on semantic/epistemic framing to resolve the contradiction ─ this is where the overcoming of Hume’s Guillotine occurs, this is where the framework points beyond itself without falling into contradiction.

There he addressed the monks: “Reverends, nibbāna is bliss! Nibbāna is bliss!”

When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?

“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it. ─ AN9.34

Because the epistemological system is pointing beyond itself here, in pointing to an Unsynthesized ─ the Unsynthesized can not be otherwise inferred from the constructed or empirically verified. Anything that can be inferred from the constructed is just another constructed phenomena. If we’re relying on inference,or empirical verification, we’re still operating within the category of phenomenological ontology. The Unsynthesized is not an empirical posit but a soteriological ontological category — known through cessation, not through inference or empirical construction.The Unsynthesized isn’t something that can be grasped that way ─ it’s realized through direct cessation, not conceptualization or another subjective existence. Therefore it is always explained as what it is not.

Therefore the attainment of cessation doesn’t require empirical proof ─ the attainment is a non-empirical proof – verifiable by those who can attain it.

It can however be asserted to be real by asserting that the constructed is caused and that these causes can be exhausted, this would posit a cessation of the constructed which would then be possible because there is what is by definition not constructed. Yet the verification would require a leap of faith.

Otherwise the texts avoid questions which overextend the models:

“That has not been declared by me, Vaccha: ‘The world is eternal.’”

“Well then, Master Gotama, is the world not eternal?”

“Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: ‘The world is not eternal.’”

“Then is the world finite?”... “Is the world infinite?”... “Is the body the same as the anima?”... “Is the body one thing, and the anima another?”... “Does the Tathagata exist after death?”... “Does the Tathagata not exist after death?”... “Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?”... “Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?”

“Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”

…

The Realized One doesn’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. He doesn’t regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness.

That’s why, when asked, he does not declare one of those answers to be true.”─ SN44.8

This is about overextending the models rather than whether we can know or can not know ─ it is about whether the questions are analytic or metaphysical. To keep the discussion in the domain of analysis, we would have to essentially be able to set odds on the axiomatic propositions. However, we would first have to decide whether a betting line is even worth opening. And a metaphysical line isn’t really something one can calculate the probability of based on phenomenological data.

Thus we remain epistemologically boxed in describing a closed ontological system called “World” as a Suffering:

“Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the ‘world.’ Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

“The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

“The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

“The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

“The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

“The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

“Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the ‘world.’” ─ SN35.82

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world?

Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One.

When the Buddha gave this brief summary recital, then entered his dwelling without explaining the meaning in detail:

‘Monks, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of the world by traveling. But I also say there’s no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the world.’

That is how I understand the detailed meaning of this summary. ─ SN35.116

3.7 Resolving the Ought ─ Is Problem

Here is exactly how Buddha resolved the Ought-Is Problem:

Here is the complete arc of Siddhartha’s thought eventually transcending Humean Epistemology and categorical expansion:

• First Siddhartha Gotama was like everybody else. He had ideas about how he ought to live his life and philosophized like everybody else, held beliefs like everybody else — and like everybody else he was deriving his Oughts from what Is.

• At some point he entertained the idea of a cessation of the Is and the implications of there being a Not-Is. He wasn’t alone in this, there are others in the texts. At this point he is still deducing axioms. His Oughts are still derived exclusively from what Is

• He eventually framed the axioms of Causality, the Unsynthesized, and derived that he Ought to cause a cessation of the Is. Still all his oughts are derived exclusively from the is.

• Consequently, through axiom praxis he causes the cessation of the Is. This attainment is called cessation of perception and feeling

Which is possible because there is an ontological Unmade Truth & Reality, apart from the Phenomenology.

• Now his axioms are verified working as intended. And he can claim that his Oughts are no longer derived exclusively from what Is.

He has done what Heidegger couldn’t dream of:

• [Heidegger] 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.

Buddha:

• 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.’ — MN49

The All is defined here:

Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, “What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, ‘Repudiating this All, I will describe another,’ if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.” — SN35.23

• So, at this point his Oughts and axioms are verified, and are not derived exclusively from the Is but also from the Not-Is. He now has verified the complete analytical map.

Hence he says there are two ontological elements — The made phenomenology and the Unmade element.

And he tells others how to verify this for themselves.

3.8 Foundational Epistemic Categories

Faith, in this context, isn’t just blind belief or analytic confidence – it’s a trust in the axioms and the process leading to direct verification. The cessation of perception and feeling isn’t something one can prove to another person through measurement or inference. It requires a leap ─ the willingness to commit to a path without empirical guarantees, trusting that the attainment itself will be the proof.

This is where Buddhism, in defining faith, diverges from both Bayesian-Probability and traditional faith-based religions. It doesn’t demand belief in something falsifiable or unverifiable forever, but it does require faith until verification.

“Sāriputta, do you have faith that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in freedom from death?”

“Sir, in this case I don’t rely on faith in the Buddha’s claim that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in freedom from death. There are those who have not known or seen or understood or realized or experienced this with wisdom. They may rely on faith in this matter. But there are those who have known, seen, understood, realized, and experienced this with wisdom. They have no doubts or uncertainties in this matter. I have known, seen, understood, realized, and experienced this with wisdom. I have no doubts or uncertainties that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in freedom from death.”

“Good, good, Sāriputta! There are those who have not known or seen or understood or realized or experienced this with wisdom. They may rely on faith in this matter. But there are those who have known, seen, understood, realized, and experienced this with wisdom. They have no doubts or uncertainties that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in freedom from death.” ─ SN 48.44

This creates two novel epistemic categories

• Unverified absolute confidence. Absolute for lack of epistemic doubt [no reasonable doubt]. But one still has has doubt due to ignorance and psychological bias [unreasonable doubt].

• Verified absolute confidence. One can no longer have epistemically reasonable doubt. And can no longer have unreasonable doubt due to ignorance and psychological bias.

So this is the expansion to our foundational epistemological categories:

1. The Unsynthesized as a novel ontological element apart from phenomenology, The Not-Is.

Two new classes of confidence.

• Two Categories of Truth — as definitive and qualified. Buddha does this himself:

“Monk, they say that ‘extinguishment is apparent in the present life’. In what way did the Buddha say extinguishment is apparent in the present life?”

“First, take a monk who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first jhana. To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is apparent in the present life in a qualified sense. … Furthermore, take a monk who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is apparent in the present life in a definitive sense.” ─ AN9.47

3.9 Framing Phenomenology of EBTs

The phenomenological framework of EBTs is grounded in epistemology and mirrors the western category framing subjective existence but they also frame it’s cessation as a special class and a sort of analogical experience:

On one occasion, friend Ānanda, I was dwelling right here in Sāvatthī in the Blind Men’s Grove. There I attained such a state of concentration that I was not percipient of earth in relation to earth; of water in relation to water; of fire in relation to fire; of air in relation to air; of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world, but I was still percipient.”

“But of what was the Venerable Sāriputta percipient on that occasion?”

“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment; the cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased ─ AN10.7

In general, as already explained, the phenomenology itself is framed as a suffering and it follows that it is not approved of:

Monks, just as even a tiny amount of feces is foul-smelling, in the same way, I don’t praise even a tiny amount of existence—even as much as a finger-snap. ─ SN1.329

4 Change

EBTs treat phenomenological ontology as ever-changing, something not even momentary ─ because a moment would have a beginning, middle and end, three instances of cognized change — thus three distinct instances of cognition-discernment.

The change here is framed as the change of anything in relation to anything in the world — it’s incomprehensible in terms of calculable speed. It is a radical impermanence where change leaves no room even for momentariness.

“I do not see, bhikkhus, any single phenomenon that comes and goes so quickly as this mind . Indeed, monks, even a simile would not be easy to find to show how quickly mind turns about.” ─ AN1.48

what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. — SN12.61

But what is one end? What’s the second end? What’s the middle? And who is the seamstress?” When this was said, one of the mendicants said to the senior mendicants.

Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to being reborn in one state of existence or another. That’s how a mendicant directly knows what should be directly known and completely understands what should be completely understood. Knowing and understanding thus they make an end of suffering in this very life.

When this was said, one of the mendicants said to the senior mendicants:
“The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a mendicant directly knows … an end of suffering in this very life.”

When this was said, one of the mendicants said to the senior mendicants:
“Pleasant feeling, reverends, is one end. Painful feeling is the second end. Neutral feeling is the middle. And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a mendicant directly knows … an end of suffering in this very life.”

When this was said, one of the mendicants said to the senior mendicants:
“Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is the middle. And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a mendicant directly knows … an end of suffering in this very life.”

When this was said, one of the mendicants said to the senior mendicants:
“The six interior sense bases, reverends, are one end. The six exterior sense bases are the second end. Consciousness is the middle. And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a mendicant directly knows … an end of suffering in this very life.”—AN6.61

If we think of any stretch of time, even a moment, it will need to have three distinct instances; a beginning, middle and end — eg a week, a day, an hour, a minute, etc… Even an abstract conception of “a moment” will retain this philosophical structure. Each instance is in itself an atemporal phase and presuming the others.

Thus, in the framework of EBTs: discernment of subjective existence presumes change, and is thus treated as an ontological complex, with beginning, middle, and end — not just as a phenomenological flow. In talking about the ontology of any arisen experience, each instance presumes its own relational “temporal triangulation” as change, in as far as persistence of measurement/existence goes.

This is easily contextualized by the first principles of measurement.

4.1 Framing the Ontology of EBTs

The ontology of EBTs is based on the phenomenological categories therein:

1. A category framed by phenomenological persistence.

2. Another special category framed by phenomenological narrative of cessation.

Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering.” ─ SN22.86

We are here dealing with a single category phenomenological ontology, everything is boxed in, This is how the texts frame it:

Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There’s the convention ‘a being.’

It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases. ─ SN5.10

Essentially, the EBT frameworks have two foundational ontological categories: phenomenological and not-phenomenological. The demand for a not-phenomenological ontology is dictated by the axiom of a cessation being possible:

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated (Unsynthesized). If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. ─ Ud8.3

Hence there are two foundational ontological categories in BP:

“There could, Ānanda. There are these two elements: the Synthesized element and the Unsynthesized element. When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements, they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.” ─ MN115

1. “Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible.

“These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.

2. “Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.

“These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated.” ─ AN3.47

A cautionary Note#1:

Here it is important to clarify that we are not talking about Duality and Non-Duality of our frameworks in the sense of drawing a distinction between the observer and the observed.

We would be drawing a distinction between the observer and the observed if we wanted to frame a phenomenological narrative of our existence. This is made intuitively understood with the analogy of a Dream:

1. Dual Perspective: If we want to explain what happened in a particular dream then we would want to assume a dual phenomenological perspective. Example: “In the dream this and that happened”.

2. Non-Dual Perspective: Whereas if we are just talking about the dream or the experience as a phenomenological complex and a single ontological element. Example: “It was just a dream”.

Here we are still talking about a single ontological element, just explained from different perspectives. I want to clarify that this is not what is meant by Buddhist ontology introducing a novel ontological category which is not phenomenological.

Again we are talking about the system which can analyze itself and frame itself correctly, but remains unable to verify the analysis without causing itself to cease.

Analogy: if one was eating only one type of food, never tried anything else but figured that the food was probably relatively bad. One would at some point have to try something else to verify, and the cessation of eating what one ate before is required to taste the new thing as one can’t be eating both simultaneously.

The logic of the soteriological framework is the same but it is subjective reality itself that ceases and it is possible because there is another possibility.

Cautionary Note #2:

Cessation is not the Unsynthesized Element ─ the cessation is caused by development that leads to it; The Unsynthesized is what makes cessation possible, it doesn’t part-take in the phenomenological ontology or narrative otherwise. The talk of cessation pertains to the phenomenological narrative ─ it describes phenomenological ontology; whereas the Unsynthesized doesn’t describes phenomenological ontology ─ the semantic target is a second ontological category known as a necessity making the cessation possible. The cessation is a phenomenological limit, and the Unsynthesized is the necessary condition that makes such a limit discernible at the treshold.

The link to phenomenology was first highlighted by this monk

Ñāṇavīra Thera (born Harold Edward Musson; 5 January 1920 – 5 July 1965) was an English Theravāda Buddhist monk, ordained in 1950 in Sri Lanka. He is known as the author of Notes on Dhamma, which were later published by Path Press together with his letters in one volume titled Clearing the Path.

...

Gradually they discovered that the Western thinkers most relevant to their interests were those from the closely allied schools of phenomenology and existentialism, to whom they found themselves indebted for clearing away a lot of mistaken notions with which they had burdened themselves. These letters make clear the nature of that debt; they also make clear the limitations which Ñāṇavīra Thera recognised in those thinkers. He insists upon the fact that while for certain individuals their value may be great, eventually one must go beyond them if one is to arrive at the essence of the Buddha’s Teaching. Existentialism, then, is in his view an approach to the Buddha’s Teaching and not a substitute for it. ─ wikipedia

He wrote about it. However, he didn’t understand much beyond this, argued against canonized semantic conjoinment, and didn’t systematize anything.

However there is still a very small monastic group that still studies his work, with full acceptance within the broader monastic network. Although they’re kind of oppressed.

4.2 Dependent Co-Arising

Dependent Co-Arising frames causal relations explaining phenomenological persistence:

“’Everything exists’: That is one extreme. ‘Everything doesn’t exist’: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition comes synthesis. From synthesis as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes existence. From existence as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering. ─ SN12.15

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?”

“’Everything exists’ is the senior form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”

“’Everything does not exist’ is the second form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then is everything a Oneness?”

“’Everything is a Oneness’ is the third form of cosmology, brahman.”

“Then is everything a Manyness?”

“’Everything is a Manyness’ is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition comes Synthesis. ─ SN12.48

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by intention, as something to be felt. Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends carefully and closely to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, synthesis comes to be; with synthesis as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of synthesis; with the cessation of synthesis, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. ─ SN12.37

Here are the definitions:

“And what is synthesis? These three are synthesis: bodily synthesis, verbal synthesis, mental synthesis. These are called synthesis.

And what is synthesis? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called synthesis. From the origination of contact comes the origination of synthesis. — SN22.57

“Intention, I tell you, is kamma (lit. action). Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.’ — AN 6.63

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it synthesis? ‘It synthesizes the synthesized,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called synthesis. And what is the synthesized that it synthesizes? It synthesizes form as form; synthesizes feeling as feeling; synthesizes perception as perception; synthesizes synthesis as synthesis; synthetizes consciousness as consciousness. ‘It synthesizes the synthesized,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called synthesis. ─ SN22.79

Semantic Conjoinment

“Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them.”—MN43

Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. ─ Vbn.1

By aggregation here they mean the aggregated past, present and future instances of this or that. Form is not conjoined per definition because it is sometimes generated and sometimes not generated.
Sati’s rebuke

Here a common misconception is rebuked

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”

“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”

“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”

“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, what do you think? Has this bhikkhu Sāti, son of a fisherman, kindled even a spark of wisdom in this Dhamma and Discipline?”

How could he, venerable sir? No, venerable sir.” —MN38

“Mendicants, there are these three scopes of definition, labeling, and description. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What three?

When form has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

When feeling … perception … synthesis … consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.

When feeling … perception … synthesis … consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.

When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.

When feeling … perception … synthesis … consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’. ─ SN22.62

Analogy

“Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving [lit. thirst] as a requisite condition comes clinging [meaning: having desire for]. From clinging as a requisite condition comes existence. From existence as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering.

