What does Buddhism have to say about "time"? One thing's sure, there is anionic time called the Eternal Now. There is only now, and there only ever has been now.
But that is hard to understand until one experiences it then it suddenly seems obvious. Ask Eckhart Tolle. He experienced it and wrote The Power of Now with just one message for the world, talk after talk.
Ram Dass on LSD saw love
Ram Dass (Harvard Jew turned Hindu Dr. Richard Alpert) wrote the classic Be Here Now, having also realized this truth about time. There are wonderful stories in ancient Indian texts about time that say that time is NOT simultaneous. It is relative. It differs from plane to plane in Buddhism's 31 Planes of Existence.
Ancient India understood that time in terms of kalpas (aeons) explained by akasha devas (space entities). It moves differently in heavenly worlds, lasting so much longer than our time -- but possibly happening at the same time. Time will feel very long, even eternal, in other worlds, on other planes. But though that much time may move that slowly there, it will not simultaneously move that way on earth.
Whoa, perhaps too much thinking doesn't pay and I should just be attentive to now and accept.
.
The ancient Vedas speak of time travel?
One Vedic Sanskrit tale speaks of a king and his daughter who were visited by ETs and invited to visit their world/planet. They boarded a vimana (UFO), flew there very quickly, enjoyed a day there, then asked to return home. They were told they could be returned home, but a great deal of time would have passed on earth while they were visiting. When they returned, everyone they ever knew would be long dead and forgotten.
But this is all I have to say about time. I learned it in college as an anecdote in the social sciences. I laughed at how backward some human societies can be until I suddenly realized they were right. We were wrong and we had always been wrong. You know how we say time is an arrow moving from left to right?
We can, and often do, picture time like a boat moving west on a river. The boat relentlessly move from the past (on the left) through the present (in the middle) into the future (on the right). That may all be true. What this society saw is the opposite of what we see, and that is:
Which way am I facing in the arrow of time?
Where are we standing on this boat moving through time?
WEST'S ANSWER: Of course, we're toward the front of the boat, in the driver's seat, looking forward into the future, the present all around us, and the past vanishing into the distance behind us.
THEIR ANSWER: Of course, we are in the back of the boat only ever looking backward into the past. We can never see the future (other than with premonitions, omens, or exhibitions of psychic power) because the boat hasn't gotten there yet (and of course never really does because everything always stays in the present, which is all there is).
What time is it? - Look carefully.
But, we might argue, what about the past? I'm always living in the past, except for the time I "spend" (metaphorically like a limited amount of money) living in the future.
I spend next to no time here, now, just being.
I ruminate and am sad about the past, or I worry and am nervous about the future. I more or less ignore the present -- except when meditating, practicing mindfulness (sati), or listening to the Dhamma, the Buddha's Teachings.
Time travel will confuse us more
The truth is, if we think about it, even when we are "living" in the past or future, we only ever actually do that NOW. We don't go back to the past, and we don't actually "go" to the future. Those are just designations, so that the only time we ever are when we look is in the present. We are not present for the present, but that's where we actually are. Virtually, we're wasting away in the imaginary past or imaginary future, being imagined right NOW. But where are we on that imaginary boat in the example?
That's right, they're right. We've been wrong and haven't been seeing it correctly. We are not in the front part looking forward, and we certainly aren't in the driver's seat (controlling all that's coming at us). We are being carried along, not knowing where we're going, and only finding out after the fact.
I'm bored being here now. Let's talk future.
It could well be that this "now" business is not just a designation. Like a book or album, all time may already be. The story might already be set but we just haven't read it or heard it yet. So we imagine we have perfect freewill and will find out as things transpire.
Time exists, but how it exists -- not as a natural and integral part of the universe, but an artificial and imposed screening device -- is the real question. In a book, there is no time. It is all there all at once. In reading it or flipping through the pages, we create a kind of time or sequencing, ordering, stacking. We can read slowly or jump around very quickly, but wherever we go (in the book), there we are. When? Now. Only ever now.
This is the first paradox of time: Our attitudes toward time have a profound impact on our lives and world, yet we seldom recognize it. The authors' goal is to help reclaim yesterday, enjoy today, and master tomorrow with new ways of seeing and working with our past, present, and future. Just as Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences permanently altered our understanding of intelligence and Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink gave us an appreciation for the adaptive unconscious, Prof. of Social Psychology Philip Zimbardo (infamous for his Stanford Prison Experiment) and Dr. John Boyd’s book changes the way we think about and experience time.
