In Buddhism, the fifth precept is to abstain from intoxicants like alcohol (beer and liquor), drugs, and other [12, 13] things that occasion heedlessness. Early Buddhist Texts nearly always condemn alcohol, and so do Chinese Buddhist post-canonical texts. Smoking that leads to craving is sometimes also included here.
Right action is an important start on the Path
In modern times, traditional Buddhist countries have seen revival movements to promote the basic Five Precepts the Buddha pointed out as longstanding sources of grievous suffering (karma or deeds producing unwelcome results). As for the West, these precepts play a major role in Buddhist organizations. They have also been integrated into mindfulness training programs, though many new mindfulness specialists do not support this because of the precepts' religious import. Lastly, many conflict prevention programs make use of the precepts. Five Precepts
LYRICS: There's a shadow just behind me/ Shrouding every step I take/ Making every promise empty/ Pointing every finger at me/ Waiting like a stalking butler/ Who upon the finger rests/ Murder now the pattern, must we/ Just because the son has come/ Jesus, won't you f*cking whistle/ Something but the past and done?/ Jesus, won't you f*cking whistle/ Something but the past and done?// [CHORUS] Why can't we not be sober?/ I just want to start this over/ Why can't we drink forever?/ I just want to start this over// I am just a worthless liar/ I am just an imbecile/ I will only complicate you/ Trust in me and fall as well/ I will find a center in you/ I will chew it up and leave/ I will work to elevate you/ Just enough to bring you down/ Mother Mary, won't you whisper/ Something but the past and done?/ Mother Mary, won't you whisper/ Something but the past and done?// [CHORUS]// Trust me, trust me, trust me, trust me, trust me// [CHORUS]// Why can't we not be sober?/ I just want to start things over/ Why can't we sleep forever?/ I just want to start this over/ I want what I want/ I want what I want/ I want what I want/ I want what I want
Understanding 'masculinism,' a movement to restore the primacy of men
(Fresh Air) June 24, 2026: Terry Gross interviews Helen Lewis. Masculinism is a belief that feminism emasculates men [making them less masculine], and men should be in control while women stay at home [barefoot and pregnant or] raising children. The Atlantic writer Helen Lewis says the movement is becoming mainstream. More
In his ideal system, “we would do it in our politics the same way we do it in our church structure,” he told me recently. “And that is, we vote by household.”
Wilson is a co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, based in Moscow, Idaho. Over the past five decades, he has built a small empire there, dedicated to disseminating his theocratic vision for the United States: a publishing house, a school, a liberal-arts college, and a video-streaming service.
His denomination, which has about 170 affiliated churches, counts [macho drunkard] Defense SecretaryPete Hegseth as a member, and Wilson was invited to lead a prayer service at the Pentagon in February. So when the pastor casually suggests disenfranchising half of America, people listen.
When I asked him about this position, Wilson said it wasn’t his top priority—“We have bigger fish to [kill and] fry”—but something he sees happening in perhaps 200 years’ time.
I found this intellectual footsie maddening. “If I said to you, ‘I think all white men should be put in cages—but not now; it’s not my aspiration for now,’” I suggested, “then you wouldn’t be interested in a single other thing that I had to say at that point.”
Wilson chuckled. “Oh, I know you’d probably have all my attention.”
Bibi meets Petey to talk about more genocide.
This is twinkly, avuncularDouglas Wilson, the guy who joined a hippie congregation fresh out of the U.S. Navy because he liked to play guitar and ended up leading church services once the regular pastor moved on. This is the same guy who once went on a multicity debating tour with the New AtheistChristopher Hitchens, and bonded with him over their shared love of... More
(Let's Be Clear with Ana Kasparian) Will Israel assassinate Pres. Trump or harm his family because he is not doing what they say in Iran? Make a deal with the devil, and what do you expect?
(Times Now World) [DISTURBING] "What kind of people are your
[Zionist IDF] soldiers?" U.N.'s explosive attack on Israel's military
(Frameline) SECOND NATURE: From homosexual penguins to sex-transitioning fish, contemporary scientists have been zealously studying animal behavior and anatomy and exposing the myth of the gender binary. Turns out the natural world is way more diverse and complex than Darwin led us to believe! Director Drew Denny takes the nature documentary to a whole new level in this eye-opening and entertaining expedition. Executive produced by Elliot Page. Special Sneak Preview Screening at Frameline: Frameline48 (frameline.org)
Second Nature: Elliot (formerly Ellen) Page on new film exploring animal world beyond the binary
Biology? I'm fully who I am. (Time)
(Democracy Now!)
June 24, 2026: A new documentary explores a growing body of scientific research documenting the wide range of gender and sexual diversity found in the animal kingdom, from pregnant male seahorses to matriarchal monkey troops.