If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense bases. From the cessation of the six sense bases comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of existence. From the cessation of existence comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.”—SN12.67

4.3 Foundational Axioms: Rebirth

The classic “afterlife debate” in philosophy comes down to a familiar dichotomy:

• Either there is renewed existence

• Or there is nothing

In general, many thinkers assume the second option is rational and the first is superstitious; or assert that agnosticism is the most reasonable stance.

I will show how the framework of the EBTs calls to redirect discussion — from the discussion about whether there is a recurrent existence or a nothingness; to analysis of the causal relations begetting phenomenology and deducing what would make a cessation of subjective existence possible.

EBTs don’t treat rebirth as a belief to be taken on faith, nor as a hypothesis beyond verification — rather, a soteriological working axiom. As to further proof, they describe a cultivated form of vision — known as the divine eye — that purportedly allows advanced practitioners to directly perceive the rebirth process, including the arising and passing of beings across realms like heavens, hells, and other planes. This isn’t framed as blind faith but as an experiential outcome of deep meditative development, aligning with the system’s emphasis on verifiable insight through axiomatic practice.

I assert that Rebirth in the framework of EBTs functions as an axiom in a wider system of praxis. And that the rejection of rebirth is itself an extraordinary claim — and requires extraordinary evidence. Because it assumes that consciousness starts at birth and must therefore end at death, without a sequel nor residue — something never proven and empirically unobservable. This is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact.

Here the Occam’s Razor is often misused to displace the burden of proof — essentially saying that it isn’t obvious how there would be a continuation because it is not obvious; and that those who think otherwise are overcomplicating things and need to explain more such as the mechanics of the recurrence.

Furthermore, the idea that there is nothing after death operates with the metaphysics of nothingness — and so in as far as the Early Buddhist is concerned, doubt here introduces metaphysics — whereas the faith in the axiom remains epistemologically grounded.

Philosophy has always had a singularity, as the same concept — the before birth and the after death — an unknowable, epistemological black box. And yet we do know for a fact that existence can sprout as our existence emerged from it at least once already.

• If this very existence emerged once from this singularity… it is not only entirely reasonable to assume that it could happen again — it is the only rational stance in the absence of evidence.

The explanatory and predictive powers of the axiom — these are what dictates confidence here. They don’t prove rebirth, but they dictate the epistemic weight and definitions. In this landscape, skepticism or agnosticism, then, isn’t rational or neutral — It’s refusing to update your odds.

The real superstition isn’t believing in rebirth — it’s in entertaining metaphysics. The Buddhist axiom doesn’t overreach; it simply starts with what we know: that existence changes as it persists. From there, it asks what conditions beget it and what makes the cessation possible.

The real discussion is not existence vs nothing — it’s about the conditions that make existence arise and persist, and — if a cessation is possible — then there must necessarily be an Unmade Element, a categorically different ontological reality.

Furthermore, this is a point I want to repeat as a highlight:

Compare Game-Theory based morality

1. No Rebirth Model

2. Rebirth Model

The rebirth model is obviously the long-term solution, it balances out and dictates the cooperative roles, thus providing the social glue necessary to check immediate identity interest and solve most cultural issues.

So, skepticism is not neutral and all phenomenological models are prescriptive and the axioms need to be stress-tested against one another.

4.4 The Four Noble Truths

The Four Noble Truths are axiomatic postulates which frame the praxis ─ and can only be verified by transcending the phenomenological ontology (the cessation attainment) — they are analytical (true by definition).

Essentially this is our system completing its own analysis, something which no system can do without transcending it’s own ontology.

I will analyze the Four Noble Truths in detail. Here are some excerpts framing the context:

• The Synthesis is called “Suffering“

• The Cessation of Synthesis is the definitive pleasure where nothing is felt.

Here are a few excerpts:

• 202. There is no fire like lust and no crime like hatred. There is no ill like the aggregates (of existence) and no bliss higher than the peace (of Nibbana).

• 203. Hunger is the worst disease, conditioned things the worst suffering. Knowing this as it really is, the wise realize Nibbana, the highest bliss.

• 204. Health is the most precious gain and contentment the greatest wealth. A trustworthy person is the best kinsman, Nibbana the highest bliss.

• 205. Having savored the taste of solitude and peace (of Nibbana), pain-free and stainless he becomes, drinking deep the taste of the bliss of the Truth. ─ Dhp

The term “aggregates” is a reference to the aggregated phenomenological complex. Below the Four Noble Truths analyzed by cross-reference:

The First Noble Truth

Here’s the definition

• Pali: Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā —SN56.11

English: This, indeed, monks, is the noble truth of suffering—birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the disliked is suffering, separation from the liked is suffering, not obtaining what one desires is suffering—in brief, the five clung-to aggregates (pañc’upādānakkhandhā) are suffering. — SN56.11

Pañc’upādānakkhandhā here is a compound noun, meaning the five clung-to aggregates for which one has desire. This is established by cross-reference with SN22.82

Venerable sir, is that clinging (upādāna) the same as pañc’upādānakkhandhā, or is the clinging something apart from pañc’upādānakkhandhā?”

“Bhikkhus, that clinging is neither the same as these pañc’upādānakkhandhā, nor is the clinging something apart from pañc’upādānakkhandhā. But rather, the desire and lust for them, that is the clinging there. ─ SN22.82

Thus, the meaning of pañc’upādānakkhandhā is, verily, the five aggregates for which one has desire– and it’s literal translation is the five clung-to aggregates.

Furthermore SN45.165 gives us further explanation of “dukkha [suffering] therein.

• Pali: Tisso imā, bhikkhave, dukkhatā. Katamā tisso? Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—imā kho, bhikkhave, tisso dukkhatā. Imāsaṁ kho, bhikkhave, tissannaṁ dukkhatānaṁ abhiññāya pariññāya parikkhayāya pahānāya …pe… ayaṁ ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo bhāvetabbo”ti.

English translation is awkward because of the compound nouns therein but it’s literally close to this:

Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three?

Suffering-as-suffering (dukkhadukkhatā), suffering-as-synthesis (saṅkhāradukkhatā), suffering-as-change (vipariṇāmadukkhatā)—these, monks, are the three kinds of suffering.

For direct knowledge, full understanding, complete destruction, and abandonment of these three kinds of suffering, … therefore, the noble eightfold path should be developed.

The dukkhadukkhatā might seem strange at first glance but we can explain this as mental and bodily pain drawing from SN36.6

The Blessed One said, “When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.

The saṅkhāradukkhatā and vipariṇāmadukkhatā can be explained by cross referencing with SN36.11

I have spoken of these three feelings. Pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling. These are the three feelings I have spoken of.

But I have also said: ‘Suffering includes whatever is felt.’

When I said this I was referring to the impermanence of synthesis, to the fact that synthesis is liable to end, vanish, fade away, cease, and perish. ─ SN36.11

This noble truth of dukkha is to be comprehended.’ —SN56.11

The Second Noble Truth

Here’s the definition

• Pali: Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—yāyaṁ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṁ—kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.

English: “This, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering— it is this craving that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; namely, craving for sensual pleasures (kāmataṇhā), craving for existence (bhavataṇhā), and craving for non-existence (vibhavataṇhā). — SN56.11

I highlighted because that part is often overlooked. It is derived from “punabbhava” with the suffix “-ikā”

Puna — again, anew
Bhava — arising, existence, becoming
-ikā — a suffix meaning “leading to” or “causing”

Thus the compound means something that leads to, perpetuates or generates existence again. In short this is a reference to craving’s role in perpetuating rebirth.

‘This noble truth of the origination of dukkha is to be abandoned’ —SN56.11

The Third Noble Truth

Here’s the definition

• Pali: Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.

