Is vipassana really Buddhist? The truth about the world's most popular meditation
(Buddha's Wisdom) š IS VIPASSANA REALLY BUDDHIST? THE HIDDEN STORY BEHIND THE WORLD'S MOST PRACTICED KIND OF INSIGHT MEDITATION
Millions of people have practiced Buddhist vipassana meditation, but very few know what the word vipassanÄ originally meant, or how the modern movement transformed one of Buddhism's oldest insights into a global meditation phenomenon.
What is insight (vipassana) meditation actually for? This word doesn't mean "meditation" at all. And the practice millions know from Goenka's free 10-day silent retreats was born not in the Buddha's proto-India, but in [George Orwell's] colonial Burma, the day an empire stopped protecting the Theravada Dhamma.
This is the true story of insight meditation: what vipassanÄ really means, how it nearly vanished, and how a monk, a farmer, an accountant, and a businessman carried it to the modern world.
šæ DISCOVER:
The original meaning of vipassanÄ and why it never simply meant "meditation"
How the fall of the Burmese kingdom sparked the modern Vipassana Movement
Why meditation was rare even among Buddhist monastics for nearly 1,000 years
Why many Buddhist teachers say today's vipassana is both ancient and surprisingly modern
The unlikely relay that saved insight practice: from Buddhist monk Ledi Sayadaw to a rice farmer to S.N. Goenka's flight home in 1969
What today's vipassana retreats, the mindfulness movement, and scientific research gained... and what may have been left behind.
š If this changed what viewers thought meditation was, subscribe. The next episode uncovers the other half the world forgot: the deep stillness of jhana ("meditative absorption" as samma-samadhior "right stillness," "coherent unification of mind") the Buddha paired with insight.
Orthodox Christianity vs. Gnosticism Explained | Prof. Jiang
(Prof. Jiang MasterClass) June 27, 2026: UNITED STATES Professor Jiang Xueqin explores two very different ways of interpreting Christianity. First, the traditional (orthodox) understanding of the Bible: Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.
Then the lecture moves into alternative esoteric interpretations drawn from historical mystical traditions, discussing ideas such as hidden knowledge, apocryphal texts, Nephilim narratives, the Gnostic Monad [GOD, Brahman], and symbolic readings of creation.
This video presents historical and philosophical interpretations for discussion and education not established historical fact or theological endorsement.
TOPICS COVERED:
— Orthodox Christianity and Biblical Covenants
— Hidden Interpretations and Esoteric Traditions
— Mind Creates Matter
— False God Theory and Jesus
— Paradise Lost and Hidden Meaning
This video is based on lectures by Prof. Jiang Xueqin, where we extract and simplify key ideas from long-form discussions into short, focused videos. Check out Prof. Jiang Xueqin's recommended books to supplement his ideas: ► The Divine Comedy (The Inferno, The Purgatorio, and The Paradiso) by Dante Alighieri: amzn.to/3NZSkzt ► Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy: amzn.to/3ZQfsmy ► Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins: amzn.to/4kskgs4. Check out the Prof. Jiang FULL curated reading list here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yU...
The lectures featured on this channel are delivered by Prof. Jiang Xueqin. Original lectures: @predictivehistory. Content is used with permission from Prof. Jiang Xueqin. This channel breaks down complex topics in geopolitics, history, and global trends into clear and concise insights. Subscribe for simplified, idea-focused content.
What is wu wei?It is the art of not forcing things, non-interference, effortless action, non-doing, non-resistance, the path of least resistance, going with the flow, the way of water, acting in harmony with the way life actually moves.
Once upon a time two great martial arts masters traveled the land, unbeaten, taking on all challengers and triumphing in each case. Then one day, by chance, they met at the creek. And one said to the other, "So we finally meet? Today shall be the day we see who the greater sage is, the warrior to vanquish all warriors, the Undefeated."
"Indeed, just as you say."
Then the first drew his sword with a resonant schwing and stabbed it into the water. It stood glimmering. Then he took out a piece of paper and placed it onto the water above the sword. The water carried the paper down, and his sharp sword sliced it in half down the middle just as it flowed by. At this, the first warrior shouted: "Behold!"
The second warrior drew his sword and stabbed the creek with his longer, stronger sword, shimmering more brightly on the surface of the water.
The first warrior trembled in anticipation, his confidence beginning to slip.
The second warrior took out a piece of paper, placed it above the sword on the surface of the water. And the current carried it down to the blade, going around the sword just as it passed.