Astropyre (video); text by Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson, Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
Shutdown sparks cringey meme war and Trump punishes blue cities | The Daily Show
(The Daily Show) Oct. 2, 2025: Ronny Chieng covers Day 2 of Trump's government shutdown: Republicans and Democrats are dueling via sombrero and cat memes, Trump is threatening to go after blue cities with a vengeance, and his administration is surprisingly joyful. Plus, Michael Kosta joins with expert analysis of MAGA’s unconventional shutdown strategy. #DailyShow #Shutdown #Meme #Trump
0:00 - Democrats clap back at Trump AI videos
2:45 - Republicans claim Democrats want benefits for illegal aliens
5:14 - White House targets projects in blue cities
6:27 - Trump to cut many Democrat-led agencies
8:11 - Michael Kosta weighs in on the Republican shutdown strategy
Biological "sex" is not simple, and psychological "gender" is even more messy, more ambiguous, more fluid and up for debate. One influences the other as they interact and play upon attraction and orientation. They result from past karma but are influenced by present karma. Biology is not destiny, but its effects are so profound as to make it seem so. Add something to the water (like xenoestrogenic compounds) and no one should be surprised that feelings stop matching with expectations and biases. The fluid becomes more fluid. But there is still male and female not only at the level of the cell but at the level of particles ("atoms") according to Buddhist physics Consider the freakshow called House.
Sex, gender, and orientation
Wisdom Quarterly is working on a "simple" answer to define "woman." It is more fundamental than biology's chromosomes because sex is set somewhere more deeply than molecules in the human body yet still within the physical. There are, of course, psychological components. However, these are fluid and flexible, changing and socially constructed. They are no basis for making a distinction between males and females. If a distinction is to be made, might we found it on something more stable and unchanging than ambiguous factors? Might its foundation be set at birth (conception) rather than post-partum? Looking at Buddhist physics (yes, there is such a thing in the Abhidhamma), we think the answer is yes. This will not settle the social upheaval now in motion because, whatever a "woman" is, what "womanhood" or "femininity" mean is left to human construction. For example, are women "naturally" (innately, by nature) killers or nurturers? While the answer may seem obvious, it is actually open to interpretation because, when a momma bear is protecting its cubs, it becomes a killing machine to any threat it perceives. Does that killing make it less female? (See "The Female of the Species"). When a man stereotypically goes off to work every morning in a previous version of Western society, is it less nurturing than a female staying at home to do that direct care? Is he less of a male for providing support? Psychology and physiology, mind and body, function and form, use and equipment, ideas and tools, humans are very adaptable. We interpret, we define, we make labels, and we do it based on something. Is it mutable? It is. No, but it can be based on an absolute or largely unchanging consideration. What could that be? That will be revealed in the next installment of this debate.
Scientists claim there is not a ‘simple' answer to define ‘woman'
Will this become the int'l symbol of BTQIA+?
What is a "woman"? Or rather, what defines someone as a "woman"?
Ask 100 women, and you might get 100 different answers. [Ask your Uncle Bob and you're likely to get just one.]
This is because there are a variety of contexts in which one could define a woman, and within each of these contexts, there will still not be one straight answer but lots of bent ones.
Socially or biologically, there is much variation. This is the problem Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ran into in her Supreme Court Confirmation hearing. Senator Marsha Blackburn asked her to define the word "woman."
[Buddhism has an answer, a simple answer, and modern people may not like it. There is a book of Buddhist physics and psychology known as the Abhidhamma, and the definitions it contains are clear cut. What it means to be a "woman" may well be a social construct, but it is not arbitrary. At the moment of birth, we become one or the other. This is a biological fact, a binary, at the particle level beyond what science seems to currently be aware of. This does not mean that there is nothing else to be; there is another category for everything else (or two other categories condensed into one, the female P and the male P, which would include hermaphrodites, eunuchs, pansexuals, asexuals, intersexuals, pansexuals, transsexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, crossdressers, and other "two spirit" individuals of all descriptions). This catchall term, P (pandaka), has long been regarded as a third gender, though it has often been dismissed as anyone engaging in any non-normative sexual behavior or with regard to physical anomalies and ambiguities of how one presents -- genotype vs. phenotype -- and certainly of how someone feels in terms of assigned sex, gender role, sexual orientation, and other similar social factors.
Something in the water? - Ya'think?