English: This, indeed, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering—which is the complete fading away and cessation of that very craving, giving up, relinquishment, release, and non-attachment. —SN56.11

At this point, the meaning here should be drawn out by cross-reference with the first and the second noble truths, in two ways: long and short:

• Long formulation:
  This, indeed, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of [suffering as: of birth, aging, illness, death, association with the disliked, separation from the liked, not obtaining what one desires; etc…] —which is the complete fading away and cessation of that very craving, giving up, relinquishment, release, and non-attachment.

• This, indeed, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of [suffering as: the five clung-to aggregates (meaning the five clung-to aggregates for which one has desire)] — which is the complete fading away and cessation of that very craving, giving up, relinquishment, release, and non-attachment.

This is where things get interesting.

Here, we are essentially talking about the cessation of pañc’upādānakkhandhā as the cessation of craving and an undoing of the would-be perpetuated renewed existence (birth, aging, death, etc).

The meaning here can be drawn out from MN26

• Pali: Idampi kho ṭhānaṁ duddasaṁ yadidaṁ—sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ.

English: This too is a difficult thing to see, namely—the stilling of all synthesis (sabbasankharāsamatha), the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna. —MN26

The Buddha explains the destruction of craving in several ways.

Sabbasankharāsamatha here should be cross-referenced with progressive stilling and progressive cessation of synthesis.

For someone who has attained the first absorption, speech has ceased. For someone who has attained the second absorption, applied and sustained thought have ceased. For someone who has attained the third absorption, rapture has ceased. For someone who has attained the fourth absorption, breathing has ceased. For someone who has attained the base of infinite space, the perception of form has ceased. For someone who has attained the base of infinite consciousness, the perception of the base of infinite space has ceased. For someone who has attained the base of nothingness, the perception of the base of infinite consciousness has ceased. For someone who has attained the base of neither perception nor non-perception, the perception of the base of nothingness has ceased. For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased. For a monk who has ended the defilements, greed, hate, and delusion have ceased.

And I have also explained the progressive stilling of conditions. For someone who has attained the first absorption, speech has stilled. For someone who has attained the second absorption, the applied and sustained thought has been stilled. (Continued analogically) For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have stilled. For a monk who has ended the defilements, greed, hate, and delusion have stilled. —SN36.11

Here we should look at the progression up to the removal of defilements.

Note here that the Buddha doesn’t say that for one who has attained cessation of perception and feeling the base of neither perception nor non-perception has been calmed/ceased. Rather he says that for one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling – perception and feeling have ceased/been stilled. This is because some people attain cessation of perception and feeling without having the formless attainments. I’ll get back to this later with excerpts.

Furthermore note that the cessation attainment is a stilling of all synthesis, this is established thus

There are these three kinds of synthesis: the bodily formation, the verbal formation, the mental formation —MN9

“When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, verbal synthesis ceases first, then bodily synthesis, then mental synthesis.” —SN41.6

Here is how it all ties together

A person in training has pañc’upādānakkhandhā (he relishes existence and that is why he has to train), and when he attains the cessation (as the attainment of cessation of perception and feeling): this is a cessation of pañc’upādānakkhandhā; stilling of all synthesis; the removal of taints; destruction of craving; cessation; nibbāna.

This noble truth of the cessation of dukkha is to be directly experienced’ ─ SN56.11

The Fourth Noble Truth

Here’s the definition

• Pali: daṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā ariyasaccaṁ—ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo, seyyathidaṁ—sammādiṭṭhi …pe… sammāsamādhi.

English: This, indeed, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering—it is just this Noble Eightfold Path, namely:Right View … (etc.) … Right Concentration. —SN56.11

Here I will use the MN64 to unpack the doctrinal implications as to tie everything together rather than defining every factor of the Path.

MN64 excerpts:

There is a path, Ānanda, a way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters; that anyone, without relying on that path, on that way, shall know or see or abandon the five lower fetters—this is not possible. Just as when there is a great tree standing possessed of heartwood, it is not possible that anyone shall cut out its heartwood without cutting through its bark and sapwood, so too, there is a path…this is not possible

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, synthesis, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all synthesis, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

(The text goes on to repeat this formula, replacing the first jhāna with progressive attainments with perception and adjusts ‘whatever exists therein’ accordingly)

Towards the end Ananda asks:

“Venerable sir, if this is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters, then how is it that some bhikkhus here are said to gain deliverance of mind and some are said to gain deliverance by wisdom?”

“The difference here, Ānanda, is in their faculties, I say.”

This is a reference to the fact that not all people who attain the destruction of taints have the formless attainments and this is why these attainments are not included in Right Concentration.

This is echoed in SN12.70

Ven. Susima heard that “A large number of monks, it seems, have declared final gnosis in the Blessed One’s presence: ‘We discern that “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.”’” Then Ven. Susima went to those monks and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with them. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to them, “Is it true, as they say, that you have declared final gnosis in the Blessed One’s presence: ‘We discern that “Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world”’?”

“Yes, friend.”

Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you dwell touching with your body the peaceful emancipations, the formless states beyond form?”

“No, friend.”

“So just now, friends, didn’t you make that declaration without having attained any of these Dhammas?”

“We’re released through discernment, friend Susima.”

“I don’t understand the detailed meaning of your brief statement. It would be good if you would speak in such a way that I would understand its detailed meaning.”

“Whether or not you understand, friend Susima, we are still released through discernment.”

Unlike the formless attainments, the cessation attainment is not included in Right Concentration because it immediacy tied to the goal.

This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed’. ─ - SN56.11

4.5 Logic of EBTs

There is a paradox associated with the phenomenological cessation described in EBTs as “a pleasure where nothing is felt”. Rather it looks like a paradox in the classical logic sense but we are working with a specific semantic model here which ought to resolve the apparent contradiction by assigning correct semantic targets.

‘Pleasure’ in the context of cessation denotes a non-phenomenal state that is not ordinary phenomenological experience.

• This aligns with apophatic descriptions: the unsynthesized (asaṅkhata) is unborn, unbecome, unmade, and unconstructed.

• Classical logic applies within each referential domain; cross-domain predicate shifts are treated as type distinctions, not contradictions.

Predicate shifts: Explaining the logic of Cessation-Extinguishment with metaphorical mathematics

We resolve the classical contradiction by making a semantic model where what looks like a contradiction is resolved by contextualizing properly.

I can explain it using metaphorical mathematics:

Suppose every aggregate of personal experience, eg person1, person2... is represented by a real number such as 1,2,3,4,5, etc

These are subjective, constructed realities — self-indexing and self-perpetuating epistemological systems.

We can frame the decimals in two ways:

1. As change or variance.

2. As internal conception of other numbers.

Now suppose that 0 is also a reality but not a subjective reality.

Now suppose that the subjective reality #1 could become extinguished by internally performing the operation 1-1=0

This would result in the not coming into play of the special phenomenological ontology.

This operation represents the narrative of constructing a cessation of feeling & perception and consequently the final extinguishment.

Here the 0 (and analogically the Unsynthesized) is not a substrate or substance of what ceased; — an ontological category beyond, required by the logic of the system’s verification of analysis.

The 0 here represents a not constructed reality but a categorical analog — real and true. If there was no real 0 then the operation 1-1 wouldn’t be possible.

There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unsynthesized. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — synthesized would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unsynthesized, escape from the born — become — made — synthesized is discerned. — Ud8.3

The narrative of there being “a person” only goes in as far as the real numbers go and the 0 doesn’t change nor pertains to either subject — it just makes the extinguishment possible.

Whether it is 1-1 or 2-2 or 3-3, the 0 is unaffected and remains as it is. Once the operation is performed — the narrative of there being a real number ends — the value disappears.

See the world, together with its devas,
conceiving not-self to be self.
Entrenched in name & form,
they conceive that ‘This is true.’

