Atheism makes many good points

New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign | Facebook

(Cynic Machine) The most simple atheist speeches in 17 minutes

• Atheist Bus Campaign (Atheism)

What was real cause of Nazis, WW II?

(Uncover Dossier) The true origin of World War II: What our history books get wrong

Why is Europe so ANTI-Christian?

Why Europe is insanely anti-religious: (Versed) May 25, 2025: The End of Christianity in Europe. There are many reasons, like rampant child molestation by the Christian Church in all its forms.

Man shall not live by bread (gluten) alone, but many ultra-processed chemicals, too. Amen.

Chinese, Korean, Japanese differences

Happiness Secrets of Scandinavians (video)

Here are 19 weird things Swedish people do (that others should do, too) (Saga Johanna 🇸🇪)

Meik Wiking (artist's rendering) receives the apple of his eye from lady Viking (WQ).

• Facts about Denmark: Exploring the Land of the Vikings (denmarkexpat.com)
• Denmark: Happiest people in the world (CorD Magazine)

HAPPINESS: The Secret of Scandinavian Happiness

Guru Viking, how can Vikings be happy?

(Max Joseph) May 22, 2024: For more information on Meik Wiking ("Mike Viking"), possibly "the happiest man on earth" [if that title were not already taken by French scientist and Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist monk in Nepal Ven. Matthieu Ricard], and The Happiness Research Institute: happinessresearchinstitute.com.

CONTENTS

• 0:00 - Journey to Denmark
• 2:30 - The World’s Happiest Man - Meik Wiking
• 3:55 - Happiest Country Rankings
• 4:59 - Hygge and other secrets of Danish happiness
• 7:54 - A second opinion - Helen Russell
• 9:51 - High taxes and trust
• 12:19 - Downsides and upsides
• 13:31 - A different kind of happiness
• 15:10 - Legoland reflections
• 18:23 - Credits

Woo-hoo! Is everyone having a great time, or what? Let's rampage over there to have fun!

.

We weren't always as happy as today.

For more information on The World Happiness Report, see: worldhappiness.report. For more information on Helen Russell, see: helenrussell.co.uk.

• The Power of Awe in Boosting Happiness: How Awe Can Boost Your Happiness
• The Science of Happiness: The Science of How to Be Happy
• The Philosophy of Being Happy: The Philosophical Secret to Happiness

For more music from Actual Magic, click:  actualmagic.co. For more NewsDaddy: tiktok.com/@dylan.page... For more awesome animation from Nänni-Pää, go to: @nanni-paa on Instagram

"Greed is good"? Yes

Wall Street, Gordon Gekko, 12/9/11; Pink Floyd; Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly

Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" full speech

(Ken Pruitt) Gordon Gekko (Oliver Stone's Wall Street) unknowingly describes the problems facing today's private sector (industry), while blasting the bureaucracy (governance) responsible for said problems in the first place. This is classic speech, both the in film and in economic thought. This is for people who think Saipan is a free market.

This is a famous pro-capitalist speech. Buddhism says the root of all unskillful action (unwholesome karma) and misery is due to three things: greed, hatred (and fear), and delusion.

This, of course, is a rough translation of what the Buddha taught since he used the terms lobha, dosa (bhava), and moha. These technical terms in Pali and Sanskrit have much broader definitions than our translated English words. Better words might have been avarice, aversion (cowardice), and nescience. But who knows what those mean? All the attraction and liking are subsumed in lobha. Dosa refers to all forms of aversion and disliking, which includes fear. And moha is ignorance of all kinds.

We say greed, hatred (fear), and delusion because it makes it more obvious in English that these things are bad. Then Gordon comes around and glorifies "greed." Greed is somewhat good, in a way, at least in the way Gordon is using it. How? Well, consider what we in English mean by "good." It's not always a moral judgment.

But, Buddha, c'mon, it's so much cash money!

