Showing posts with label verbal action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label verbal action. Show all posts

Monday, March 17, 2025

The origin of language in humans


The origins of language
(History with Kayleigh) Premiered March 17, 2025: Researching the origins of language, can we pinpoint when language first emerged? What do other great apes reveal about their use of language, and how does that tie into our own evolution and development of language? Let's find out. SPONSOR: AirLearn now: airlearn.onelink.me...
  • What's the oldest language in the world? The Tamil language from the Buddhist island of Sri Lanka (aka Eelam, the land of the Tamil Tigers, for which the longest civil war in Asia was fought), Southern India (Tamil Nadu), and Singapore (though surely Sanskrit must be much older than that)
Support me and my work: https://www.historywithkayleigh.live Links to all my socials and merch: https://beacons.ai/historywithkayleigh. Merch: https://www.historywithkayleigh.com. Become a Channel member: @historywithkayleigh.   Support me on Patreon: historywithkayleigh.

Saturday, December 31, 2022

Top 100 Roast Moments 🔥 Comedy Central

WARNING: Filth, cruelty, vulgarity, obscenities, vicious jabs and sexual references of all kinds!

(Comedy Central) The ultimate collection of the most iconic moments and harshest burns from every Comedy Central Roast.

Paramount+ is here. Stream favorite shows now on Paramount+. Try it FREE at bit.ly/3qyOeOf. #ComedyCentral Subscribe to Comedy Central: bit.ly/2SP55QM. Follow Comedy Central: twitter.com/ComedyCentral, facebook.com/ComedyCentral, instagram.com/comedycentral Watch more Comedy Central: youtube.com/comedycentral Watch full episodes of Comedy Central shows: cc.com/shows.

Saturday, September 24, 2022

Buddha wasn't "Buddhist." What was he?

Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Wisdom Quarterly
On the left is not the Buddha but Mahavira. The Buddha is on the right. That's how alike they are.
.
Jain wandering ascetic nun, 20th century
The historical Buddha, the former Prince Siddhartha Gautama, the Sage of the Scythians, was not only called the "Buddha" at the time. He had many epithets and monikers, the Tathagata, Mahavira, Bhagwan, Bhante, Sramana, and so on ("Wayfarer," "Thus Come One," "Well Gone One," "Great Hero," "Venerable," "Wandering Ascetic," etc.).

He was all of these and more, but The Buddha or "The Awakened One" stuck, and the name of the Dharma (Doctrine) he taught came to be called "Awakenism" (Buddh-ism).

In his day, however, he was referred to as a Karmavadin, a "teacher of the efficacy of intentional actions," a person who taught action/karma. (He was certainly NOT a "Hindu," as Hinduism or "Indus-ism," had not yet been invented or coined by British Orientalists working in British India (part of East India Company or Brittania/British Empire or the Realm).

There were previous buddhas.
There was not even an "India" yet. What there was was a Great Bharat, Brahmanism, the ancient Vedas, all of which modern Hinduism claims as its own. The Buddha, however, and therefore Buddhism's various schools, remember previous samma-sam-buddhas, or Supremely Enlightened Teachers, extending back aeons or kalpas, which is a term that varies in meaning from ordinary lifespan of a person to incalculable periods of geologic time. So the Buddha-Dharma or Teaching of these extraordinary beings on earth and in other galaxies did not begin with the historical Buddha Shakyamuni, the muni or sage/mendicant of the Indo-Sakas/Shakyas or Scythians of the northwest frontier region of old Gandhara in Central Asia, next to what would later become India under the unifying influence of the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka, who converted to Buddhism and gave up war and killing and conquest by force, instead choosing to be a kind of legendary chakravartin world-monarch, the "world" being the known world of the Rose Apple Land (Jambudvipa) or this planet in the sea of space, this (sub)continent, this extent of land surrounded by sea as far as ancient cartographers yet knew.