In whatever terms they conceive it
it turns into something other than that,
and that’s what’s false about it:
Changing, it’s deceptive by nature.

Undeceptive by nature is Extinguishment:
that the noble ones know as true.
They, through breaking through to the truth,
free from hunger, are totally extinguished. — Sn3.12

So we have a two-fold metaphorical explanation of what is 0 in Buddhism:

1. When used in the operational expression such as ‘#-#=0’ — In the narrative of a being : it is framing the cessation as caused.

2. When taken out of the context of cessation — in & by itself — it is the Unsynthesized Element.

Having performed the operation 1-1 there is only a 0, there is no more narrative of the #1.

So the phenomenological ontology narrative here only goes until the system collapses in cessation.

“Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: ‘In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.’ In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

“When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, 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.” ─ Ud1.10

The two elements don’t co-exist, the #1 doesn’t dissolve, go into or change into a 0. These are two ontologically different elements.

The operation (1 - 1 = 0) is only meaningful because 0 is an entirely different ontological element. If the number exists, then 0 is not epistemologically evident and can only be deduced, like #1 could think what if 1-1=0? and this experience could be mapped as experience #1.x — but the epistemic proof will be performing the operation.

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. ─ Ud1.10

The semantic/epistemic framing is in that the narrative of all of existence known to #1 ends in 1-1 but the ontology had two ontological categories to begin with the 0 and #1.

• 0 is not a continuation of #1 like 1.1 or 1.12 or 1.125, etc

• 0 doesn’t change if #1 performs 1-1 or #2 performs 2-2

• 0 doesn’t change, has no decimal variant expression.

• It’s not a result of addition nor a leftover of deduction.

4.5 Integrated Soteriology

The integrated soteriology represents the point at which the two systems — analytic philosophy of science and Early Buddhist Texts — converge and complete one another.

On the one hand, analytic philosophy frames a soteriology of intellectual humility. It insists that one should refrain from making claims beyond the scope of epistemic justification. This is a kind of negative salvation — the “deliverance” from error, dogmatism, and overreach. In this light, the Humean warning that no “ought” can be derived from an “is” preserves us from deriving moral or metaphysical certainty from contingent facts. Gödel’s incompleteness further ensures that no system can fully prove itself without contradiction. This tradition cultivates freedom from delusion, but only in a limited, negative sense: salvation as restraint.

On the other hand, the EBTs present a positive and transcendent soteriology. They frame the predicament of conditioned existence as an unsatisfactory cycle, and they point beyond it to cessation (nirodha). Where the analytic tradition stops at caution and probability, the EBTs advance a categorical solution: liberation (Nibbāna) as the realization of the Unsynthesized. The Buddha’s insight is that cessation is not merely metaphysical speculation but a verifiable attainment. This is a radical soteriology, one in which the limits established by Hume and Kant are not denied but transcended.

When integrated, the soteriology thus becomes two-tiered and self-completing:

Tier One (Analytic): Avoidance of error, intellectual humility, refraining from claiming certainty where certainty is not possible. This ensures rigor and guards against superstition.

Tier Two (Buddhist): Deduction from axioms and praxis leading to direct verification of cessation. This ensures not only consistency but completion — salvation not only as freedom from error but as freedom from existence as suffering.

The integrated soteriology therefore does not collapse into quietism or skepticism. Rather, it harmonizes analytic humility with Buddhist transcendence. It makes the bold claim that the only non-contradictory resolution to epistemic limitation is the soteriological realization of cessation, and that this cessation is verifiable through praxis. Salvation is not just intellectual — it is ontological.

This is something close to Soteriological Game Theory framing a system where the “optimal strategy” is not to win the game of existence, but to exit it.

• If existence is suffering [bad], and it’s cessation is a bliss [good]; then the rational player seeks to maximize gain by ending the game [existence].

• If ignorance is root condition begetting the bad ─ then irradication of ignorance is effectively the meaning of life.

In this model, morality isn’t decreed by gods, self-sourced or crowd-sourced. It’s defined by what leads toward cessation — the one verifiable liberation. To act rightly is to act toward disenchantment, to move closer to the end of the loop.

Within this framework, cause and effect rule the Soteriological Game and we pragmatically frame the Game Theory Optimized Strategy (neither explotative nor exploitable):

• If existence = suffering, then the unexploitable, unexploitative move — the perfect GTO strategy — is to end exploitation itself: to end ignorance.

That’s what “love for oneself” and “love for another” mean in pragmatic Dhamma terms — not sentimentalism, but the non-abuse of neither the self nor another. Because existence itself is framed as a suffering, its seeking it’s cessation is essentially an act of compassion and sympathy.

The morality is essentially about causality and EBTs also don’t allow speculation about exact prediction:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four? ... “The [precise working out of the] results of kamma... AN4.77

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by intention, as something to be felt. Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends carefully and closely to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, synthesis comes to be; with synthesis as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of synthesis; with the cessation of synthesis, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. ─ SN12.37

This repeats for the consciousness and rest likewise.

Furthermore wisdom itself has moral weight here:

“Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?”

“Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink.”

“Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?”

“No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink.”

“In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment. ─ AN3.99

These are excerpts, I am really trimming things down as much as possible here.

As she was sitting there, she said to Ven. Ānanda, “Venerable sir, how on earth should the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One be understood where one who practices celibacy and one who doesn’t practice celibacy would both have exactly the same destination in the next life? My father, Purāṇa, was one who practiced celibacy, living apart, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the vulgar act. When he had died, he was predicted by the Blessed One to be a once-returner, rearising in the company of the Contented (devas). My paternal uncle, Isidatta, did not practice celibacy and was content to live with his wife. And yet when he died, he too was predicted by the Blessed One to be a once-returner, rearising in the company of the Contented (devas). So how on earth should the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One be understood where one who practices celibacy and one who doesn’t practice celibacy would both have exactly the same destination in the next life?”

“But it was just as the Blessed One predicted, sister.”

“But, Ānanda, who is this Migāsālā, foolish, incompetent, blind, with the discernment of the blind?1 And who are these people with knowledge of the course of other individuals?

“If Isidatta had been endowed with the sort of virtue with which Purāṇa was endowed, Purāṇa wouldn’t have known Isidatta’s destination. If Purāṇa had been endowed with the sort of discernment with which Isidatta was endowed, Isidatta wouldn’t have known Purāṇa’s destination. It was in this way, Ānanda, that both of these individuals were inferior in part.” ─ AN10.75

At some point therein (in that developmental arc), the person comes to realize the very concept of a self is a category of the felt existence and that the concept is used to make functional narratives.

Having framed the entire predicament of his existence as “ignorance fueled and beginningless genesis” ─ and the Idea of Self a convention in play; there are several psychological impacts:

He realizes that judging others is hypocritical because it is not easy to find a person who has done evil which he himself hasn’t done in the past. This is drawing from texts like this:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

“Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.” ─ SN15.14-19

Second psychological effect is that the person recalibrates his guilt and relative self-esteem accordingly: It is not easy to find a person who has not done things they would judge him for.

Third psychological effect: is in that he resolves his cognitive dissonance by understanding narrative-making and the limitations of linguistic models and models in general.

Having framed existence as “a playing with fire where you eventually burn yourself” and where, win or lose, all you get is old age, sickness and death ─ the ultimate good is essentially to stop playing ─ the path to stop playing is renunciation/understanding, therefore:

The person who seeks this highest good for himself, that is his self-love and it is expressed as removal of greed, anger and ignorance.

The person also has no problem wishing this good on even his worst enemies, because this frames total purification as the wish. Likewise, he can wish this for his loved ones as well, and in that is a renunciation of attachment to what is dear through wisdom. Thus he attains integrity.