Second Nature, directed by queer filmmaker Drew Denny, is narrated by Oscar-nominated actor Elliot Page, who says he joined the project because "I was so moved by it and found it so affirming as a trans and queer person."
Learning about animal life beyond binary concepts of sex and gender was life-changing, Denny shares about her inspiration for the film. "I finally felt in my body, for the first time, that I belong here on Earth, just like anybody else."
ABOUT: Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8:00-9:00 am ET.
The Heart Sutra is the world's most popular Buddhist sutra. Sadly, from a young age, even I recognized something in its magical wording (Edward Conze translation). It had a small tract of it in English and Chinese, and I would approach Chinese friends to translate some of the incomprehensible parts -- one line in particular: "until we come to."
What in the world? It turns out that was just Conze's way of saying "...". And other parts were explained to me as having been written in an archaic form of Old (liturgical) Chinese few people spoke, which they were very embarrassed to admit. The Berkeley Zen Center was even more forthcoming, suggesting it was just something to chant, not something one could hope to make sense of, like a Sanskrit seed-mantra. So they just chanted it, on the one hand, rote, mindlessly, thoughtlessly, with no investigation that it might actually mean something sensible. I, on the other hand, was tenacious, spending years making sense of it. And every year it made more and more sense.
The lost meaning has been recovered.
My Theravada study of it revealed exactly what it was all about after a few years due to some key phrases that do not make sense on their own but make perfect sense as references to ancient Buddhist texts, such as lists of the BASES (ayatanas). The final crowning explanation came from Alan Watts* making sense of the strange wording, which might trip one up for years. I attribute this to a flexible way of translating any Sanskrit or Pali word, all of which have much wider valence, admitting to a range of translations, not one fixed English word to serve all situations.
The key secret is to realize that Śūnyatā ("Emptiness," void) is synonymous with the Pali suññatā ("impersonal" = anatta). Then everything else falls into place.
This is because what the Heart Sutra (Prajñā-pāramitā-hṛdayaDiscourse) is talking about are the Five Aggregates clung to as self, pointing out that every "heap" -- each one of the Five Aggregates -- is actually devoid of self. It is impersonal and is in that sense "empty." It has no "independent existence." What kind of existence does it have? It has a dependently-originated one. It is foolish to think there is nothing there at all as if all things were the void: There is no thing there, but there is something, some stuff, something is appearing. In the ultimate sense, "things" (dhammas, dharmas, phenomena) have an existence and so are called "things." The one thing that is not a thing is nirvana (the deathless, amata/amrita, the unconditioned element). Nirvana, being free of conditions, does not bear the (three universal) marks of "things." This "self" we cling to is just such a "thing," a conglomeration of other "things" (aggregates, groups, heaps), bearing the universal marks of being impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal.
"Self" arises in this way, not as a real entity but an illusion brought about by the presence of the aggregates. When one grasps that all there has ever been are phenomenal aggregates -- impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal -- then the heart naturally lets go with no prompting and becomes free of all clinging and all further suffering.
It is called the "Heart" (hṛdaya) Sutra not because of emotions or sweetness but because it comes as the culmination, the brief summary, the pith, the essence of 100,000 lines or verses of detailed explanation. It is the essence of perfected wisdom. It is the key to stream entry, that which when not grasped keeps us as ordinary worldling but when grasped causes a "change of lineage" (gotrabhu) to the noble ones. The Buddha himself said it. There are not enlightened disciples to be found in other traditions, at least not in the Buddhist sense of the term bodhi ("awakened," "enlightened," "liberated") because nowhere else is this Doctrine of No-Self ever taught, ever revealed, ever explained, although all popular religions seem to have an innate understanding that being egoless is far wiser than being full of ego. For example, in popular Christianity, in the eyes of God, what is the worst sin? Pride.
Beloved Kwan Yin (Guanyin)
Better than [the Goddess of Compassion] Kwan Yin (the feminine form of Avalokiteshvara)? More beloved than [the Cosmic Buddha of Light] Amitabha? No, probably not, but what is higher and more exalted than wisdom?
The Buddha himself noted how popular and beloved Ananda was, whereas the monastics did not seem to realize the kalyana-mitta (noble/enlightening friendship) potential of Ven. Sariputta, the male monastic he declared foremost in wisdom. One can easily imagine the same thing must have happened among the females with the Buddha highlighting the value of the great bhikkhuni Ven. Khema, the nun he declared foremost in wisdom.
Now, one may ask, Why is Avalokiteśvara -- who is later transformed into the Goddess or Personification of Compassion (Kwan Yin/Guanyin) -- addressing Ven. Sariputra of all people in this most famous of all apocryphal "discourses"?