In an ultimate sense, Buddhism teaches that there is no "soul" (self, atman, essence), but in a conventional sense, of course there is one, and the Buddha taught the nature of it in exacting detail. That is how he came to know its ultimate nature as impersonal, empty, impermanent, and unsatisfactory. Those without understanding will become very confused and misguided. Distinguish ultimate from conventional truth at all times (Jainism).
.
Jain shape of the universe
He made such a big deal about the importance of what we allow ourselves think, say, and do -- our deeds of mind, speech, and body -- that he was called a Teacher of Karma. Karma was not taken for granted and many of us seem to think today. Some seers (rishis) knew that beings died and were reborn in accordance with their deeds, but this was not clearly understood or taught by other teachers.

Mahavira (the Nigantha Nataputta or Vardhamana) was the founder of Jainism (Jina Dharma) -- the only other surviving wandering ascetic (sramana) tradition from proto-India, the other five popular ones having gone extinct.

The Buddha explained the unfathomable working out of karma (deeds and their results), making generalizations and rules of thumb about what is, in fact, an imponderable subject. What is important is that all that we do comes back to us. It is not lost unless and until we make the ground of ripening infertile by our awakening.

This has led to many Points of Controversy, such as...

Monday, March 25, 2019

Why women really reject men (video)

Dr. Peterson (WisdomTalks, 6/3/18); Ashley Wells, CC Liu, Seth Auberon, Wisdom Quarterly

Why do women REALLY reject men? In this "Understanding Women" series, Dr. Jordan Peterson has something to day. In the audio book (which is available for FREE at amzn.to/2KhJOpS) Dr. Peterson talks at length about the real reason women reject men and what we all can learn from it. Watch full lecture

How to attract women

(Wisdom Talks) Nice Guys Should Know This to Attract Women

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Karma: What the Buddha taught his son

Ven. Thanissaro (trans.) edited by Ashley Wells, Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly
Prince Siddhartha's son, Rahula, age 7, became a novice and later, at 20, a fully ordained monk who attained full enlightenment as the Buddha and teachers instructed him on the practice (Tylerkingphotography/flickr.com).
.
Ven. Rahula, the Buddha, and Ven. Ananda
"What do you think, Rahula [the Buddha's son, who at 7-years-old was the youngest wandering ascetic admitted to the monastic order], What is a mirror for?"
 
"For reflection, sir."
 
"In the same way, Rahula, bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts [the three expressions of karma or "action"] are to be done with repeated reflection.
 
"Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I want to perform, would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, to the affliction of both? Is it an unskillful bodily act with unwelcome consequences and distressing results?'

"If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both that would be an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences and painful results, then any bodily act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do.

"But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is fit for you to do.
 
"While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing -- is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to the affliction both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.
 
"Having performed a bodily act, you should reflect on it... If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to affliction of both, it was an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future.

"But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental qualities.
 
(Similarly with verbal and mental acts, except for the last paragraph under mental acts:)
 
"Having performed a mental act, you should reflect on it... If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both, it was an unskillful mental act with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, and disgusted with it. Feeling distressed... you should exercise restraint in the future.

"But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful mental action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental qualities.
 
"Rahula, all those Brahmins and wandering ascetics in the course of the past who purified their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts did it through repeated reflection on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts in just this way.
 
"All those Brahmins and wandering ascetics in the course of the future who will purify their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts, will do it through repeated reflection on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts in just this way.
 
"All those Brahmins and wandering ascetics at present who purify their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts do it through repeated reflection on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts in just this way.
 
"Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental acts through repeated reflection.' That's how you should train yourself." — MN 61

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Evil: Satirical ROAST of James Franco (video)

Seth Auberon, Pat Macpherson, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly; Comedy Central
WARNING: Racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, pro-Semitic bias, foul language! (Comedy Central) The Roast of Hollywood ego and actor James Franco, 2015 (Rated TV MA-L).
James Franco (Jeff Ross) and Selena Gomez (Pussy Riot) star in X-rated "Spring Broken"?
There are many devils: maras, oni, kami, asuras, rakshasas, nagas... (ntattoodesigns)
.
Silverman: grand dame of American comedy
Satire is "evil" (very bad) as Charlie Hebdo, "Saturday Night Live," "Family Guy," "Southpark," "The Colbert Report," "The Daily Show," Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel...and stand up comedy teaches us. It's just like irony. Have you seen Sarah Silverman's "Jesus is Magic"? Maybe you should.