THE UNBELIEVABLE PART: However one feels, dysphoric or euphoric, biological "sex" is imprinted at the minute level of the kalāpa ("particle," "corporeal unit," "produced corporeality"). Not only is it there in a physical individual, but it can also be seen and confirmed by those who develop the ability to see it. What it means, indeed, that is a social construct. For example, "We are Vikings, and Viking men do not cry! If one cries, it is not a man, so kill it, imprison it, marry it, rape it, impale it with a horn helmet, or raise it up, call it 'shaman-queen,' and obey it. That's the rule." Then later in time, with the exact same DNA on the exact same beach: "We are Swedes, and men do cry but it makes other men around them uncomfortable. So if one cries, it is a man, but call it 'crybaby,' 'sissy,' 'wuss,' 'metro,' 'dergooberfarfignewtonpandacoot,' promote it to a position in Human Resources, and leave him be with no romantic date to the big Lutefisk Festival, but he can bring his mother." End of example. This becomes problematic because although it is an objective binary, it is perceived subjectively. Individuals can see it, but unlike showing genes or alleles on a DNA test, it is not yet possible to show what such minute particles look like to others. Strangely, it is not immutable. An individual, wandering on through rebirths, changes sex -- and neither gender nor sex are certain, fixed, and permanent. If that were not hard enough to accept, it gets stranger. There is at least one case of a human who changes from one sex to the other and back. This is a miraculous and extraordinarily rare occurrence, but that it can occurs cautions us not to make hard and fast distinctions about the meaning of our natural sex, assigned sex, sex roles, and genders. Obviously, this is a controversial issue. To make any comment sounds as if Buddhism is dictating sex assignment. Buddhism is not doing that. Karma (the fruition of our former deeds) is doing that. But karma is complex and also accounts for gender (the social construct or set of gendered expectations about an individual, and this gets very messy and complex, particularly how it was understood by scholars in ancient times. There is something more remarkable than the strange occurrence of a sex change during one human life, and that is the power of transformation, which is far more common. Devas possess this power, as do many other categories of beings in Buddhist cosmology, and even some humans develop this power. So what is the power? It is the power to shapeshift, to adopt a sex or appearance as one wishes. Consider what it does not mean: Although one wills to temporarily adopt the form or physical appearance of something else, it is still done while being one thing or the other and not both. A male may temporarily adopt the form of a functional female, and a female the form of a functional male -- assuming that person possesses this special power or knowledge (abhinna, siddhi), but it will not stick. For example, a reptilian (naga) creature may shapeshift and appear as a human male or female but when not sustaining that determination will revert back to its usual form and appearance. One may argue if this is an "illusion" (maya), as it is sometimes described, because such a creature really does temporarily take the physical form of what it wills. Shapeshifters exist. The argument would be that if one is bound to revert to the original form, is the temporary manifestation as something else not therefore a temporary illusion? It becomes a matter of semantics. Yes, it is an illusion because one will rebound and revert, though one wills not to, to what one was originally. No, it is not an illusion because, for the time being, one really has metamorphosed into the form one willed. This power is very rare among humans. It otherwise seems quite common among other beings. Even animals can camouflage. Ghosts shapeshift, as do demons and ghouls (d'jinn, yakshas, rakshasas, maras, asuras), reptilians (nagas), trolls, goblins (kumbhandas), and light beings (devas).]
Jackson's response was rather controversial and has sparked a debate on how to define a woman.
[The future justice became a defiant moron (or very cunning and manipulative, politically correct speaker) at that moment, unable to make any sensible statement about a definition other than the equivalent of it could be anything.]
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson struggles and can't define "woman"
Lost in Trans Nation (Grossman)
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing was a long, grueling affair. It lasted more than 13 hours and was full of extremely tough and at times harsh questions. One of the toughest, however, was when Senator Marsha Blackburn asked the judge to define the word "woman."
"Well how the F am I supposed to know?" one wishes she would have answered. Instead, she said: "Not in this context, I'm not a biologist," Judge Jackson responded. "In my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide."
Sen. Blackburn was not at all impressed with this answer. She chastised Jackson immediately: “the fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.” Sen. Blackburn stated in the hearing.
The grand debate: What defines a woman?
The End of Gender (Dr. Debra Soh)
Readers may be wondering why Jackson's answer and why learning how a potential Supreme Court judge defines a "woman" is so important. It is because, as a Supreme Court judge, Jackson will most definitely preside over cases involving trans rights and gender politics.
Gender politics in the United States of America is a hot topic currently. This is especially so with several trans rights issues currently in debate. Senators on both sides have since used Jackson's response to talk about their own issues with the debate (2)'
Related video: The Gender Divide: Conditions That Affect Women More Than Men (Ivanhoe)
Scientists can't define "woman" either
Buddhism, Sexuality, & Gender
Many scientists, biologists, and gender law scholars have commended Jackson for her response. They agree that her response might be slightly misleading, but still it wasn't a bad one. This is because while they agree that science and biology could help create a definition for the word, it can't create a conclusive answer, either.