Sometimes it's a functional assessment with one test -- getting what we want. If something gets us what we want, we accurately call that "good." I want to kill myself, I say. I tell Dr. Kevorkian that I'm thinking of using a 45. And he says, "That's good," meaning "that will work." He might add, "That's overkill. Why not just use my poison contraption?" Why, I ask him. "Because that's better," he answers. How so, I say. And the Doctor of Death explains that not everyone dies from a shot to the head, which is news to me. Some blow off their jaw, others get brain damage and deafness on one side. Others get a facelift and become paraplegics. He starts making a lot of sense, and his death device IS "good" in that it always works and never fails, and if I really want to kill myself (which is bad and a mistake) his way is "good." That's normal English.

Think about it. You say, "I want to get rich. I'm thinking of going to an Ivy League school, majoring in business, and stealing it from a company I raid by pumping and dumping its stock, screwing over all the other workers and investors there." And I say, That's good. I'm not making a moral judgment, and you know that. All I'm doing is saying, That'll work. Right? There's a better way, but your parents have their heart set on you going to an Ivy, so you and Gordon and Wall Street bankers can all have a great time with other lowlifes in New York. And you say, "What, you have a better idea?"

And I say, Yes. Try Buddhist business. "What in the world is that," and I talk about the Sigala Sutta (DN 31) and the Buddha's business advice to young householder Sigala. I mean, imagine it. What if there were a way to grow rich, enjoy it, experience all the sensuality and worldliness you want, and it wouldn't lead to regret hereafter. And there will be a hereafter, no matter how much you drink and blot out that possibility, sinking yourself in science books and ignoring all the evidence that there's more, much more, to this life than what we see and touch and can remember.

• But then in what sense is "greed" good? There is the possibility of translating other Buddhist terms as "greed." It's a stretch, but it is possible in the larger sense. All desire is disappointing, unsatisfactory, suffering. Why, how? When a craving, yearning, pining, desire, inclination, lust arises, immediately with the arising of it, we suffer (are discomfited, are pained, thirst, hunger, pine, long, yearn, agonize) in the absence of it. One way to get rid of this pain is to get the thing we want; another way is to stop wanting it, but that is not nearly as easy to do. Any desire results in this kind of "suffering" (dukkha, which is a very broad term encompassing everything from agitation to agony). But, of course, we desire enlightenment/awakening (bodhi), reality/an end to suffering (nirvana), liberation (moksha), and so on. We want the bliss of the meditative absorptions. We want magical powers (iddhi, abhinna). We want wisdom (prajna, panna), happiness (sukha). We want to meditate and so on. We desire purification (visuddhi). We want deliverance (vimokkha). These kinds of desires are desires -- and they will result in distress as soon as they arise -- but they are not called craving (tanha) to distinguish them from commonplace sensual desires. These are called by other terms -- resolve, determination, zeal, intention, or will. The term used is chanda.
• Chanda: intention, desire, will. 1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of "intention," it is a general mental factor (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the Dharma in Ultimate Terms, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā) associated with it. The Commentary explains chanda as "a wish to do" (kattu-kamyatā-chanda). If intensified, it acts also as a "predominance condition" (see paccaya 3). 2. As an unwholesome quality, it has the meaning of "desire" and is frequently coupled with terms for "sensuality," "greed," etc., for instance: kāma-cchanda, "sensual desire," one of the Five Hindrances (see nīvarana); chanda-rāga, "lustful desire" (see kāma). Chanda is one of the four wrong paths (see agati). 3. As a wholesome quality, it is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the Four Right Efforts (see padhāna): "The meditator rouses will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the Four Roads to Power (see iddhippada). (Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines).
• So in that sense "greed" (chanda) is good, but it's terrible and misleading to say so because it is a matter of semantics. "Greed" is always bad as we understand the word in English, but "will" is not necessarily bad in the larger sense while still being bad (if we define "bad" as "whatever leads to suffering"). An apparent paradox arises that good things can lead to suffering, and the resolution is this: Some things lead to suffering now and much happiness later, so they are "good." Some things lead to a little respite from suffering now and much suffering later, so they are bad. For example, striving in meditation can hurt, be boring, be frustrating, be painful, can seem fruitless, and so on, but when successful we will be glad we went through all that for what it yielded. Taking a break and enjoying sensual pleasures can seem a harmless pastime, something we deserve for working so hard, but our never ending addiction to them, the danger inherent in them, the fact that they can never by their nature bring us to satisfaction, fulfillment, satiation but always instead demand more and more, greater and greater diversity (papanca, proliferation), urge us on in samsara, the endless wandering in search of satisfaction, and this is the antithesis of nirvana (release, the highest happiness, the end of all suffering, ultimate reality.