The equations are furthermore frame the complexity of morality:

“If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one were to feed one person… 100 people consummate in view, and were to feed one once-returner… 100 once-returners, and were to feed one non-returner… 100 non-returners, and were to feed one arahant… 100 arahants, and were to feed one Private Buddha… 100 Private Buddhas, and were to feed a Tathagata—a worthy one, rightly self-awakened—and were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, and were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community of the four directions, and with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, and with a confident mind were to undertake the training rules—refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from illicit sex, refraining from lying, refraining from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness—and were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will.” ─ AN9.20

Here we see how aligning synthesis with the highest good is essentially of incalculable and immeasurable merit, essentially sort of a rehabilitative nuke, of which you can probably see parallel utility in confession/repentance.

We can see it reflected here (these are cut excerpts):

“Giving a gift to an animal, yields a return a hundred times over.

Giving a gift to an unvirtuous ordinary person, yields a return a thousand times over.

Giving a gift to a virtuous ordinary person, yields a return a hundred thousand times over (100,000).

Giving a gift to an outsider free of desire for sense pleasures, yields a return a trillion times over (1,000,000,000,000).

But giving a gift to someone practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry yields incalculable, immeasurable returns. How much more so giving a gift to a stream-enterer?

[…]

“Ānanda, in times to come there will be immoral people wearing robes in the guise of good monks. But they are unvirtuous and of bad character. People will give gifts to those unvirtuous people in the name of the Saṅgha. Even then, Ānanda, I say, a gift given in the name of the Saṅgha is incalculable and immeasurable. Therefore, Ānanda, I say that there is no way a gift given to an individual can be more fruitful than giving a gift to the Saṅgha. ─ MN142

4.7 Integrated Epistemology

The integration of epistemology arises from the recognition that the analytic tradition and the EBTs both confront the same problem: how to know, and how to define the limits of knowing.

Analytic epistemology establishes several key principles:

• Knowledge is inherently conditional and probabilistic (Hume’s Guillotine, Bayesian inference).

• Formal systems cannot prove their own completeness without contradiction (Gödel).

• Observation is always constrained by the perspective of the observer (Heisenberg, relativity, Kant).

Thus, analytic epistemology grounds itself in humility: knowledge can be mapped in probabilities, not certainties. The task is not to arrive at final truth but to constantly update confidence with new evidence.

Buddhist epistemology, however, extends these limits by introducing novel categories. The EBTs speak of two distinct classes of confidence:

• Unverified absolute confidence, where faith in axioms and praxis motivates the path even before verification.

• Verified absolute confidence, where direct realization (cessation of perception and feeling) confirms the axioms beyond any possible doubt.

Additionally, two classes of truth are introduced:

• Qualified truths (those contingent on constructed phenomena, e.g., states of meditation, provisional teachings).

• Definitive truths (those verified by cessation, pointing to the Unsynthesized).

The integrated epistemology therefore frames knowledge as stratified into three layers:

• Probabilistic confidence — conditional, Bayesian, open to revision (analytic foundation).

• Unverified absolutes — good faith-based epistemic commitments grounded in probability and consistency but not yet verified (EBT confidence stage).

• Verified absolutes — realization through cessation, which constitutes a non-empirical but self-verifying form of knowledge (EBT completion).

Here is an example of how there is a progression from understanding to verified knowledge:

First, the general framing of progression:

“It was not long before I quickly learned the doctrine. As far as mere lip-reciting & repetition, I could speak the words of knowledge, the words of the elders, and I could affirm that I knew & saw — I, along with others.

“I thought: ‘It isn’t through mere conviction alone that Alara Kalama declares, “I have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge.” Certainly he dwells knowing & seeing this Dhamma.’ So I went to him and said, ‘To what extent do you declare that you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma?’ When this was said, he declared the dimension of nothingness.

“I thought: ‘Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Alara Kalama declares he has entered & dwells in, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge.’ So it was not long before I quickly entered & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. I went to him and said, ‘Friend Kalama, is this the extent to which you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge?’

“’Yes, my friend...’

“’This, friend, is the extent to which I, too, have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge.’ ─ MN26

Here is the progression framing in Buddha’s Dhamma:

At Savatthi. “Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

“One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

“One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

“One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.”

So, the faith-followers and dhamma-followers have no reasonable doubt and have conceptualized theepistemic category of unverified absolute confidence. Whereas the stream-enterer has realized cessation by direct experience and has verified absolute confidence. Here it is important to clarify that it is classed as absolute confidence because it transcends probability based prediction and grounds the prediction in the certainty of cessation.

Here I can clarify what is the fruit of stream-entry:

Fruition of Stream-Entry refers to having verified absolute confidence and faculties associated with that level of development:

There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: ‘Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.’ This is the first pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean.

“Furthermore, he is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: ‘The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.’ This is the second pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean.

“Furthermore, he is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: ‘The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.’ This is the third pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean. ─ AN5.170

Here it appropriate to clarify that whilst cessation of perception and feeling is the cessation attainment destroying the taints; a person without taints can still enter this attainment and for him it is simply reckoned as a pleasant abiding and serves no pragmatic function beyond this:

“Monks, there are these nine step-by-step dwellings. Which nine? The first jhāna, the second jhāna, the third jhāna, the fourth jhāna, the dimension of the infinitude of space, the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, the cessation of perception & feeling. These are the nine step-by-step dwellings.”

To sum up, the integration of BP allows us to maintain analytic humility while also admitting additional categories of knowledge. The EBTs extend epistemology by showing that, while certainty cannot be obtained from within the phenomenal system, it can be obtained by transcending it through praxis. The analytic tradition secures us against error, and the Buddhist tradition completes the arc by securing the possibility of certainty.

4.8 Integrated Phenomenology

Phenomenology is where the dialogue between analytic thought and Buddhist philosophy becomes most striking.

Analytic phenomenology recognizes that all knowledge is mediated by perception. Kant shows that the mind can never know “things in themselves” but only its own constructs and models. The Copenhagen interpretation demonstrates that physical reality is inseparable from measurement. Relativity and uncertainty principles reinforce that experience is observer-dependent and probabilistic. Thus, phenomenology in the analytic tradition is a horizon of relativity — the study of how reality appears but not of anything beyond appearance.

Philosophers have consistently failed at framing the Beyond as anything but metaphysics.

Buddhist phenomenology, however, introduces the necessary foundations for analytic framing of the beyond.

• First, it insists that phenomenology itself is a predicament that ought to begone — it is defined by impermanence and many other characteristics we wouldn’t attribute to an idealized conception of Truth or Happiness.

• Second, it frames cessation of phenomenology as a verifiable state, a “special class” of attainment. Thus, while the analytic tradition accepts that phenomenology defines our epistemic limits, the EBTs show that the phenomenological framing itself is neither absolute nor complete. Its cessation reveals the Unsynthesized, which is ontologically real but not phenomenological per definition.

This integrated framework is radical. It maintains the analytic emphasis on perception and relativity, but also admits that phenomenology is not final. Where Heidegger could only hunger for “what is not included in the scope of existence,” the Buddha demonstrated cessation as its realization. Thus, integrated phenomenology grounds experience while also framing its transcendence.

4.9 Integrated Ontology

As I’ve pointed out, Analytic ontology is essentially phenomenological ontology: existence is what can be experienced, measured, and modeled. It is always observer-relative and provisional. Science does not speak of things-in-themselves but of models predicting how experience will unfold under certain conditions.

Buddhist ontology expands this by positing two categories:

1. The Synthesized (constructed, fabricated, in formation; changing, arising and ceasing).

2. The Unsynthesized (unconstructed, unmade, uncaused; neither arising nor ceasing).

Without the Unsynthesized, cessation would be logically impossible. If all reality were conditioned, then cessation would be a contradiction. The EBTs therefore insist that the very possibility of liberation proves the existence of a second ontological category.