There are billions of women on the planet. Each woman is unique and different, both in a social context and a biological one. Most scientists agree that there is too much variation to be able to clearly, scientifically, define what is a woman (1).
Rebecca Jordan-Young is a scientists and gender studies scholar. In her work, she explores the relationship between science and the social side of gender and sexuality. She says that while biology is a part of what makes a woman a woman and a man a man, it cannot offer a complete definition.
“I don’t want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple, definitive answer,” she said.
“The rest of her answer was more interesting and important. She said ‘as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.’ In other words, she said context matters – which is true in both biology and society. I think that’s a pretty good answer for a judge.”
After the hearing, Blackburn tweeted that her question to define the word "woman" was a simple one. She said that the fact that Jackson couldn't answer it was a major red flag. Many scientists, however, say that it's true: It really is not a simple question.
The answer is not as binary as we once used to say. It used to be, "If you are born with a penis, you are a boy and identify as one. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman and identify as one." As gender experts point out, however, it is much more complex than that.
In terms of biology, there are at least six different markers for "sex." This includes genitals, gonads, chromosomes, internal reproductive organs, hormones, and their levels, and secondary sex characteristics.
These markers don't always align, however, and aren't necessarily opposite or completely different. Therefore, according to biologists, it is nearly impossible to define a woman based on biology alone.
Dr. House, can you explain this mysterious case of the girl who's a boy?
It is a social question and needs to be answered on a contextual basis
While there are biological markers that exist for sex, we can't completely hinge the definition of male or female in science. In the terms of the law and the judicial system, each case involving this debate needs to take into account both the biological and the social context of the debate.
“As is so often the case, science cannot settle what are really social questions,” said Sarah Richardson, a Harvard scholar, historian, and philosopher of biology who focuses on the sciences of sex and gender and their policy dimensions.
“In any particular case of sex categorization, whether in law or in science, it is necessary to build a definition of sex particular to context.”
Gender studies Professor Kate Mason says that in many cases, judges have to recognize that gender [unlike sex] is not a binary thing. It is fluid. Many people will have their own idea of what gender, or a gender, is, and with what and how they identify.
“I do think that judges and justices sometimes have to make determinations about who is meant by ‘man’ or ‘woman’ in written statutes – and they may have to acknowledge the reality that sex and gender are not binary,” Mason said. “I think Blackburn would prefer a world in which reality was much simpler.”
From delivery drones to automated cars, robots are on the rise -- and that includes robots one can have sex with, thanks to the growing number of companies working to bring artificially intelligent (AI) sex dolls to the masses.
The Foundation for Responsible Robotics, which calls for "accountable innovation for the humans behind the robots," sees sexualized robots creeping up on the horizon, so it put together a comprehensive report on the subject.
It's a fascinating read, covering evolving societal attitudes, ethical implications, and sociological concerns.
The entire report is worth a look, but here are seven key takeaways.
Sex robots skew toward men, but women are interested, too
What if AI sexbots becomes sentient?
The report cites a number of studies on whether people would have sex with a robot and points to a wide range of responses.
For instance, 9 percent of respondents to a Huffington Post survey expressed interest in the idea; another survey found 66 percent of men and about half as many (33%) women would want to give sexbots a go.
Still another poll found that 86 percent of respondents believed a robot would be able to satisfy their sexual desires, suggesting potential for the market to grow as attitudes toward sex robots evolve.
Our robotics system will be compatible with any RealDoll. Which one of these lovely ladies would you like to see brought to life? pic.twitter.com/WoHOJx3NUF
— Realbotix (@Realbotixxx) June 30, 2017.
Social acceptance of the fantasy will be key for adoption
I don't really look like a Fox News sexbot, do I?
The report also examines what future relationships with sex robots might look like and draws comparisons to professional sex workers [prostitutes], many who say, according to the report, that high-paying clients often want to drink, socialize, and do drugs together to form the pretense of a relationshipin addition to having sex.
While the technology needed to make sex robots into drinking buddies is likely a long way off, the report points to men who say they've formed emotional connections with inanimate dolls.
These sorts of "fictive relationships" are a little like imaginative play, the report says, and social acceptance of these kinds of relationships will be needed for more people to feel comfortable entering into them.
The table's set for sex robot brothels
Sex robot brothels? What we might see in an era of sexbot prostitution? (CBS News)
.
In another of the many surveys cited in the report, respondents were asked if sex robots were an acceptable substitute for prostitutes.