Buddhism, the God-Idea, human origins

Ven. Nyanaponika Thera, Buddhism and the God-Idea, Wheel 47, Buddhist Publication Society (BPS.lk) edited by Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of Gods (brahmas) and gods (gods) and even Brahman (GOD).

From a study of the Buddha's sutras preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, an ultimate "creator god" conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is not compatible with the Buddha’s Teachings, the Dhamma.

On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead (Brahman) of any description, such as a world-soul and so on, are excluded by the Buddha’s Teaching on the basis of the ultimate teaching of anattā, non-self or insubstantiality. [This statement does not make sense because anatta is the teaching that all things, including a God of any description, are impersonal.]

In sacred Buddhist literature, the belief in or teaching of a creator god (issara-nimmāna-vāda) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the universe, as, for instance, a world-soul, time, nature, and so on.

God-belief, however, is not placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views that deny the karmic results of action (deeds), assume a fortuitous origin of humans and nature, or teach absolute determinism.

These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on personal ethical/moral conduct.

Theism, however, is regarded as a kind of karma-teaching in that it upholds the moral efficacy of deeds. Hence, a theist who leads a moral life may, like anyone else who does so, expect a favorable and fortunate rebirth. One may possibly even be reborn in one of the many heavenly worlds that resemble one's own conception of "heaven," though it will not be eternal as one might wish or expect.

If, however, fanaticism induces a person to persecute others who do not share the same beliefs, this will have grave consequences for one's future destiny. Fanatical attitudes, intolerance, and violence against others are unwholesome karma (deeds) that result in unwished for results (vipaka and phala), leading to moral degeneration and unhappy rebirths.

Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of Eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for eternal existence and, as such, is an obstacle to final liberation from rebirth and suffering.

Among the fetters (saṃyojana) that bind us to repeated rearising, theism is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, clinging to rites and rituals, and craving for fine-material existence (as opposed to the sensual existence we currently enjoy), or for a “heaven of the Sensual Sphere” [rebirth in this same sphere but in a higher plane of existence, which is heavenly compared to our current terrestrial abode] as the case may be.

As an attempt at explaining the universe, its origin, and the human situation in his world, the God-idea was found entirely unconvincing by Buddhist thinkers of old.

Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a "creator god."

It may be of interest to compare these with the ways in which Western philosophers have refuted the theological proofs of the existence of God. But for an earnest believer, the God-idea is more than a mere device for explaining external facts like the origin of the world.

For such a person it is an article of faith that can bestow a strong feeling of certainty, not only as to God’s existence “somewhere out there,” but as to God’s consoling presence and closeness. This feeling of certainty requires close scrutiny. Such scrutiny will reveal that in most cases the God-idea is only the devotee’s projection of the ideal — generally a noble one — and of one's fervent wish and deeply felt need to believe.

These projections are largely conditioned by external influences, such as childhood education, impressions, cultural traditions, and the social environment one is raised in.

Charged with a strong emotional emphasis, brought to life by the powerful human capacity for imagining, visualization, and the creation of myth, they then come to be identified with the impressions and conceptions of whatever religion a devotee follows.

In the case of many of the sincerest believers, a searching analysis would show that this “God-experience” has no more specific content than this. Yet the range and significance of God-belief and God-experience are not fully exhausted by the preceding remarks.

The lives and writings of the mystics of all the great religions bear witness to religious experiences of great intensity, in which considerable changes take place in the quality of consciousness.