The integrated ontology is relative in it’s foundation. The system is forked but coherent:

1. Phenomenological ontology (conditioned reality as observer-dependent existence).

2. Non-phenomenological ontology (the Unsynthesized as the necessary condition for cessation).

This integration allows analytic philosophy to escape the trap of its own limits: where Gödel shows that no system can prove itself, the EBTs demonstrate that proof is possible once we accept the Unsynthesized as a second ontological category. Ontology thus shifts from being a single category of experience to a complete system acknowledging both constructed reality and its cessation.

5 Integrated Foundational Axioms

The integrated system can now be summarized as a coherent set of axioms that unite analytic philosophy and the EBTs into a single foundational philosophy framed by The Four Noble Truths:

Epistemic Humility Axiom

• All systems are bounded by their own conditions. No system can establish certainty from within itself. (Hume, Kant, Gödel, Heisenberg).

Causality Axioms

• Whatever arises does so with conditions. Nothing conditioned exists without cause. Dependent Co-Arising.

The Four Noble Truths

• Whatever has arisen must pass away. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent and uncertain.

Rebirth:

• We link it directly to game theory and cooperation:

  • No-rebirth model: Short-distance. Incentives skew toward self-interest, immediate gratification, weaker cooperation.

  • Rebirth model: Long-distance. Incentives naturally align with cooperative roles, restraint, and future-oriented responsibility. It becomes a cultural mechanism for solving coordination problems.
    

  That’s not “superstition” — it’s axiom selection in a game-theoretic environment. From that perspective, the rebirth axiom has explanatory and predictive power in cultural evolution. It explains why Buddhist societies historically stabilized certain norms, and it predicts how belief models affect cooperation today.
  

  In other words:

  • Rebirth is not just a claim about metaphysics.

  • It’s a design feature of a moral system that promotes durable cooperation.

  • That makes it epistemically and socially rational to treat it as a working axiom.

Cessation Axiom

• Because conditioned phenomena can arise and pass away, their complete cessation is possible. This cessation is the principal soteriological attainment and immediacy.

Unsynthesized Axiom

• The possibility of cessation requires an unconditioned element. This Unsynthesized is ontologically real, though not phenomenological. It is the basis for liberation.

Soteriological Axiom

• Liberation is achieved by praxis that verifies these axioms directly. Analysis informs faith and motivates practice; practice realizes cessation; cessation confirms the axioms.

Together, these axioms create a more or less complete philosophical system: analytic philosophy contributes epistemic humility Buddhist philosophy contributes transcendence, cessation, and completion. The integration produces a unified foundational philosophy — one that can account for both the persistence and the cessation of experience.

• Ignorance as a Causal Axiom ─ framing Free Will and Determinism

When we talk about free-will we want to try to avoid metaphysics as irrational assertions contradicting other foundational axioms.

Most obviously any deterministic model requires a beginning of causality. This is contradictory because a beginning must itself have a beginning and causality is known to be caused by causaily, a beginning is not evident.

This is essentially a sign of an epistemically overextended model, here it is the classical mechanics model being overextended, analogically to Zeno’s Paradoxes later resolved by calculus.

If don’t posit a beginning this makes causal information incalculable and immeasurable. Here the issue is in explaining how the immeasurable causes can be predicted by deterministic models in principle.

This is resolved by pointing out that the knowledge existent in that epistemic is effectively incomplete, because it only studies its own genesis and models itself — thus the system’s can’t verify its own analysis of itself but it can point to a Beyond itself, as a necessity for verification.

Essentially we have to think of the system as having effective powers dictated by the effective information as conditions in play at any given time. We introduce a variable effective Power of Determination. This resolves the tension between immeasurable past and deterministic prediction — and without metaphysics.

If we assert that all of the future states are determined and inferrable from a complete set of the past information, in principle, we need that set to be a finite amount of information. Otherwise we can’t calculate or measure exactly, which is actually the case in physics prediction, cosmological and quantum, its all the same, we are boxed into epistemic probability intervals and are making sense of things by any means and models available. But we are locked into where our acts and intentions in course of making the predictions and measurements are affecting the outcomes, like a cat chasing its tail.

True randomness is a mathematical abstract, and doesn’t correlate to anything in particular in the domain of physics. The Random Number Generation in physics isn’t truly random but based on subjective variables. The physicist uses models to make an observer dependent phenomenological prediction, they can predict how the light will be diffused, but can’t guarantee that the measurement will be made (controlling for all unforeseen variables) nor predict the state of every subatomic particle and have to calibrate the foundational forces with gravity. They use non-classical frameworks or colloquially “they think materially about the immaterial and immaterially about the material” and it works as intended ─ the predictive bottleneck is the same epistemic box; incompleteness, probability, relativity, etc ─ the models work pretty good until their limits, until overextending into info paradox and whatnot, but we are essentially dealing with incomplete information and there can be no certainty in phenomenological prediction based on incomplete information. Ignorance is thus inferred to be a causal feature, not a bug.

Here some texts:

“’All phenomena [pali: dhammas] are rooted in desire.

“’All phenomena come into play through attention.

“’All phenomena have contact as their origination.

“’All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.

“’All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.

“’All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.

“’All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.

“’All phenomena have release as their heartwood.

“’All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.

“’All phenomena have Extinguishment as their final end.’

“On being asked this by those who have gone forth in other sects, this is how you should answer.” ─ AN10.58

“Bhikkhus, there are these five powers. What five? The power of faith, the power of energy, the power of mindfulness, the power of concentration, and the power of wisdom. ─ AN5.14

This effectively reframes power in Nietzche’s “Will for Power” by redefining the foundation powers in play ─ and an appeal to the deepest emotive drives for seeking pleasantness and avoiding unpleasantness.

Essentially, by using the Effective Power framework ─ we can map synthesis as dependent on the system not reaching a “win” condition and have a model with an infinite amount of past proving that the condition was never reached before; and frame an indeterminate future where the set can end but not necessarily, thus framing subjective infinities measuring different distances.

Morality

Analysis gets us further than people realize. We can analytically establish three analytical requirements for knowing real morality if such thing could be real and verifiable:

Existence must be framed as something bad/wrong/immoral. This is a requirement for the system to want to cause itself own cessation. It must rightly long for transcendence as verification of analysis.

Existence must be caused by factors pertaining to existence. Otherwise existence couldn’t make existence cease.

The cause of existence must be understandable.

There must be another Reality; which is unlike the Realities we know. If there wasn’t then there wouldn’t be any possibility of transcendence.

The solution:

Early Buddhist Texts frame the awakening to Truth as dependent on a cessation of perception and feeling, possible because there is an Unmade Truth. Commentary has distorted this, but its obvious that this is what the big deal was about. They essentially bridged analytic philosophy with soteriology, for a complete system of foundational axioms and assertions.

The only block here is psychological existence-bias, which is actually the causal root according to those who thought much about this. And these are all operationalized terms, so its meaningless to ask whether there was a beginning such that there was no bias and bias arose — if bias is both a cause and a feature, then the beginning point can’t be discerned by definition, it is like asking what came first chicken or the egg.

I ended up having to explain what operationalization of “morality” is and why we need to do it to stop treating it as rhetorical matter. I quoted from a book:

I read Bridgman’s The Logic of Modern Physics and found a similar criticism of language. With four good men in substantial agreement as to the basic difficulty, I seemed to be getting on. “The true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not what he says about it.” Scientists, through observing, measuring, and performing a physical operation which another scientist can repeat, reach the solid ground of agreement and of meaning. They find the referents. “If a question has meaning, it must be possible to find an operation by which an answer may be given to it. It will be noted in many cases that the operation cannot exist and the question has no meaning.” See them fall, the Great Questions of pre-Einstein science! It is impossible as yet to perform any kind of experiment or operation with which to test them, and so, until such operation be discovered, they remain without meaning. May time have a beginning and an end? May space be bounded? Are there parts of nature forever beyond our detection? Was there a time when matter did not exist? May space or time be discontinuous? Why does negative electricity attract positive? I breathe a sigh of relief and I trust the reader joins me. One can talk until the cows come home—such talk has already filled many volumes—about these questions, but without operations they are meaningless, and our talk is no more rewarding than a discussion in a lunatic asylum. “Many of the questions asked about social and philosophical subjects will be found to be meaningless when examined from the point of view of operations.” Bridgman cites no samples, but we can find plenty on every hand. ─ Stuart Chase (Tyranny of Words).

