Skip to main content

I freely admit my errors. When I used the expression "literally" wrongly

It's important for ethical, decent human beings to admit when they made a mistake,
and support a culture where people confess mistakes big and small.
This should be celebrated, emulated, become the social norm.

Here's one of my mine.

After I wrote a scathing article complaining about people not using the word "literally" correctly

definition of literal, figurative: People are "literally" insane. What about sutta translators?
January 31, 2025


Today I suddenly remembered when I've publicly used the expression "literally" incorrectly.


Correct usage of "literally"

Here, I'm saying the Buddha didn't imply, use a pun,  or use code language, he 'literally' used the pāḷi word meaning "shit".
AN 5.30 Fame and fortune: the Buddha literally called it a 'shitty pleasure'. Don't undermine the power of 'shit' with 'filthy' or 'vile'
July 28, 2022




Wrong usage of "literally"


Thursday, February 15, 2024

fun full lotus moves: finger toe spacers, and slapping palms to bubbling wells

In that article, I explain a move where I slap the bottoms of my feet while in full lotus pose,
really hard,
many times,
"literally slapped the shit out of myself".

That did not happen.
I did not shit, I did not even fart on that occasion after slapping myself.

Somehow the insidious wrong usage of "literally" common today,
slipped into my unconscious, slipped past my speech and critical thinking faculties,
and I made that heinous offense, using "literally" when I really meant "figuratively."



Alternative preferred correction to "figurative"

What does very commonly happen though, 
not just myself, for everyone, animals even,
when you do the tap and slap therapy,
is that jhānic forces hindered by blockages in the body do get released,
and you can "literally" burp, fart, or feel the onset of gas emission that does not necessarily consummate.
Just like patting your old parents or a baby on the back to help them burp.


Edit: About an hour later after originally posting this article 

I went back to double check the article where I claimed to literally shit...
and realized, 

I actually "literally" did slap the shit out of myself.
excerpt from article:

I slapped my feet about 48 times, and then I had to go excrete feces. After doing move #2, I had to go to use the bathroom #2. 


So the good news is,

I do know how to use the expression "literally" correctly.
Why did I make this error?
When I recollected this morning about how in the past, I had said after doing a particular exercise,
"I literally slapped the shit out of myself",
I remembered [correctly] that I did not shit in my pants while I was still in a full lotus posture.
so I thought, "wow! I must have used the word 'literally' when it was figurative!"
I did a google search on my blogs to find the article where I said, "slap the shit...",
confirmed I wrote that,
and then published a public apology.
But then an hour later, 
I thought to myself, "am I getting old? Am I really that careless and dumb now?"
So I went back to read the article in the full context,
and realized I did indeed slap the shit out of myself, but it was one or two minutes AFTER
emerging from the full lotus posture.


So what I am guilty of

1. I should trust myself more

2. Should check the full context of what I thought was a misquote before drawing conclusions.

3. looking really dumb for apologizing for what I thought was an error and finding out it was not an error, and in the process looking even more dumb.


What is good about me

1. intention and follow through to demonstrate integrity,  accountability, honesty, transparency

2. willingness to look dumb,  and not let that prevent me from doing the right thing. I was not even tempted to delete this article and pretend it never happened.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha...

Lucid24.org: What's new?

Link to lucid24.org home page :    4👑☸   Remember, you may have to click the refresh button on your web browser navigation bar at to get updated website. 2024 9-17 Lots of new stuff in the last 2 and a half years.  Too many to list. Main one justifying new blog entry, is redesign of home page. Before, it was designed to please me, super dense with everything in one master control panel. I've redesigned it to be friendly to newbies and everyone really. Clear structure, more use of space.  At someone's request, I added a lucid24.org google site search at top of home page. 2022 4-14 Major update to lucid24.org, easy navigation of suttas, quicklink: the ramifications 4-2 new feature lucid24.org sutta quick link 3-28 A new translation of SN 38.16, and first jhāna is a lot easier than you think 🔗📝notes related to Jhāna force and J.A.S.I. effect AN 9.36, MN 64, MN 111: How does Ajahn Brahm and Sujato's "Jhāna" work here? 3-13 Added to EBPedia J.A.S.I. ('Jazzy...

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a...