Profound absorption in meditation (jhana) or prayer can bring about a deepening and widening, a brightening and intensifying, of consciousness. This may be accompanied by a feeling of being transported, a sense of elevation or rapture, and bliss.

The contrast between these states and our normal conscious awareness is so great that the mystic believes these experiences to be manifestations of the divine. And given the contrast, this assumption is quite understandable.

Mystical experiences are also characterized by a marked reduction or temporary exclusion of the multiplicity of sense-perceptions and restless thoughts.

This relative unification of mind is then misinterpreted as union or communion with the One God (of monotheism). All of these deeply moving impressions, and the first spontaneous interpretations of them, the mystic subsequently identifies with a particular theology.

It is interesting to note, however, that the attempts of most great Western mystics to relate their mystical experiences to the official dogmas of their respective churches often resulted in teachings that were looked upon askance by the orthodox, if not considered downright heretical.

The psychological facts underlying those religious experiences are accepted by the Buddhist and are well known. But one carefully distinguishes the experiences themselves from the theological interpretations imposed on them.

After rising from deep meditative absorption (jhāna), a Buddhist meditator is advised to view the physical and mental factors constituting this experience in the light of the Three Characteristics of All Conditioned Existence:

1. impermanence,
2. disappointment, and
3. its impersonal nature (the absence of any abiding ego or eternal substance).

This is done primarily to utilize the meditative purity and strength of consciousness for the highest purpose: liberating insight (vipassana).

But this procedure also has a very important side effect that concerns us here: A meditator will not be overwhelmed by any uncontrolled emotions and thoughts evoked by this singular experience and will thus be able to avoid misinterpretations of that experience not warranted by the facts.

So a Buddhist meditator, while benefiting from the refinement of consciousness one has achieved, will be able to see these meditative experiences for what they are and will further know that they are impersonal that could be attributed to a deity manifesting itself in the mind.

Therefore, the Buddhist’s conclusion must be that the highest mystical states do not provide convincing "evidence" for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal godhead [though the latter might be more understandable if less common. Both interpretations of such experiences are very common].

Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by rationalists and freethinkers, or in a derogatory sense by theists.

Only in one way can Buddhism be described as "atheistic," namely, insofar as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent God or godhead that is the creator and ordainer of the universe.

• [It is fun to think what this word "G.O.D." could mean, with one excellent proposed definition being "Generator, Operator, Destroyer," as religions like Christianity and Hinduism teach of their top deity or deities.]

The word “atheism,” however, like the word “godless,” frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones and implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha’s Teaching.

Those who use the word “atheism” often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it bestows.

Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect, it agrees with the teachings of other religions: true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived of as heavenly or divine worlds; this is because ALL planes of existence are impermanent and therefore incapable of providing everlasting bliss.

The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed not towards a new life in a higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the universe, namely, nirvana.

In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here-and-now. They have firm roots in the world itself, for they aim at the highest realization of Truth in this very existence.

Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in.

The opposite materialistic philosophy of Annihilationism (ucchedavāda), like Eternalism, is emphatically rejected by the Buddha as another false doctrine.

The doctrine of karma (the efficacy of actions to produce results in the future) is sufficient to prove that Buddhism does not teach annihilation after death. Everything does not end for us, as scientists might have us believe; things continue after death, after passing away from here. Where will life continue? That is determined by our own karma (deeds) now.

Buddhism accepts survival after death, but it is not the survival of an eternal soul. Rather, what continues is an everchanging impersonal mental process subject to renewed becoming (rebirth). Therefore, Buddhism teaches rebirth without transmigration [rearising without the assumption that an eternal, unchaning, undying thing went from here to there].

The Buddha’s Teaching is not nihilism, which would offer suffering humanity no better hope than a final cold nothingness, like many scientists completely believe.

On the contrary, Buddhism is a teaching of salvation (niyyānika-dhamma) or freedom (vimutti) that attributes to humans the faculty to realize by their own efforts the highest goal, nirvana: the ultimate cessation of all suffering and the final eradication of greed, hate, and delusion.