Basically Early Buddhist Texts give the experiment which we didn’t know of, so we never operationalized “morality” before.

Now, if we treat existence itself as the experiment, we need a goal. The goal is obviously a happiness of some sort but people like different things and different actions lead to different outcomes. So far this is common knowledge.

Where it gets interesting is in that a cessation of existence, if such a thing is possible, would have to be the release from a common predicament, and a higher happiness than whatever can be obtained within the Is.

If existence knowable to a subject would cease. Then my experience is essentially no different to a dream and can end. And the entire narrative ends with it. All just ceases. And this requires “something” which is can only be known as what is not.

And this whatnot reality is neither mine nor yours, its a reality not experienced through either subjective frame of reference, but it becomes directly know.

5.1 Notes

Oct 16:

I didn’t study Planck much but what little I learned was important. I walked away with that concepts like length are functionally derived, example:

This is a line:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

It has length.

We can shorten the length:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Shorten it more:
::::::::::::
and more:
::::::
and more:
:::
and more:
:

at the last operation the height has become longer than the length and categories collapsed, and the model has become overextended. This is like splitting the atom and proceeding to talk about periodic elements, it’s overextended.

Where the ::: model is overextended we can model using single dots for a line “..” ─ to frame length but if we split we get a point.

This is a foundational axiom:

• In geometry a point has no dimensions.

• A line is a consecutive application of points to a surface.

• A surface is a consecutive application of lines in space.

• Space is a stack of surfaces.

We can explain the written word like this; this frames conceptual emergence of space or geometry in space, symbolic genesis, the limits of modelling and derivation of meaning, in short and demonstrably.

In other words, the point can make lines, lines make letters & symbols, letters & symbols allow creating linguistic and mathematical models ─ and we frame the words like “word”, “meaning”, “consciousness” and “all” operationally — thus comes to be this phenomenological synthesis.

Here we framed the point epistemically, phenomenologically and geometrically and showed how systematization of points can make operational symbols, words and models.

Here is an example of how we can operationalize words like “consciousness”. Based on a thought experiment made by Jacque Fresco, therein he asks another:

• What is the Eye for?

• The Eye is to See Then Fresco takes him into a dark room and tells him to see

• I can’t see because there is no visible light

• So the Eye is not to see but to see when there is visible light.

Analogically one can frame there being an Eye (1), Visible Light (2) and Eye-Consciousness (3) as requisites for Contact as a meeting of the three and as such a requisite for “Seeing”. We can frame consciousness and eye-consciousness in particular by the examples of being unconscious (as in fainting) or not-seeing due to distraction like being consciousness but a person might be distracted from seeing because he is thinking about something else, like being distracted in class. Either way we end up with a philosophy where a world and subjective existence are inseparable and are being felt by definition.

So this is how the system can analyze itself but the analysis remains epistemically and empirically unverifiable in as far as phenomenology is in play. Verification requires the system to successfully cause it’s own not coming into play, pre-supposing that there is a categorically different reality which makes this possible and that it is a happiness worth pursuing.

Today I thought much about how our minds construct and interpret an incalculable amount of this geometric point data and how we can’t ask what came first, the symbol or meaning, there is a relational co-dependency in the model, much like the idea of “same” implies multiplicity, both symbol and meaning imply eachother. Watch them fall, a whole class of paradoxes like chicken and egg.

It is worth including but it needs a bit more work. I think that I will include these things if/when I reformat the document, and maybe include a chapter framing Wittgenstein’s work on language.

Zeno’s Paradox:

Oct 1:

Here Richard Feynman does a good job of framing unreasonable doubt:

5.2 About This

This work is based on my research into Foundational Philosophy and Early Buddhism, going back a decade. I have studied by participation in public discourse and have >10,000 posts online. The vast majority of the material has been framed in course of discourse and engagement and can be traced as to it’s origin.

AI was used progressively, thus more I had framed thus more helpful it became to fill in and offer guidelines.

I don’t think that the use of AI should in any way overshadow the intellectual merit and the tremendous work that went into this.

Here is more on my AI use:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Suttapitaka/comments/1mjekz9/on_ai_use/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Please read the links and all if you are going to talk about it. In summary:
* As you can see everything is basically substantiated with videos. And these are all part of the genealogy of thought here. There are links to me framing Rebirth as a reasonable/natural assumption from 2018. Korzybski link from 2023 but I studied this before.
* All of this here can be rewritten simply based on the videos and stuff I have provided here. My archived posts will frame the rest.
* Essentially, I couldn’t have better claim to authorship and proof of genealogy. It played itself out this way.

5.3 About Me

I am 38 y.o, an autodidact with a professional poker background. I am >95% Game Theory Optimized in my format ─ with millions of hands played. The foundations here are Bayesian Probability, Kelly Criterion for risk management and Game Theory. Poker isn’t just a game of odds and luck — it’s a spiritual and analytic training ground. I quit playing in 2017/2018 to focus on my work here.

However, poker taught me a lot:

Every bet stress-tests one’s epistemological models and discipline. You can play for money or you can play for understanding — either way ignorance and degeneracy gets punished and true learning and discipline is rewarded. Having mastered one of the world’s purest zero-sum games, I lost much interest in winning and playing — only wanted to pursue understanding.

Poker is thus essentially about applied epistemology and emotional regulation — features immediately relevant to inference under uncertainty. Compared to academic Bayesians and Game-Theorists, the poker player is more concerned with epistemic edges that produce reliably good results in non-ideal, high-variance environments and over the long term. This naturally internalizes a pragmatic epistemology where one constantly treats belief as dictating strategy — with a maximum emphasis on training and embodied practice as a means to win epistemic clarity.

Buddha himself has a discourse talking about Betting:

“With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: ‘If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn’t speak of the next world, and there weren’t the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.’ If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful. ─ MN60

I neither ordained nor went into academia, for many reasons this just didn’t happen and I prioritized learning and output. Furthermore I’ve come to understand that Institutions didn’t have interest in doing this work, and it was natural to treat Buddhism as a purely cultural and political event with some philosophy — rather than the most complete foundational system in play ─ because that was the de-facto attitude towards these texts for millennia.

I would’ve preferred to not be in the middle of it but it wasn’t an option.

6.3 Fair Use

The work is presented as free-for-all common knowledge and can be used as you want. It is a reconstruction and systematization of what was already in the public domain and stands as open-source philosophy.

The work is presented as a public reconstruction of ideas already within the open intellectual domain.

The work does not claim proprietary discovery; its aim is systematization and clarification — to articulate the foundational language by which these texts can be integrated and studied coherently.

All concepts and formulations herein are released as common philosophical property. Readers, scholars, and practitioners are free to quote, adapt, and build upon this work without restriction or attribution, provided the use remains in the spirit of open inquiry and faithful representation.

The source material underlying this reconstruction consists of publicly available teachings, canonical translations, lectures, and scientific discussions — essentially, the same educational corpus from which the author learned. The process of synthesis has been conducted in public forums over more than a decade; those archives serve as the transparent record of development.

The goal is not ownership but transmission: to return these integrated foundations to the commons, where they can evolve organically through study, dialogue, and practice.