The new Margaret Cho? Comedian Atsuko Okatsuka [the u's are silent] is known for finding humor in the dysfunction of her immigrant family.
Born in Taiwan to Japanese and Taiwanese parents, she traveled from Japan to Los Angeles with her grandmother and mother when she was 8 for what she thought was a short vacation.
In fact, they were moving.
It would be years before Okatsuka saw her father again. She later described being "kidnapped" by her grandmother on a 2023 episode of This American Life.
"My grandma and I hadn't really talked about it in depth until [then]," she says. "And it helped that I got to do with Ira [Glass, host of This American Life] and the thousands and thousands of thousands of listeners at the same time, then I'm really not alone." More + AUDIO
(Big Fox News) Feb. 21, 2024: Today is National Breakup Day. (Is it because it's "2/21" -- "two, two, one" as in "couple, couple, single" as in "going, going, gone"? No, this is no May 4th, Star Wars Day, when we say, "May the 4th be with you." It's because it's a week after Valentine's Day and Boo was only sticking around to not be alone on the momentous triumph for Kama/Cupid (Mara/Eros) or to get a gift, dinner, and to avoid the humiliation of sitting alone at a restaurant on the biggest day of the year for daters, lovers, and soon to be heartbroken and pathetic hungry ghost humans).
It gives singles -- and even those who are attached in a committed relationship, marriage, or handfasting -- a day to reflect on past relationships and realize our own personal growth gained from those experiences.
Feb. 21, 2025: The five fastest ways to get broken up with are: (5) hogging the remote (taking too much ownership of the TV, the complaint of 15% of partners), (4) fake listening (failing to communicate because of distraction, ADHD, and not listening), (3) bad money management (splurging, gambling, no control of finances), (2) forgetting [Is it forgetting?], and (1) smoking (the worst thing a partner can do for 64% of people about to breakup with us). Note that neither stinking, snoring, nor cheating made the list. Lesbian Ally Johnson looked it up and presented it to horny hetero co-host Klein on KROQ this morning.
Nothing hurts worse than realizing the person you were in love with is an evil jerk
I'll never write a spiteful song about this guy. He's perfect. And we'll always be happy!
.
Let's stand by this star as the world burns.
*American author Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote an allegory, the climactic part of which reads: "by the blaze of the hell-kindled torches, the wretched man beheld his Faith, and the wife her husband, trembling before that unhallowed altar.
“Lo! there ye stand, my children,” said the figure, in a deep and solemn tone, almost sad, with its despairing awfulness, as if his once angelic [now demonic] nature could yet mourn for our miserable [human] race.
“Depending upon one another’s hearts, ye had still hoped that virtue were not all a dream! Now are ye undeceived! — Evil is the nature of [hu]mankind. Evil must be your only happiness. Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!”
“Welcome!” repeated the fiend-worshippers, in one cry of despair and triumph. And there they stood, the only pair, as it seemed, who were yet hesitating on the verge of wickedness, in this dark world.
A basin was hollowed, naturally, in the rock. Did it contain water, reddened by the lurid light? or was it blood? or, perchance, a liquid flame? Herein did the Shape of Evil dip his hand, and prepare to lay the mark of baptism upon their foreheads, that they might be partakers of the mystery of sin, more conscious of the secret guilt of others, both in deed and thought, than they could now be of their own.
The husband cast one look at his pale wife, and Faith at him. What polluted wretches would the next glance show them to each other, shuddering alike at what they disclosed and what they saw!
“Faith! Faith!” cried the husband. “Look up to Heaven, and resist the Wicked One!”
Whether Faith obeyed, he knew not. Hardly had he spoken, when he found himself amid calm night and solitude, listening to a roar of the wind, which died heavily away through the forest. He staggered against the rock, and felt it chill and damp, while a hanging twig, that had been all on fire, besprinkled his cheek with the coldest dew ("Young Goodman Brown" classic American literature, 1835 short story about 17th century Puritan New England).