Most loved baby in US ("Family Guy")
Hey, you can't say that! Well, during a roast you can. Sometimes satire and irony have a much larger point to make. It's what made Stephen Colbert a super star. It didn't hurt Jon Stewart either. Have you seen "Strangers With Candy"? Maybe you should.

Amy Sedaris is funnier and brighter than Colbert, who was a major part of the show. Where did Sarah Silverman come from? We remember when she was just a shining light on "Mr. Show with Bob and David," along with Jack Black, Brian Poseyn, the voice of Sponge Bob Square Pants, and other friends from the San Fernando Valley.

Sodom and Satin ("Southpark")
Bob is Bob Odenkirk ("Breaking Bad"), now appearing in "Better Call Saul." And David is traveling comedian David Cross of "Arrested Development" and other projects. What would we do without comedy? Here fainthearted Franco gets skewered, deflated, and roasted to a crisp by Aziz Ansari, Seth Rogen (Franco's co-star in Sony's qualified-flop "The Interview"), Bill Hader and Andy Sandberg (SNL), Jonah Hill ("The Sitter," a.k.a. Seth Rogen Jr.), Nick Kroll, and others.

What'd'ya mean evil? Hollywood Illuminati barely support the military-industrial complex.
.
Karma: What is "evil"?
Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Seth Auberon, Wisdom Quarterly

Karma is profound, complex, subtle.
"Evil," in the broadest sense of the word as unskillful or unwholesome (akusala), refers to all those karmic volitions (the intentions behind deeds) and the consciousness and mental-concomitants (cittas and cetasikas) associated with harming ourselves, others, or both.

VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED!
Our karma or actions are accompanied either by greed, aversion, delusion; nongreed, nonaversion, nondelusion; or a mix of these.

The first three root motivations -- when they manifest covertly in mind or overtly in speech and body -- are causes of subsequent unpleasant, undesirable, unwished for karmic-results. And they contain the seeds of unhappy destinies and rebirths. "Evil" (papa) is better reserved for things more extreme than roasting someone, a gentle kind of torture.

The beliefs behind behavior are karma, too.
We would NOT even call killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, perjury, or intoxication "evil." Refraining from these is following the Five Precepts, something the Buddha always recommended as the best courses of action. The English word "evil" is best reserved for industrial-scale killing, war activities, mass distruction, karma with a fixed result (of which there are only five):
  • things Monsanto and Big Pharma plan in board rooms,
  • things the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, FBI consider business as usual,
  • things Mara does or impels/encourages others to do with their confused cooperation.
NOTE: Technically fear is "evil," when evil (akusala) is used in its broadest sense to refer to ANYTHING within the range of greed, hatred, and delusion (lobha, dosa, moha) because fear is a form of aversion, which is a kind of "hate." But to say say so in English is to commit violence against the language, given that very few people are concerned with technicalities, precise definitions, or the subtle distinctions of Buddhist psychology (Abhidharma). Writ large, few Americans think there is anything morally wrong or karmically harmful with desiring, disliking, or being confused. But readers must be ever mindful of the fact that Buddhism is rarely speaking English; rather, it is Sanskrit and Pali in translation using slightly imperfect or very rough English equivalents. The "Heart Sutra" is not as perplexing in the original. This leads to many needless paradoxes that do not arise in the original languages the Buddha taught in, which were Magadhi and other Prakrits. He almost certainly understood Sanskrit but would have had no occasion to speak it except to Brahmin trying to debate him.

OJ Simpson? Not evil. Dick Cheney? Evil. Police? Not evil. CIA? Evil. Franco? Not evil. Bush? Evil. Things can be very bad and a bad idea without being evil. If we call it all "evil," we only cheapen the word. Nazi leaders were evil; the Germans at the parades and rallies, probably not evil.

