making sense of the fetters model

August 2025

hm idk how to write this coherently but i think we can just start with me saying that recently i've been consistently hearing about people {todo: make a list of tweets} making exceptionally efficient progress on the wellbeing path via a meditation-related technique called "fetters inquiry", so it feels like a SOTA/pareto-frontier/robust method. but, all my first impressions on it were reminding me of bad pedagogy pitfalls (end-gaining, etc), and it also reminded me of unsafe rushed methods (eg dry direct insight via vippassana without first laying a foundation via metta, jhanas, IFS, etc), and the theories/models of it felt rly epistemically weird to me, so i wanted to make sense of it.

i talked with some people who are pretty experienced with this stuff and it turns out my concerns were super alleviated, both for the theory side and the applied/practical side.

** tweets with owen (@blissbrah on twitter, guide on 20+ jhana retreats with Jhourney) **

https://x.com/blissbrah/status/1956199818201850249

Last year in June, I dropped the default behavior of resisting “negative” emotions. I posted at the top [1], declaring that I no longer suffered. It’s been over a year since then, and that original statement wasn’t 100% accurate. More like 97%.

Since last June, there’s been [...] {this is a tweet copypasting his blog post at https://www.blissbrah.blog/p/a-year-after-achieving-deep-okayness )

——

https://x.com/corbindreams/status/1956214478623621184

> Calling those “suffering” feels inaccurate, like it trivializes the level of suck I felt […] in the past

Ohhhhhh this post helps contextualize a lot of “i dont suffer anymore” claims from ppl who arent in abiding centerlessness or further

it is also incredibly interesting that we’re seeing continual reports of fetters inquiry making this happen

the model feels rly epistemically weird but like wow cant deny that multiple people seem to be making super cool efficient progress with whatever it is

——

the multiple reports of ppl making progress w it is dope. what about the model feels epistemically weird to you?

——

https://x.com/corbindreams/status/1956220357922160858

basically what bayeslord said about it is also kinda how i feel about it, but with less confidence than him

the theory feels too fuzzy n controversial n reminds me of tons of other examples of super bad/confusing pedagogy from music/math/languages

https://x.com/bayeslord/status/1828213787121590490

totally yeah. no worries at all. it’s a bit long to give it full treatment, but high level: - kevin is not that credible on some of his claims. he’s redefined what fetters are but then claims his are the “true” definitions (red flag), states definitively things like “once a fetter truly breaks it doesn’t come back” (red flag). in general his approach needs to stand on its own but it doesn’t - his fetters are not well defined imo, as in they don’t slice up experience as cleanly as he claims they do. they’re also don’t exhaust the space of (categories of) suffering generators. so even if you “break” all of them it doesn’t “completely solve suffering” - the idea that suffering of various kinds can cease in the way he describes is a cartoonish model of what a physical system such as the brain probably does (we should care about this) - his approach invites you to do fairly shallow work at a content level (red flag). this is probably not enough to see ‘the thing’ for most ppl, or get anywhere close, much less “eliminate suffering entirely” - as far as i can tell no one aside from his students agree with him that this model is how it happens (doesn’t make him wrong but lowers credibility). eg someone like shinzen who is maybe 1000x more credible, as far as i know, does not agree with this picture

there’s a bunch more to say — but maybe you can aim at something and we’ll focus there? to be clear i’ve worked through all of them as far as i can tell, and have put a lot of time into it. taken out of the context of kevin and people pushing them in kevin’s style i think they’re valuable and interesting tools, even surprisingly effective ime. but not exhaustive, not a holy grail, not a perfect standalone method, and not on its own likely to lead to what he claims it leads to.

i also have to say again, his vibes are off. creepy-adjacent cult leader energy. his students pick some of this up too. this for me personally is a huge red flag, though i can’t put my finger on what it is exactly

also too unclear, lots of room for misinterpretation (eg what does it rly mean to break a fetter, what does “no suffering” rly mean in here, etc)

but “particular 10-40hz tensions are the cause of ~all suffering, and we can undo that” feels incredibly coherent, verifiable, robust

but also im kinda new to the fetters model so i cant do a good job of steelmanning it, etc

some tweets on detailed critiques of fetters inquiry approach, replying to the https://x.com/bayeslord/status/1828213787121590490 tweet copypasted above