If only the Buddha had had anything to say about suffering
On many occasions, being asked questions, the Buddha reminded people that he only really taught two things. Any guesses? Did he teach magic and koans? Yin and yang? Mojo and moxie? The Kama Sutra and The Art of Not Giving a F***?
No. Of course, it was suffering (dukkha) and the end of suffering (nirvana). Why would anyone "teach suffering"? The Buddha had to make clear what "suffering" means. He defined it very handily and broadly, a functional definition for the cure he is about to present. What is the use of being told there's a cure if we haven't realized what disease we have been suffering from? "Pain" is much broader than we've imagined, as it includes disappointment, frustration, loss, separation, and even the excruciating agony of heartbreak.
But that's so pessimistic!
No, it isn't. It's a setup for the presentation of the antidote, solution, cure -- the path of practice to bring ALL suffering to a final end. We never even imagined we could bring it to an end, hoping death would do that for us. Death does not do that at all! Why? There is rebirth, and the reason there is rebirth is because there is craving and karma as yet to bring about its many results of all our skillful and unskillful deeds.
ALL disappointment, unsatisfactoriness, and woe CAN be brought to an end, a final end for it to never arise again. That is the great optimism of Buddhism, the "good news" of the Buddha's message to a benighted world of humans and devas (light beings, shining ones).
Suffering (dukkha): Disappointment is one of the Three Universal Marks of Existence. Various sutras sum up how cognitive processes result in our aversion (resistance, hate, fear, revulsion) to unpleasant things and experiences as we are moved to crave, grasp at, and cling to pleasure (sukha), keeping us in saαΉsΔra, the Cycle of Death and Rebirth. It is at the root of the Five Aggregates clung to as "self": (re)birth is suffering, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, mental pain, grief, and despair are s; suffering, asociation with the unloved, separation from the loved, NOT GETTING what one wants, getting what one does not want, all of this is "suffering." In brief, the Five Aggregates clung to as self (khandha, skandhas) are suffering.
The Four Noble Truths are Buddhism in a nutshell because they present the whole of the path of practice in four ennobling (enlightening) statements, like the assessment of a master physician:
Diagnosis: There is a disease (suffering)
Etiology: There is a cause of that disease (craving rooted in ignorance and associated with aversion)
Prognosis: There is a solution
Cure: There is way to the solution (magga, the path).
Early emphasis is on the importance of developing liberating insight (vipassana) to penetrate these fundamental truths about existence is key, and that insight is arrived at by the path of purification, the path to freedom, which is calm leading to samma samadhi, the meditative absorptions (jhanas), to reach a foundation of balanced stillness and intensification of mind able to penetrate them. It is not by thinking or study, belief or powerful faith. One needs to experience these truths until they are self-evident, not statements, not assessments, not doctrines.
The fourth truth is the general Ennobling Eightfold Path, but there is a more detailed summary enumerated in the 37 Requisites of Awakening/Enlightenment (bodhipakkhiya-dhamma).
Wouldn't it be better to be a "priest" than a "shaman"? A priest is an intermediary between a religion and parishioners, whereas a shaman is all about direct experience. So, of course, having no intermediaries is better. The Buddha, like Mahavira and many others before him, went into the woods to have an experience of Truth. Shamans do not seek beliefs, dogma, and things to accept. They go for a face-to-face meeting with what is real. Rather than faith and devotion (bhakti and puja), they seek the path of knowledge and wisdom (jnana and prajna). Knowing and seeing, the Buddha taught others to know-and-see. One can go far on faith (saddha), but all the way to liberation, that's a job for wisdom.