Karma. It's everywhere you're going to be.
Who can really say what another's motivations are? We can barely determine our own and we constantly misunderstand what Buddhism means by "intention." It's not what one "intended" to happen. "I didn't mean for it to go this far..." It's what motivated (the impulse or intentionality behind it) one to act -- the "greed" (lust, craving, clinging, attachment, harmful desires), "hatred" (aversion, fear, wrath), or delusion (wrong view, confusion, ignorance).
 
Karma is deep, difficult to fathom completely, and it works out (vipaka and phala) in mysterious ways.
 
Meanwhile, the real devil (Dick Cheney) sits at home contemplating a human heart (TMW)
Finally, Asian comedy on U.S. TV! "Fresh Off the Boat" (ABC)

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Abusing the Buddha (sutra)

Seth Auberon and Amber Larson, Wisdom Quarterly based on Acharya Buddharakkhita translation of the Discourse on "Abuse" or "Reviling" (Akkosa Sutra, SN 7.2)
Anger motivated by delusion, wrong view, greed, frustration, fear...is a terrible thing (PB)
Cartoon anger and cruelty. Like it or lump it! (bananatriangle.com)

  
Afghan Gandhara Buddha Maitreya (Boonlieng/flickr)
Once the Blessed One was staying at Rajagaha [the "Royal Ringed City," capital of Magadha] in the Bamboo Grove near the Squirrels' Feeding Ground.

The Brahmin Akkosa-Bharadvaja [Akkosaka* of the clan of Bharadvaja Brahmins, whose nickname literally means "The Reviler" according to M. Walshe] heard this about his brother:
 
"The Brahmin Bharadvaja, it seems, has become a monk under the great ascetic Gotama (the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama)."

Angry and peeved, he went to see the Blessed One. He approached, abused, and reviled him in foul and harsh words.

But reviled, the Blessed One spoke gently to the Brahmin Akkosa Bharadvaja: "Well, Brahmin, do friends, acquaintances, relatives, kinfolk, and guests visit you?"
 
"Yes, Gotama, sometimes they do."
 
"Well, Brahmin, do you not offer them, snacks, food, and drink?"
 
"Yes, Gotama, sometimes I do offer them snacks, food, and drink."
 
"But, Brahmin, what if they do not accept it? Whose is it?"
 
"If, Gotama, they do not accept it, I keep it. It is mine."
 
"Even so, Brahmin, you are abusing those who do not abuse, are angry with those who do not get angry, are quarreling with those who do not quarrel. As we do not accept it, Brahmin, all of this is yours. When, Brahmin, one abuses in return when abused, repays anger with anger, and quarrels back when quarreled with, this is called 'associating with each other in mutual exchange.' This kind of association and exchange we do not engage in. Therefore, Brahmin, you keep it. It is yours."
 
"The king and his people believe that the ascetic Gotama is an arhat [a fully enlightened person], and yet the good Gotama can get angry!"
 
The Buddha replied in verse:

"Where is anger for one freed from anger,
Who is subdued and lives perfectly equanimous,
Who truly knowing is wholly freed,
Supremely tranquil and equipoised?
"One who repays an angry person in kind
Is worse than the angry person;
Who does not repay anger in kind, 
That person alone wins the battle hard to win:
"One promotes the welfare of both, 
One's own as well as that of the other. 
Knowing that the other person is angry, 
One mindfully maintains one's peace
 
"And endures the anger of both,
One's own as well as that of the other,
Even if the people ignorant of true wisdom
Consider one a fool thereby."
 
When the Blessed One proclaimed this, the Brahmin Akkosa Bharadvaja responded:

Going forth (Nyanamoli Bhikkhu/Google Plus)
"Wonderful, O venerable Gotama! Herewith I go to the venerable Gotama (Buddha) for guidance, to the Teaching (Dharma) for guidance, and to the Noble Order (Arya Sangha) for guidance!

"Most venerable sir, may I have the privilege of receiving from the revered Gotama the initial and higher monastic ordinations?"
 