Nirvana is not the blank zero of annihilation; yet, it cannot be identified with any form of the God-idea, as it is neither the origin nor the immanent ground or essence of the world. [It is the "unconditioned element" utterly different from anything we know in this conditioned world of form in the Sensual Sphere, in the worlds of the Fine-Material Sphere, or in the formless worlds of the Immaterial Sphere.]

Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed to be.

Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist recognizes and appreciates whatever ethical, spiritual, and cultural values have been created by the God-belief in its long and checkered history.

We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for the human desire for power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be the creation of an all-loving God.

For centuries, free thought, free research, and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. Alas, these and other negative consequences are not things of the past.

The word “atheism” also carries the innuendo of an attitude countenancing moral laxity, or a belief that man-made ethics, having no divine sanction, rest on shaky foundations.

In Buddhism, however, the basic moral law is inherent in life itself. It is a special case of the law of deed and results, action and reactions, cause and effect, needing neither a divine lawgiver nor depending on fluctuating human conceptions of socially conditioned minor moralities and conventions.

For an increasing portion of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct.

This shows the risk of basing morality on divine commandments when their alleged source rapidly loses credence and authority.

There is a need for an autonomous foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social contract and is capable of protecting the security of the individual and of human institutions.

Buddhism offers such a foundation for ethics. Buddhism does not deny that there are in the universe planes of existence and levels of consciousness superior to our terrestrial world and to average human consciousness.

To deny this would indeed be provincial in an age of space travel. Bertrand Russell rightly says: “It is improbable that the universe contains nothing better than ourselves.”

Yet, according to Buddhist teachings, such higher planes of existence, like our familiar world, are also impermanent, constantly changing, and unreliable. They, like this world, are hurtling toward destruction.

The inhabitants of such worlds are, in different degrees, more powerful than human beings, happier, brighter, and longer-lived. Whether we call those superior beings devas, gods, godlings, deities, or angels is of little importance; it is improbable that they call themselves by any of those names.

They are inhabitants of this universe, fellow wanderers in this round of existence. And though more powerful, they need not be wiser than humans.

Further, it need not be denied that such worlds and such beings may have their lord and ruler. In all probability they do. But like any human ruler, a divine ruler might also be inclined to misjudge its own status and power, until a greater one comes along and points out the error, as Buddhist texts report of the Buddha who confronted various Gods with the idea that they were not eternal, not all-powerful, not superior to all beings. See, for example, the Buddha's interaction with Baka Btahma.

These, however, are largely matters beyond the range and concern of average human experience. They are mentioned here chiefly for the purpose of defining the Buddhist position, not to serve as a topic of speculation and argument. Such involvements can only divert attention and effort from what ought to be our principal object: the overcoming of greed, hatred, and delusion found in the here and now.

An ancient verse ascribed to the Buddha in "The Questions of King Milinda" (the Milindapanha) says:

Not far from here do you need to look!

Highest existence — what can it avail?

Here in this present aggregate,

In your own body overcome the world!

More: Buddhism and the God-Idea: Selected Texts (Wheel 47, bps.lk)

Reason for the Season: Xmas before Christ

These customs are mirrored in Asia with Budai Bodhisattva (a rotund Buddhist monk) the "fat happy Buddha" giving small gifts or candy from a sack he carries around in his jolliness.

Christmas before Christ: Yule and other Northern European traditions

(Fortress of Lugh) Let's take a look at Slavic, Baltic, Celtic, and Germanic Yuletide (Christmastime) traditions and their similarities and origins, with a special focus on Yule, as well as the nature of Santa Claus [the magic mushroom shaman of the Sami, the Native Swedes, distributing the Amanita muscaria harvest distributed among villagers living in yurts and with chimneys being the door/entrance where the shaman would come in, give out the mushrooms which needed to be dried and so were put in stocking and hung over the fire to dehydrate].

To support the channel and get extra content, discussion, requests, and so on: fortressoflugh PayPal donations (greatly appreciated): paypal.com/donate...