The Beginning of Religion and Faith: The History of Religion
(All Things Humanities) Jan. 1, 2025: Religion has been around for a very long time. When most people think of early religion, they think of ancient religions such as Hinduism, Sumerian(ism), Zoroastrianism, Judaism, ancient Egyptians, and Mayans. However, religious belief and spirituality have a much longer history than that. The origins of religion date back to prehistoric times, that is, before human beings even began writing and carving into rocks. We have evidence showing religious practices taking place as early as 60,000 BCE. So where did religion start, why did it start, what did it look like, and why were human beings partaking in it? This video is a deep dive into the origins of religion and why human beings have been undertaking this behavior. You’re watching All Things Humanities.
Is there shamanism in Sweden? Of course, there are the Sami, the Indigenous whites, the original Scandinavians we seem to base all of our Christmas imagery on -- reindeer sleighs dashing through the snow in colorful clothes, dropping psychedelic mushrooms the shaman dropped in through the chimney of our yurt through to deliver so that we could place them in stocking over the fireplace to dry so they wouldn't rot and turn into charcoal-looking petroleum sludge. The red and white of the Amanita muscaria or powerful fly agaric entheogen was the "gift surprise" we are mimicking under the pine tree, where they grow in a symbiotic relationship to the conifers. It all ties in from former Lapland (now Sapmi) to the Arctic Circle, where the North Pole is located. The shamanism in this cold part of the world is what we have been mirroring and remembering in our racial or genetic memory as a collective human family. Just ask Terence McKenna or the Machine Elves.
Inca Wisdom: Urban Shaman Annika Panotzki's Guide to Emotional Transformation
(Wisdom From North) Annika Panotzki is a Swedish urban shaman whose vision is to build bridges between the teachings of Inca Shamanism and the urban culture of the West.
For Annika, her life completely transformed after opening herself to the wisdom of the shamanic Inca way. In the Inca tradition, Annika says, we see that we are all creators of our lives.
The higher awareness we have, the more we can create and choose good things. When we see that we already have everything we need around us and we see that there is enough for everybody, then we are no longer guided by our ego.
When life is flowing for us, then it is natural to receive and have the desire to share with others. We can share our unique talents, passions, kind thoughts, and so on.
This natural teaching is beautiful and can be applied no matter who we are, what we are working with, or where on earth we live. Inca Shamanism's philosophy of life has amazing tools for us.
"KARMA: It's everywhere you're going to be." Deeds have the power to produce resultants.
.
Pranks are fun to watch because they're funny and because it's not us on the receiving end. It must be terrifying, if even for the first moments, to be the pranked on. But it sure is funny, at least for males. Females may have more sense and sensibility, preferring to daydream about Darcy coming to save them. They are so fun, funny, and fascinating that a question comes up: Are they unskillful karma?
That is, will they result in unpleasant, unwished for, unwanted, even unbearable results when they come to fruition and ripen?
It seems to be a matter of degrees if one thinks about it just a little. What's "better," to kill one person or two people?
But isn't karma an "imponderable" and unanswerable question in Buddhism? No, what's imponderable is the working out (vipaka-phala) of karma (deeds). What we throw out by our mental, verbal, and physical actions will come back to us, but precisely HOW they will come back, that is imponderable and would drive one to madness to keep trying to figure out.
The answer is obvious only it's hard to answer because, between only those two choices, of course it's better to killer fewer people but it cannot in any way be said that it's "good" (and certainly not "better") to kill anyone.
In exactly the same way and for the same reason, a person pranked Halloween-style is going to be scared. That fear may dissolve and resolve again as catharsis, laughter, an adrenaline rush, a moment of clarity, hiccuplessness, or whatever, but for that span of time, one was frightened, experiencing horripilation, terrified, apoplectic, having a bowel movement -- and that can't be good to do to someone just for laughs.