On a scale of one to seven, with one being unacceptable and seven being acceptable, the survey results averaged out to a perhaps surprisingly high six.
This, coupled with the fact that bordellos of inanimate sex dolls are already on the rise in Asia, leads the authors of the report... More
"Buddhist Radio" is Wisdom Quarterly's name for KPFK's Something's Happening with Roy of Hollywood, which airs Sunday mornings at 8:00 am and Thursday nights at midnight. Alan Watts is featured as are other notable Buddhist names. With the recent passing of radio innovator Roy Tuckman, Pacific Free Speech Radio, Los Angeles, is continuing the series.
Don't forget to not take anything too seriously. Happy listening!
Some great quotes from The Works of Alan Watts
"A ready wit goes with the Tao" (WQ).
"The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance."
"To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do, you will sink and drown. Instead, you relax and float."
"You don't look out there for God, something in the sky; you look in you."
"We cannot be more sensitive to pleasure without being more sensitive to pain."
"Never pretend to a love which you do not actually feel, for love is not ours to command."
"I owe my solitude to other people."
"The ego is nothing other than the focus of conscious attention."
"No work or love will flourish out of guilt, fear, or hollowness of heart, just as no valid plans for the future can be made by those who have no capacity for living now."
"You are that vast thing that you see far, far off with great telescopes."
"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth."
"You and I are all as much continuous with the physical universe as a wave is continuous with the ocean."
Evika Siliņa, 48, is Latvia's new prime minister as of Sept. 15, 2023, becoming the second woman in that position [3].
She is married with three children and previously served as minister of welfare in the second cabinet led by Krišjānis Kariņš [4, 5].
Evika Siliņa was born in Riga on Aug. 3, 1975 [1, 6]. She studied law at the University of Latvia from 1993 to 1997.
There she obtained a bachelor's degree in law and qualified as a jurist. She went on to Riga Graduate School of Law and earned a master's degree in social sciences, international law, and European law. More
Mexico pulls ahead of the United States
Mexico just beat the USA. Find Out How
(Firstpost) Sept. 7, 2023: Mexico's supreme court has decriminalized abortion in a big win for women's rights in [predominantly Catholic] Latin America.
What would Mexico be without US interference?
The move comes as the country readies to appoint its first-ever female president next year.
The ruling party AND the opposition coalition have each nominated a woman to the office of president.
Ironically, Mexico's "freedom-loving" neighbor, the USA, is yet to do either. Palki Sharma tells us how Mexico just beat America.
Sexist Spanish influence on Mexican culture
Maybe Mexico still has a way to go to change its Euro-Spanish Conquistador culture, so radically different from the indigenous way women were regarded prior to conquest and colonization. Of course, many historians would have us believe that "savages" were given all the good they have by European settler colonialists -- patriarchy, enslavement, disease, sexism, and Catholicism... The Spanish man who grabbed the female reporter's butt was later detained by police.
AGRESIÓN: La policía detiene a un hombre por tocarle el culo a una reportera en Madrid | EL PAÍS (EL PAÍS) Sept. 12, 2023: #mediaset #periodista #agresion El intercambio de palabras no sería significativo, una simple interrupción en antena, si no fuera porque la pregunta venía precedida de una agresión sexual a la vista de todos los telespectadores. El hombre acababa de tocar el culo a la periodista Isabel Balado del programa de Mediaset En Boca de Todos y se había quedado al lado con total tranquilidad. Es cuando el periodista Nacho Abad se sorprende desde plató cuando ella le recrimina que le deje trabajar y el hombre niega haberle tocado el culo, a pesar de que en las imágenes se ve claramente. La policía ha detenido inmediatamente a este joven y le ha trasladado a la Unidad de Familia y Atención a la Mujer de la Jefatura Superior de Policía de Madrid. Suscríbete a nuestro canal: @elpais Visita elpais.com#agresion
ABOUT: Vantage is a groundbreaking news, opinions, and current affairs show from Firstpost. Addressing a global audience, Vantage covers the biggest news stories from a 360-degree perspective, giving viewers a chance to assess the impact of world events through a uniquely Indian lens. The show is anchored by Palki Sharma, managing editor of Firstpost. By breaking stereotypes, Vantage aims to challenge conventional wisdom and present an alternative view on global affairs, defying the norm and opening the door to new perspectives. The show goes beyond the headlines to uncover the hidden stories, making Vantage a destination for thought-provoking ideas. Vantage airs M-F at 9:00 pm IST on Firstpost across all leading platforms.
@firstpost, instagram.com/firstpost.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
.jpg)