UCLA Prof. Robert E. Buswell Jr. (who ordained as a monk in Korean Zen then Sri Lankan Theravada before becoming a Western academic) explained the reason to us in class. Brahminical/Chinese Mahayana is holding up the monk disciple (shravaka) the Buddha declared "foremost in wisdom" as a scarecrow, stick figure, or punching bag to mock his supposed "wisdom," as if he were a mere intellect, a clueless egghead, a Brahmin nerd, a clueless dork compared to their god (deva, deity) Avalokita, whom they declare an "enlightenment being" (bodhi-sattva) and "great being" (maha-sattva, a Mahayana maha-sthamaprapta).
Wow, this perfection of wisdom is cool! It's eye-opening!
Avi, awake and wanting to awaken others, was reviewing the wisdom that has gone beyond. He looked down from on high and saw just five heaps, saw that in and of themselves they are impersonal, NOT A SELF, empty.
Herein, Sali, form implies emptiness, and emptiness implies form. Emptiness is not different than form, and form is not different than emptiness. They are mutually dependent. Anything that is empty, impersonal, and not-self is form.
[Conze translates these famous line as: "Form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form; form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is emptiness, that is form; [whatever is form, that is emptiness;] the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses (cetana, volitions), and consciousness."
What in the world does it mean? "Form" (Rūpa) and "Emptiness" (Pali Suññatā, Sanskrit Śūnyatā), Alan Watts explains in the video below, go together, are inseparable, are relational, one revealing the other, making no sense without the other. The instant one comes into being (arises), the other necessarily comes into being at the same time, for one cannot be without the other, just as opposite pairs depend on one another: being/nonbeing, birth/death, origin/cessation, yin/yang, figure/background. One would be meaningless without the other, for the other provides contrast and give it its definition.
So it would, in fact, be more sensible (better for meaning) to translate this line as, "Form (shape, color) reveals (exactly is, is inseparable from, always goes with, is inseparably related to) emptiness..." or "Form (solidity, density, tangibility) is not (designated, defined, found) without emptiness (a hollow or void) because they co-arise mutually. "One (exhibits) brings out the fact of the other.]
Herein [here within this Doctrine], Sali, all phenomena are impersonal. They bear the mark of being impersonal, empty: They are not produced and not stopped, not dirty and not clean, not missing something and not full.
There are no bases for these things [that are all dependently originated]: no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, nor the things that impinge on them: forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or objects of mind, nor the things these sense depend on for their sensitivity: no element (sensitive tissue) of sight, and so forth, until we come to: no element (sensitive tissue) at the heart of consciousness.
[Why? It is because, after all, all things are impersonal, empty, not a self, so a bunch of them together don't make a self either).]
Likewise, really, there is no ignorance, so there is no end of ignorance [since it doesn't really exist except as an illusion), and so forth, until we come to: There is no aging and death, no end of aging and death. There is no disappointment, no coming into being, no extinction, and no path to the extinction of disappointment. There is no knowing, no attainment, and there is no non-attainment of this realization.
And so, Sali, because of one's not-attaining anything that a being-bent-on-enlightenment, perfecting this wisdom that has gone beyond, dwells free of discursive thoughts. In their absence, one is free of trembling. One has overcome all that can upset and so realized nirvana.
All those who appear as supremely awakened teachers the three periods of time -- past, present, and future -- fully awake to this utmost realization, right and perfect awakening because they have perfected the wisdom that has gone beyond.
So, Sali, everyone should know this perfection of wisdom as a kind of mantra, the mantra of great knowing, the utmost mantra, the unequalled mantra, the allayer of all disappointment and ill. It's true; I mean, what could really go wrong except that it be an illusion?
By perfecting the wisdom that has gone beyond, this mantra becomes clear, and it runs like this:
Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!
("Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, oh what an awakening, it's true!")
(Dalai Lama) Can everyone be enlightened?Moksha("liberation," vimutti, "freedom" from samsara and suffering, "deliverance," salvation) is of two kinds, two levels, a happy life here and now [with possibly a heavenly rebirth for moral behavior hereafter] or attaining liberating-insight and final emancipation here and now in this very life through moral behavior, stillness (samadhi, settled calm, concentration), and vipassana (comprehending and cultivating Dependent Origination sufficient in theory and complete in practice).
Buddha's Wisdom (video); Dalai Lama (Q&A); Khenpo Sodargye (Q&A); Alan Watts (Zen Reconsidered, Pt. 2); Dhr. Seven (text), CC Liu (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly
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.
.png)
%20wiki.jpg)
_LACMA_M.81.90.8_(2_of_2).jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Statue_of_Sveta_Sofia.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Ephesus37.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Holy_Wisdom_(16th_c.,_Vologda_museum).jpg){kind=link}