If one imagines a motive -- such as to teach a valuable lesson or remind someone of something or to bring about sudden relief or whatever -- that may modify the karma and attenuate, but it certainly does not erase it, absolve it, make it good, or turn it into an indulgence to be paid off. It's still bad. It's like spanking someone. Whatever the motive, it is still bad (violent, insensitive, cruel, abusive) and potentially traumatizing. One may later thank you for traumatizing him or her, such as when that person grows up, joins the military, and kills many people instead of bowing out of a mission like a smarter or less traumatized person might think to do. But that thanks does not mean it was a good or neutral deed on the part of the doer, only that it had some effect for which the victim feels a necessity to have gratitude, like when you are beaten in prison on arrival, not because you did anything wrong or deserved it but only because stronger guys were looking out for your future and wanted you to toughen up, look alert, and mind your Ps and Qs. You may thank them when you avoid getting jumped by antagonistic opponents or get jumped but were ready for it because you remained hypervigilant after the first beating. But that won't make that beating "good." At best, it might make it "mixed." Mixed means at least partially bad, negative, harmful, an therefore resulting in suffering (dukkha) for the doer.
If one beats one's child with a "good" parental motive then imagines that as a karmic result, later on, perhaps in a future life, one is beaten by one's parent with a "good" motive, how is that going to be experienced, how is it going to feel, what are going to be the negative results (whether or not there are any positive ones)? Say that, indeed, one doesn't flip off the neighbor anymore but, on account of being beaten, starts seeing beating others (being physically violent and/or scolding) as a means to an end -- as demonstrated by one's own loving parent? Will one call that a win and say that beating is not bad karma? It is clearly bad karma even if it does some good or has some positive outcome in addition to all the negative outcomes. What if the child becomes nervous, fearful, introverted, shy, full of violent outbursts, closed in, untrusting...? "But, at least, does not flip off the neighbor anymore" will be a pathetic rationalization when trying to explain that spanking was "good karma."
Would that karma were so nice and limited, but each act has exponential results.
.
Reduce debt, maximize profit
What are the motives for pranks? That is another way to know whether something is skillful (wholesome, good, meritorious, proper conduct, advantageous, beneficial, harmless, in line with the dhamma): find the motives motivating it. There are six motives to choose from, and it is never really going to be just one. It will tend to be a mixed bag. At one impulsion (javana), at one mind moment (citta), it may be just one motive, but there are thousands if not millions of such impulsions and mind moments in one act (karma). The most important quality of the karma (act) is the cetana (motive, ambition, intention behind it). The six motives are easy to remember because they flipsides of one another:
greed (attraction), nongreed
hatred (aversion), nonhatred
delusion (wrong view), nondelusion.
Actions motivated by any degree of greed, hatred, or delusion we can put in the unskillful, unwholesome, harmful, producing dukkha pile.
Actions motivated by any degree of nongreed (letting go, giving up, sharing, generosity, nonstinginess, charity, compassion, caring, loving-kindness, harmlessness) we can put in the skillful pile, which produces (when it finally comes to fruition, which is whenever it meets the necessary and sufficient conditions to come to frution, much more likely later rather than sooner.
Actions motivated by aversion (FEAR, annoyance, disliking, revulsion, hatred) we can put in the unskillful pile.
Actions motviated by nonaversion (tolerance, sympathy, mercy, compassion, loving kindness, fairness, enlightened self-interest) we can put in the skillful pile.
Actions motivated by delusion (ignorance, confusion, wrong view, misplaced or blind faith, fanaticism) we can put in the unskillful pile, which produces unwelcome, unwanted results when they (those impulsions and mind moments) come to fruition and ripen.
Actions motivated by nondelusion (wisdom, direct knowing and seeing, understanding, clarity) we can put in the skillful pile.
Spite, not your boyfriend, is karma.
One thing that should be clear although it is probably not is that there is no such thing as greed or hatred without delusion. Delusion gives rise to greed. It gives rise to hatred. There could be greed without hatred, and hatred without greed, or delusion without either, but otherwise they are usually mixed up, supporting one another, producing unskillful karma.