The Brahmin Akkosa Bharadvaja received from the Blessed One the initial and higher monastic ordinations. Then in no long time, Venerable Akkosa Bharadvaja -- living apart, secluded, diligent, zealous, and unrelenting -- reached that incomparable consummation of enlightenment for which those of noble families, having abandoned the household life, take to the life of wandering (the left-home life).

With direct knowledge he realized the ultimate, here and now, and lived having access to it. He saw with supernormal knowledge-and-vision: "Ceased is rebirth, lived is the higher life, completed is the spiritual task, and henceforth there is nothing higher to be achieved." Venerable Akkosa Bharadvaja, indeed, became one of the noble ones.

HOW TO abandon anger
Acharya Buddharakkhita (translator) BPS/ACI
Positive Response (Wisdom Quarterly)
The booklet Positive Response: How to Meet Evil With Good contains a collection of short sutras by the Buddha and a passage from the ancient Path of Purification, each preceded by a brief introduction by the translator. The unifying theme is called a "positive response" for dealing with provocative people and situations. The ancient texts set forth practical techniques taught by the Buddha for anyone to overcome anger, resentment, hatred, and other such defilements. Moreover, it shows how it is possible to cultivate elevating mental qualities like forbearance, goodwill, amity, and compassion. Anyone intent on spiritual development will find these practical instructions a great help to cleansing the mind/heart thereby unfolding its great hidden potentials. More

*Why was Akkosa angry?
PaliKanon.com
Angry and abusive (techenclave.com)
Akkosaka-Bhāradvāja was a Brahmin from Rājagaha (Rajgir). He was incensed that his eldest brother -- a member of the Bhāradvāja Brahmin clan and probably its head (KS.i.201, n. 4, see also Dhānañjānī -- had become a Buddhist monk after visiting the Buddha. He paid the Buddha a visit to abuse and insult him. But like his brother, he asked for ordination and later became an arhat (S.i.161f.; MA.i.808). "Akkosaka" was a nickname given to him by the Sangītikārā to distinguish him as the author of a lampoon of a large number of verses against the Buddha (SA.i.177). Asurindaka-Bhāradvāja was his younger brother (SA.i.178); he had two others, Sundarī-Bhāradvāja and Bilangika-Bhāradvāja, who also became disciples (lit. "hearers") who later also became arhats (DhA.iv.163).

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Karma O Karma! (action)

Ashin Narada (Sitagu Int'l Buddhist Academy), Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Wisdom Quarterly
Karma Man to the rescue by cartoonist-comedian Dan Piraro (bizarro.com)
 
“All beings have karma as their own, as their companion, as their inheritance.”

Karma is the law of causation in a moral (sila, virtuous, ethical) sphere. Rebirth is its corollary.  
 
Karma and rebirth are fundamental and interrelated teachings in Buddhism.

These two doctrines existed, mostly kept from the public, in India prior to the Buddha. But it was the Buddha who formulated and explained them in the manner we have today. Seers (rishis) clearly knew of them from their own meditative attainments, but what they made of, what they deduced and concluded

What is the cause of the inequality that exists among people?  How do we account for the unevenness in this ill-balanced world?

"Karma Man" (i.imgur.com)
WHY, WHY, WHY ME? Why is one born into luxury, endowed with excellent mental, moral, and physical qualities, and another raised in poverty and abject misery? Why should one be born a millionaire, another a pauper? Why is one a prodigy, another an dimwit? Why is one born with virtuous characteristics and another with criminal tendencies? Why are some artists, mathematicians, linguists, and musicians from the cradle while others toil congenitally blind, deformed, or inept? Why are some blessed and others cursed from birth?
 
The ripening of karma is, of course, not the only reason why things happen. But it is constantly there sustaining and modifying conditions. We may be helped or harmed by others, pulled from misery or thrown into it unfairly. ("Fairness" plays in both directions, though we rarely complain aloud about our unearned gains and advantages, and we bask in the pity and sympathy others may bestow on us in our presumed helplessness and how "unfairly" we are being treated by the world as if everyone were born equal in merit and opportunity).

Either there is a definite cause for this inequality or there is not.  If there is not, the inequality is accidental.