• Fortress of Lugh, 12/15/21: Pat Macpherson, Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

On "The Four Noble Truths"

Francis Story, The Four Noble Truths; Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Absorption then insight

Humankind, pondering and disputing, has been engaged for so long in trying to find an answer to the enigma of existence -- and so many first-class minds have been devoted to the task -- that had the problem been open to solution by the intellect alone, we should certainly have been furnished with the definitive blueprint of our being, beyond all doubt or conjecture, many centuries ago.

From the time when prehistoric myth became merged into an attempt to give a rational account of the universe the questions, "What is life? How did it originate? What is its purpose? Does it even have a purpose?" have haunted the imagination.

Yet, for most people such questions remain unanswered. Reason has offered a wide range of ingenious possibilities derived from unreliable speculation. But so far reason has failed to provide any reasonable explanation that is not open to equally reasonable objections. And while reason has failed, its alternative -- supernatural revelation -- has shown itself equally contradictory and inconclusive.

It has suffered an even worse defeat. Its historical record has weighed heavily against it because of the disastrous influence it has often exerted in human affairs. The private revelations of mystics, by their exclusively subjective nature, can never offer more than an insecure foothold for faith in those who have not directly shared them. A doubtful faith is the father of fanaticism.

The record of humankind’s speculative thought down the centuries has come to resemble a maze of tracks in a boundless desert. The tracks can be identified by their characteristics; they are the tracks of religion, of philosophy, and obliterating many of these, the more recent tracks of science. For the most part the tracks of religion go round in circles. Beginning as myth they continue as myth hardened into dogma, and so go over the same ground in endless repetition.

The Net of All-Embracing Views

When we examine the sixty-two views or theories (diṭṭhis) on the nature of life and the universe, which were current in the time of the historical Buddha and described by him in the "Net of All-Embracing Views" (Brahmajāla Sutra of the Collection of Long Discourses or Dīgha Nikaya), we find there the seeds of all later thought, the archetype of every idea that has appeared in philosophy between Plotinus and Kierkegaard.

That some of them were the doctrines of established schools that had been in existence long before the birth of the Buddha is evident from the accounts of the Buddha’s own search for enlightenment. For on renouncing the world, the prince who became an ascetic, Siddhartha, first placed himself under two teachers from among the many sects that were already laying claim to ultimate knowledge.

Those teachers, Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta, were not logicians but exponents of the meditative absorptions (jhanas, dhyanas) and yoga. As such they had their philosophy, but its final vindication was to be sought in the subjective realm, in an intensified perception outside the scope of formal reasoning.

By the practice of jhāna, or meditative absorption, they had in fact succeeded in raising consciousness to a higher power.

But great as were the achievements of these two eminent yogis, the ascetic Siddhartha did not find the full enlightenment he sought through their spiritual systems. Neither did he reach it by way of the extreme asceticism to which he later turnedr. He found, on the contrary, that an entirely new mode of approach was needed if he were to break through the thicket, the tangle of conceptual thinking on the one hand, and sublimated consciousness on the other.

By the traditional yogic methods, he had gone beyond the world of forms, but not beyond that of ideas or the mere suspension of ideas. He found that the degree of illumination these methods gave was far from that of absolute knowledge and liberation. Thrown back on his own resources, with no longer any guiding principle except what he might find within himself, he returned in thought to the original impulse of his quest.

Its beginning, significantly enough, lay in a very early experience he had known, of an intuitive kind. He had been sitting watching his father, the king, carrying out the ritual of the spring ploughing. His attention had been caught and held by the flocks of birds that followed in the wake of the plough. They were eagerly scratching in the newly-turned furrows for worms and insects. Driven by hunger, the all-demanding hankering that is ever present in nature, and excited by the sight of their living prey, birds of all kinds were quarrelling and fighting one another, a noisy, turbulent mass of feathered bodies, striking and tearing at one another with beak and claw.

It was a common enough sight, and one that carries no special meaning for most. But to the young Siddhattha, it had been a troubling experience. It would be to anyone who believes in an overruling power, a creator god, whose chief attribute is love.