All that one might say in condemnation of the first three mentioned might can be turned around to praise the other three, but one must understand these terms are translated from a more sophisticated and subtle language with more nuances than English. Pali, which comes from Sanskrit, has many multivalent terms, with each word having a RANGE of meanings. That's why it sounds "negative," non-this and non-that. But according to Bhikkhu Bodhi and other scholars, this is just a convention. Nondelusion (whatever it might mean in English) really does mean "wisdom" in the original languages of the Buddha (Gandhari, Magadhi, Pali, Prakrit, Sanskrit). And nonhatred (adosa) is not merely the absence of hatred but the positive aspects of loving kindness. Our English ears have trouble hearing this and we see negativity where it is not.
Another way to have looked at this question, "Is it (pranks or anything else) bad karma?" would have been to compare life to the Disciplinary Code or Rules and Regulations the Buddha set down for monastics. Bothering others, no matter the motive, is bad because it bothers them. So thoughtlessly, unmindfully, neglectfully, carelessly, inadvertently making noise that is disruptive to others is labeled "wrong" and "not to be done" in the Vinaya. One trivial example that comes to mind is that, while eating, which in olden times was done with the hand, one is not to scrape the bottom of the bowl with one's nails such as to make noise that bothers others who are eating.
There was no intention to bother them and, nevertheless, it is wrong and should be avoided. If done with the motive to disturb others, then it is clearly bad however minor it may seem or however many rationalizations we may give. So following the example of the Monastic Sangha, who are models of good behavior for Buddhists (not that they always are), we can clearly see that pranking, joking, teasing, or even unintentionally disturbing others by our walking loudly, coughing, twitches, scratching, snoring, carelessly passing wind, and so on can be deemed violations of the Code, which applies to monastics and not us but is an example to us of what the Buddha taught for the longevity of Buddhism (the Dharma in the world), the respect of others for Buddhism and the Buddha as a teacher, for the comfort of the peaceful, and for the taming of the disturbed. The Vinaya explains why each rule or regulation was set down in the first place, with a backstory to explain its necessity. Some rules are as general as just for making it comfortable to be around or for the calming of those who are not calm. Big time pranks would never be in line with this. Little teases maybe, but even that is walking the line as we never know how someone is going to take something. We might be able to know our motives, innocent or not, but they are not likely to know those motives so may grow resentful, angry, vengeful, disturbed, or motivated to strike back. For peace's sake, keep the peace. Pranks are anti-peaceful.
Karmic results
What will be the result of any intentional action? We may imagine that it is commensurate with the act, and it is, but we all fail to understand "the act." The typical misconception, based more on a popular understanding of Hinduism than what the Buddha taught, is that if we do one thing, that one thing will happen to us in return.
This is wrong for at least two reasons. One, we don't realize what constitutes "the act" (the deed, action, intention). The Abhidhamma (the "Dharma in Ultimate Terms") as a treatise of Buddhist psychology goes into extreme detail about what "consciousness" is. We may think it's a thing, but in fact it's a process, a stream of mind-moments (cittas). These are not really "thoughts" but components or "particles" of awareness. Mental formations -- such as feelings, perceptions, volitions, and 50 others -- give us "consciousness." Among these are javanas or "impulsions." If there are countless cittas streaming, there are an exponential number of javanas for each. Each of these might lay down a track, a seed, that later manifests as a karmic result. If this understanding is correct, one "deed" (with uncountable cittas and javanas) will result in an exponential number of results. The is for the good, the bad, and the neutral resulting in welcome, unwelcome, and neither welcome-nor-unwelcome results. Results are of two kinds, resultants (vipakas) and fruit (phala). It's not clear what the distinction is, but it used to be said that one referred to mental resultants and the other to physical circumstances. Thus, one can see that mental resultants might be immediate (regret, remorse, sadness, mental pain, delight, passion, joy, elation, etc.) whereas as life circumstances might be the fruit, our situation, where we are born, how our body is, our looks, health, longevity or lack of these.