Good sense precludes us from attributing this inequality to blind chance or chaotic accident.  Rather one senses that in this world nothing happens to anyone who does not for some unknown or unclear reason or other deserve it.
 
But "deserve" is a troublesome word, connoting that the universe or society or others are trying to "teach" us something, when it is simply the impersonal working out of actions attracting their consequences and/or us meeting ourselves again and again. We may be trying to teach ourselves something, but the impersonal world without is simply going along as it wishes. To impute a purpose or plan out there is dangerous and misleading. To see one in here may be helpful and may accord with pre-birth agreements or plans to undergo types of experience in one or more lives.

Our lives are shaped by our intentions/volitions rooted in benefit (nongreed, nonhatred, nondelusion) or harm (greed, hatred, delusion). When our hearts/minds are purified of these harmful elements, joy follows us like a dependable shadow.
 
Usually the actual reason or reasons why things happen cannot be comprehended by ordinary intellects. The definite invisible cause or causes-and-conditions of the visible effect may not be confined to the present life. What is happening to "us" is not happening because of who we are but rather who we have been, often very-very long ago. A cause may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth. With the aid of past life regression, hypnosis, telesthesia, and retro-cognitive knowledge, it may be possible for a highly developed seer to perceive events that are ordinarily imperceptible to the physical eye. Buddhists speak of such a possibility.

The majority of people ordinarily attribute inequality to a single cause such as the will of an all-powerful creator being, gods (devas) at play, or Fate. In place of the whim of an almighty being (an uncaused cause), or the caprice of the universe, the Buddha explained the impersonal law of karma as the cause of many significant events.

How do modern scientists account for the inequality among people? Confining themselves to sensory data, they attribute inequality to heredity (genetic dispositions) and environment (social and chemico-physical causes). In 1926 the distinguished biologist Julian Huxley wrote:

“Some genes control colour, others height or weight, others fertility or length of life, others vigour and the reverse, others shape or proportions. Possibly all, certainly the vast majority, of hereditary characteristics are gene-controlled[?]. For mental characters, especially the more complex and subtle ones, the proof is more difficult, but there is every evidence that they are inheritable, and no evidence that their inheritance is due to a different mechanism from that for bodily characters. That which is inherited in our personality and bodily peculiarities depends somehow upon the interaction of this assorted battery of genes with which we are equipped at fertilization” (The Stream of Life).

What questions can science even tackle?
How or why we are thus equipped is not discussed, as science has little to say beyond simple empiricism. To say that it is mere “chance” is the same as saying that there is no reason for it at all.

One may be read to admit that the phenomena revealed by science are partly instrumental as mechanisms more than actual "causes." Could mechanisms be solely responsible for the subtle distinctions that exist among individuals? Why should identical twins physically alike by virtue of inherited genes -- enjoying the same privileges and disadvantages of upbringing -- be temperamentally, morally, and intellectually different?

Heredity alone cannot account for the vast differences we observe. Strictly speaking, it would account more plausibly for a few of the similarities than for most of the differences.

The minute chemico-physical germ (fertilized ovum) inherited from parents, thought to be about 30 millionth of an inch across, explains only a portion of a person, that is, the physical foundation.  With regard to the more complex aspects, one can search and search the environment and still not find a satisfactory explanation. Karma -- when understood correctly rather than assumed to mean immediate mechanical cause-and-effect as postulated by Newtonian physicists -- provides just such a satisfactory, and at least personally verifiable, explanation.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

QUIZ: Brain Hemisphere Balance

Intelliscript.net via ,TheSmartShow.org; Wisdom Quarterly
Right Brain/ Left Brain Quiz
The higher the number below the more dominant the hemisphere.
Recognizing a right brain or left brain tendency helps one to cope.
Left Brain Dominance: 8(8)
Right Brain Dominance: 8(8)
Right Brain/ Left Brain
  
Which hemisphere is dominant? Take a look at the characteristics chart below to determine if the space separating the ears is left dominant, right dominant, or balanced. Then take the QUIZ to confirm. Dominance to one side seems to indicate an easier time "meditating" or allowing stillness and cultivating mindfulness and insight once seated. Dominance  to the other side suggests more sitting but less bliss, allowing, and realizing our innate potential to gain knowledge-and-vision of things as they really are without our biased interpretations.
  