Birds—among the most delicate and beautiful of nature’s offspring, creatures so light and ethereal that when man thinks of spiritual beings it is with the wings of birds and something of their morning ecstasy that he pictures them—those same birds that have been the poet’s inspiration and the nature lover’s joy, at close quarters are seen to be fully as rapacious and as cruel towards smaller creatures and to their owns species as the most ferocious of the larger animals. By such a slight transformation the winged angel becomes the winged tiger.

Yet, as the young Siddhattha saw even then, it could not be otherwise. Birds had to satisfy the urge to live, and for their food they had to prey on others and compete with others. So it was throughout nature, and from whatever particular the generalization was drawn it expanded into the same universal truth. Not only is nature indifferent to cruelty and pain, but it actually imposes them upon all living creatures as the condition and price of their existence. To inflict or to suffer; or both to inflict and to suffer—that is the law of life....

So he turned his mind back to that incident in early life, which had shown him his true path, to the glimpse he had had of a knowledge he possessed before any tradition claimed him. After his enlightenment, the Buddha described it in these words:

“I recalled how once I was seated under the shade of a jambu tree while my father, [King] Suddhodana, was ploughing the royal furrow, and having put aside desires and impure states of mind, yet cognizing and reflecting in the bliss born of detachment, I attained the first meditative absorption. Could it be that this was the way to realization? With that thought the clear consciousness came to me: ’Yes, indeed, this is the way to realization.’”

The path of absorption

The first meditative absorption (jhāna) is reached by purifying and tranquilizing the mind/heart, which can be done by the practice of ānāpāna-sati, mindfulness of in-and-out breathing. This state of tranquility is accompanied by joy and rapture. In this absorption, refined and calmed initial application of mind and sustained attention are still present though no longer engaged with a multitude of objects. They exclusively attend to the object of meditation.

Having risen from that absorption, the mind will be calm and concentrated. And because it is no longer disturbed by desires of the more active kind, it becomes able to examine the factors of experience with detachment. One enjoys a new clarity of perception. It is as if the rippled surface of a pool became smooth and still. When this happens two things follow, the surface reflects external things accurately, and at the same time it becomes possible to see through the surface to the depths below. More

Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, Gap (forum)

CC Liu, Seth Auberon, Wisdom Quarterly; KPCC FM (scpr.org)

Dr. Joshua Greene, Harvard Moral Cognition Lab, talks about morally-based decision-making and the brain. Although matters of morality are abstract, there are ways of examining brains while we decide, allowing for the collection of data about brain activity in parallel with our decisions. In this way, we can better understand which brain circuits drive different types of decisions, particularly those involving moral judgment.

Why can't we come together on climate change? Should the rich pay higher taxes? Should they use their profits to help desperate strangers on the other side of the world? Do gays have a right to marry? Does a woman with an unwanted pregnancy have a right to choose? Is it wrong to eat animals because we care more about their taste than their pain?

On Thursday, Nov. 14th, explore how we make decisions about such questions as KPCC's science reporter Sanden Totten speaks with guest Dr. Joshua Greene, director of Harvard University's Moral Cognition Lab and author of Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. 

 

Through a "Me vs. Us" and "Us vs. Them" lens, Dr. Greene takes a penetrating and entirely original look at the ways in which neuroscience and evolution guide our moral decision-making process.

(TED Talks) "Experience vs. Memory," Nobel laureate and founder of "behavioral economics" Prof. Kahneman reveals how our "experiencing selves" and our "remembering selves" perceive happiness differently. This new insight has profound implications for economics, public policy, and our own self-awareness. He is regarded as the world's most influential living psychologist.

In the tradition of Prof. Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, Moral Tribes deftly reveals the science behind our modern thinking and moral dilemmas and offers a new way of looking at and resolving seemingly irresolvable moral issues.

• Crawford Family Forum, Pasadena
• 7:00 pm - Program
• Admission is FREE with RSVPs

• AUDIO: Comedy "Adam West on Kanye West"
• Marianne Williamson announces run for Congress 
• Natural alternative for healthy women's SEX drive
• Fighting tickets remains a right in police state

Very activist Atheist movement?