Two, since ancient times, for whatever reason, people have made the mistake of thinking that if we do something in a certain way, that deed will produce the same thing for us in the same way. This is completely wrong. When the Buddha was asked about it, he said that such a view was the negation of his teachings on karma. For example, if we slap someone in public, we may worry that our deed (our karma of slapping that person in public) will result in us being slapped in public. This is so common a view that there's no convincing even most Buddhists that this is wrong. This is what sutras and stories, the media and our own thinking tell us is "fair" and proportionate. It's incorrect. The Buddha teaches a variable result of karma. For example, if someone kills, the result will not be that one is killed. That could be the result. It may even be likely that that is the result. Oh, if only it were we might learn something. The results are actually much worse. That act, that deed, because so many things led up to it, because it was motivated by so many cittas and so many more impulsions, will yield unwelcome results over and over, again and again for a long, long time. Even if the negative results are avoided in this life (we are not caught, we are not punished, we experience no remorse, regret, sadness, misgivings, worries about retribution, coarseness, insensitivity, drunkenness to try to drown the guilt or bolster the rationalizations), they will not be avoided forever.
So "live by the sword, die by the sword" is not necessarily true. It is self-evidently untrue in the way we understand it and true in another way we do not understand. We think that because this killer who killed with a sword, who killed many people because he lived "by the sword" as a soldier, cop, or criminal must die by getting stabbed or beheaded, but he died of a heart attack or disease or old age surrounded by his loved ones. How could this be? Doesn't make the famous utterer of that adage wrong? That utterer will be vindicated because there are many lives, not just this one. So what if he doesn't "die by the sword" this time? He likely will in the future, many times over, but even if he doesn't, even if that is avoided, he will reap what he has sown and it will produce many unwelcome results (resultants and fruits, multiplying, maturing and ripening). In hell realms, one may be killed with a sword many times. And, still, having been killed many times over, having had many lives shortened by this act, incurring animosity and fear from others, bad looks, an angry disposition, aversion, fear, worry, and so on, that deed is not exhausted. It keeps producing unwelcome results when it gets the opportunity.
Even if the negative results are avoided in the very next life, which is unlikely since it is a heavy karma (course of action with the power to drag us down to the downfall or niraya and condition our rebirth in an unfortunate plane of existence, among animals, ghosts, demons, or hellions), going from brightness to darkness or darkness to darkness, there is still the probability of that deed bearing its result in subsequent lives when it gets the opportunity to produce results. When it finally catches up with us, the result will not be someone kills us and that's that. It is far more likely that it will result in sickliness, a shortened lifespan wherever one is born, ugliness, and other problems, to say nothing of the possibility that the person we killed will seek revenge life after life, in a cycle of retribution because we will strike back and get in more trouble. But, say, no bad result ever came about until one life far in the future, a fortunate rebirth on a good plane of existence on or above the human plane. And there the result was that it caused a shortened life and we died prematurely: That karma is in no way exhausted by that having happened. We are likely to have many lifespans shortened, have much sickliness, much pain, many lives in the downfall (a collective term for subhuman lives which have much suffering and very little hope of escape). When we add up what happened as a result of that "one" deed of killing, we will certainly understand that it was not worth it. Conversely, a skillful deed was more than worth it. If we give, share, help others, we will be helped many times over before that karma of giving that one time, even a small amount, is exhausted. (It depends to whom and how we give, but giving is good, which is not to say that it can't be made bad or soured or used as a pivot point for negativity. Imagine if we give to shame someone, outdo someone, belittle someone, or simply to gain more for ourselves. It looks like giving and sharing from the outside, but inside we can see a negative motive for a "good" deed. So it can bear its mixed results, perhaps ironically. What if as a result of giving, we get a fortune BUT we are limited to distributing it not enjoying it ourselves? We are made the head of a trust fund for others with a pittance of a stipend for serving on the board of its distribution. So the Buddha many times advised, for the nondoing of the unskillful and the doing of the skillful, this is what a buddha teaches. Why he teaches is that we and others around us might benefit. He wished for the whole world, far beyond this human plane, to benefit.