Right and Left Brain Characteristics
Hemispheric Styles
Rational
  • Responds to verbal instructions
  • Problem solves by logically and sequentially looking at the parts of things
  • Looks at differences
  • Is planned and structured
  • Prefers established, certain information
  • Prefers talking and writing
  • Prefers multiple choice tests
  • Controls feelings
  • Prefers ranked authority structures
Intuitive
  • Responds to demonstrated instructions
  • Problem solves with hunches, looking for patterns and configurations
  • Looks at similarities
  • Is fluid and spontaneous
  • Prefers elusive, uncertain information
  • Prefers drawing and manipulating objects
  • Prefers open ended questions
  • Free with feelings
  • Prefers collegial authority structures... More
 

Monday, May 11, 2009

Bad Words: the Karma of Talking


WARNING: "Psychetruth" is a professional, ad-based production company masquer-ading as a do-it-yourself endeavor. It uses paid spokesmodels, acting and reading scripts. Enjoy without being pressured to subscribe or comment.

[On the subject of karma and talking, the Buddha said:] I declare that [physical, verbal, or mental] actions willed, per-formed, and accumulated will not become extinct as long as their results have not been experienced, be it in this life, in the next life, or in subsequent future lives. And as long as these results of actions willed, performed, and accumulated have not been experienced, there will be no making an end to suffering, I declare.

...And how is tainted failure in living fourfold in verbal acts?

There is one who is a "liar." When one is in the council in one's community or in another assembly, or among one's relatives, one's guild, in the royal court, or when one has been summoned as a witness and is asked to tell what one knows, then,

  • though one does not know, one will say, "I know";
  • though one does know, one will say, "I do not know";
  • though one has not seen, one will say, "I have seen"; and
  • though one has seen, one will say, "I have not seen."
1. One utters deliberate lies in that way, be it for one's own sake, for the sake of others, or for some material advantage.

2. One utters divisive speech: what one hears here one reports elsewhere to foment conflict there; and what one hears elsewhere one reports here to foment conflict here.

Thus one creates discord among those united, and one incites still more those who are in discord. One is fond of dissension, one delights and rejoices in it, and one utters words that cause dissension.

3. One speaks harshly, using speech that is coarse, rough, bitter, and abusive, that makes others angry and causes distraction of mind. It is such speech that one utters.

4. One indulges in frivolous chit chat: one speaks what is untimely, unreasonable, and unbeneficial, having no connection with the Doctrine or the Discipline [the Dharma or the Vinaya]. One's talk is not worth treasuring; it is inopportune, inadvisable, unrestrained, and harmful.

In this way, tainted failure in living is fourfold in verbal acts.*

*NOTE: On the threefold ripening of karma, see Text 24 and Chapter III, Note 13. The Buddha's statement -- that there is no making an end to suffering without experiencing the results of all actions performed -- must be understood with the reservation (which [the commentary] makes explicit in connection with "karma ripening in future lives") that reference is to "karma that is actually capable of yielding a karmic result" (vipakaraha-kamma).

But under certain circumstances karma can be annulled by a counteractive or destructive karma, and the arhat, by terminating the conditions for rebirth, extinguishes the potential for ripening of all one's past karma. The statement in the present text must also be understood in the light of the following sutra passage:

"If one says that in whatever way a person performs a karmic action, in that very same way one will experience the result -- in that case there will be no (possibility for) the holy life [brahmacarya or a life leading to enlightenment], and no opportunity would appear for making a complete end to suffering.

"But if one says that a person who performs a karmic action (with a result) that is variably experienceable, will reap its result accordingly -- in that case there will be (a possibility for) the holy life, and an opportunity would appear for making a complete end to suffering" (AN III, 110).

  • Excerpts from "The Extinction of Karma" discourse (AN X, 206) translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, from the book The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, Chapter of the Tens, Discourse 206.