Matt Hadro, NewsBusters.org (rightwing media); Wisdom Quarterly

2012 "Reason Rally" (SCPR.org)

Only about five percent of Americans identify as atheists [although many more have no religious affiliation, being spiritual without labeling themselves], but CNN played up the "very activist atheist movement" and touted celebrity atheists like Julianne Moore and[Facebook's] Mark Zuckerberg, on Thursday.

"Various surveys put the number of atheists in America around five percent. And according to the Pew study in 2012, one in five people [which would mean 20%] claim they have no religious affiliation at all," anchor Carol Costello noted. She didn't mention that having no religious affiliation might not even be close to atheism.

 

"Then there's a very activist atheist movement underway," Costello hyped before pointing to YouTube's "The Amazing Atheist" who was "rallying against Christian Evangelicals, who after the Newtown massacre tried to put the blame on godless schools."

And Costello hyped a "massive" crowd at last year's "Reason Rally," even though it was estimated at only several thousand attendees and included people other than atheists, like secularists. If only the 2012 March for Life, attended by tens of thousands, got as much respect from CNN. More

• Right-Wing Watch: Eye on the Media

Art Beyond Reason (video)

Art by Octavio Ocampo, RasMarley/Flickr.com (photographs); Wisdom Quarterly

"Buddha" by Ocatvio Ocampo

  

"Woman and Mountains Shiva"

The artist Octavio Ocampo was born in Celaya, Guanajuato, Mexico. He studied art from early childhood. In high school, Ocampo painted murals for the Preparatory School and the City Hall of Celaya. 

  

Ruth Rivera, daughter of artist and muralist Diego Rivera, and Maria Luisa Mendoza encouraged him to attend the School of Painting and Sculpture of the National Fine Art Institute. Later in art school, he constructed papier mache figures for floats, altars, and ornaments used in carnival parades and festivals.

  
Ocampo's talents are not limited to painting and sculpture; they also extend to acting and dancing. At the Art Institute of San Francisco, he studied all of these disciplines then pursued both a film and theater career. But in 1976 he began to devote himself solely to painting and sculpture. Octavio Ocampo is one of Mexico's most prolific artists.
  
He now works primarily in the metamorphic style -- using a technique of superimposing and juxtaposing realistic and figurative details within the images he creates.
 

   
Metamorphic Style
Ocampo is known for several famous works in his sometimes wryly sardonic, sometimes evocative paintings.
  
Detailed images are intricately woven together to create larger images. The optical illusions fade back and pop forward as one studies the pieces, notices the details, and finally recognizes the large scale intention. This is what he terms "metamorphic."
  
The Visions Fine Art Gallery in Sedona, Arizona, represents Octavio Ocampo in the US.
  
Several collections in Mexico contain his work, and individual works of his have been commissioned for Pres. Jimmy Carter (as a gift from Pres. José López Portillo of Mexico), Jane Fonda, Cher (for the front and back covers of her "Heart of Stone" album), and César Chávez.

Happy for No Reason (audio)

Marci Shimoff with Aurora Winter, griefcoachacademy.com

Marci Shimoff is happy and in love for no reason at all (OmTimes.com)

   

(awarenessmag.com)

How do we raise our current happiness level? Is there a process to open our hearts and dissolve all pain, heartache, and psychological emptiness. 

  

Sometimes we need a fresh approach to deal with the negativity in our mind, in our relationships, and in our environment. What is it? What are the three essential "happiness habits" to live a life of freedom, joy, and ease?

• LISTEN: Happy for No Reason (free for 48 hours)

Aurora Winter, Grief Coach

Marci and Aurora share the latest scientific research on happiness with personal stories and the wisdom of the ages around releasing grief and reclaiming happiness.
  
Enjoy! Aurora Winter is dedicated to everyone's happiness as the founder of the GriefCoachAcademy.com, (866) 344-3108.