Kar Krashes and Karens (instant karma?)
This is the strange and seemingly "unfair" thing about karma. We only killed that one time, yet we are experiencing the unwanted, unwelcome, unbearable results over and over again. Similarly with skillful or good deeds, with merit. Though we only give a little, it comes back manifold. (Cast your bread upon the water).
Finally, what is the ultimate wisdom? It is enlightenment (bodhi, satori, kensho, vipassana, insight, epiphany, dawning, knowledge, sight, knowing-and-seeing, liberating-wisdom, awakening). Why? It is because ignorance (avijja, avidya, moha, miccha-ditthi, maya) is the root of all our problems in samsara (the cycle of rebirth, "again becoming," reappearance) which is inseparable from dukkha so long as we're trapped in it. Liberation (moksha) is no longer being trapped even when we still might be in it as in nirvana-with-remainder, the living arhat or buddha who still experiences pain (dukkhata) but has overcome all that can upset (dukkha) -- a response to pain rooted in aversion or frustration in wanting something to be other than the way it is.
Less is more. We should have said far less (words) and it would have been much more (useful). But for readers who read all the way through, comment. Is there any sense in what the Buddha taught? It's not so different than our Christian, Hindu, Jain, and even Jewish teachings, only the Buddha tweaked those misunderstandings and made them so clear that in his day, he was never called a "Buddhist" but frequently called a "Karmavadin," a teacher of the efficacy of deeds.
You may think I'm "hot," but I'm d*ad cold, so the joke's on you (Ariana Viera, RIP).
.
There's great hope in what he taught because in all but five situations (regarding five heinous deeds), all karma is modifiable and may even be compensated for so that it does not ruin us. Even in the case of those five deeds, and we can look at the example of Devadatta for evidence of this, karma does not rule everything. Karma is not the cause of everything. Those five have the unfortunate power to bear the result in the very next (immediate) rebirth, and it will not be good. But what else we do now will also condition the future, even if other deeds are not powerful enough to expunge or avoid this powerful result of immediate next rebirth experience. The evidence is in what the Buddha said would happen to Devadatta, the Judas figure in Buddhism. He might have much suffering ahead of him, much explaining and accounting for his horrific misdeeds, yet he would eventually become an arhat perhaps even a silent buddha.
Katty Purry: I'm the hottest, sexiest, most charming popstar there will ever be!
I'll let my body do my talking for me, and I don't need to claim anything (Emy/unsplash.com).
Old, rich, and hot? It's a dream come true
(Christine Stevens) I know, it sounds pretty lame, this title. But just today someone wrote an article:
“Hot people complain about the ‘horrible experience’ of being good-looking” is the title of this article written by Alex Mitchell, who is a guy -- not exactly a hot guy either. I don’t mean to be judgy, but go ahead, look him up.
He probably really hates hot women because they have failed to respond to his particular brand of erudition, working for this great newspaper called The New York Post. Yeah, it’s pro-Trump.
That was his subtitle, not mine: “What a pity to be pretty.”
And even though he called his article “Hot people,” the entirety of the article focuses on, surprise-surprise, hot women.
Did the Buddha by any chance teach people how to become more beautiful? - Yes. Karma.
Yesterday's "hot" is "meh" today, and they don't even have that! It's gone, so it's on to the next...
.
Yoga is the way to health and hotness
He doesn’t get into how hard it is to be a hot guy — because maybe it’s not that hard. I don’t know.
So here are the things Alex Mitchell, dripping with resentment, writes about “pitiful” hot women and their travails:
— People assume they are dumb because they are hot.
Shush. Maybe it's all in the eye of the beholder.
— Married women think hot women are after their husbands. (Really? I had no idea that was a thing -- mate poaching?) More:
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.
%20wiki.jpeg)