The first fell to his knees, defeated, understanding too late, of course, that it is always wiser to avoid conflict and not fight. He cried out, "Indeed, master, we have settled it. And let it be known from this day forward, I am the inferior."
The other gently smiled and turned away.
Did it happen? Who knows. Could it have happened? Indeed! The Tao flows, wu wei, unobtrusive, doing nothing but leaving nothing undone. Forcing nothing but accomplishing everything. Behold, what we call Mother Nature!
(Evan Bnormal) A monk of 28 years reveals why he abandoned society... [then gave up and left, to again live in the world, praying and meditating, but now being able to "pop out for a pint," as he explains]
Dhp. 1. Mind precedes all mental states. [Mind is the forerunner of all conditions.] Mind is their chief; they are all mind-made (wrought). If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts, suffering follows one like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-made. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts, happiness follows one like one's never-departing shadow.
3. "That person abused me, struck me, overpowered me, robbed me!" Those who harbor such thoughts will not still their hatred.... More
Manjushri (Sanskrit š«šššš¼š°ššš», Romanized MaƱjuÅrÄ«) is a bodhisattva who represents transcendental wisdom (prajƱÄ) of the "Cosmic Buddhas" [like Vairocana] in MahÄyÄna Buddhism.
The name "MaƱjuÅrÄ«" is a combination of Sanskrit word maƱju and the honorific -ÅhrÄ«. It can therefore be literally translated as "Beautiful One with Glory" or "Beautiful One with Auspiciousness."
MaƱjuÅrÄ« is also known by the fuller name of MaƱjuÅrÄ«-kumÄra-bhÅ«ta (ą¤®ą¤्ą¤ुą¤¶्ą¤°ीą¤ुą¤®ाą¤°ą¤ूą¤¤) [1], literally "MaƱjuÅrÄ«, Still a Youth" or, less literally, "Youthful Prince MaƱjuÅrÄ«." Another name of MaƱjuÅrÄ« is MaƱjughÅį¹£a.
In MahÄyÄna Buddhism
Scholars have identified MaƱjuÅrÄ« as the oldest and most significant bodhisattva in MahÄyÄna Buddhist literature [2]. Notable traits of MaƱjuÅhrÄ« include: More
AnattÄ: "not-self," "non-self," "non-ego," "egolessness," "selflessness," "soullessness," the fact that ultimately all is "impersonal" is the last and most difficult of the three fetters or wrong views to cut.
It is one of the Universal Characteristics of All Existence (ti-lakkhana). The anattÄ doctrine taught by the historical Buddha is that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence (the Five Aggregates clung to as self: form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness), nor outside of them, can there be found anything that in the ultimate sense can ever be regarded as a self or independently-existing real ego-entity, soul, self, or any other abiding essence, substance, or atman.
This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without the understanding of which any real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.
It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire structure of the Buddhist Teaching (Dharma, Dhamma) stands or falls.
All the remaining Buddhist doctrines might, more or less, be found in other philosophical systems or religions, but the anattÄ-doctrine is only clearly and unreservedly taught by the Buddha (or buddhas before him), wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattÄ-vÄdi, or "Teacher of Egolessness."
Whoever has not penetrated this impersonal characteristic of all existence and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, that person will not be able to understand Buddhism, that is, the teaching of the Four Ennobling (Enlightening) Truths (sacca) in the correct light.
One will think that it is one's ego or personality that experiences suffering, one's person that performs good and harmful karma and will be reborn according to those actions, one's personality that will enter into nirvana, one's personality that practices the Ennobling Eightfold Path. More
What is a "band"?* It's a lot like a Buddhist "SELF," a "UCLA" (the American college), or a Greek SHIP of Theseus. It has a name, from which it derives its stable identity, but does it really have anything else for long? It's an illusion.
To demonstrate: I went to a college called UCLA. It doesn't exist. It started as a campus near USC, which is close to the skyline of DTLA/Downtown Los Angeles.
Plant, baby, is there really a "manic" nirvana?
If anyone can grasp these few examples, such a person will understand why the Buddha taught that ultimately speaking, there is no self, no soul, no essence, no abiding consciousness that travels from life to life or stands still here now.
That's impossible to accept. So reject it. Of course there's a self (atta). It's writing right now, and another self is reading right now...in a conventional way of speaking. No one is saying there's not that.
That being the case, WHY would the historical Buddha ever say there wasn't a self? We have to consider that. What is the reason, what did he mean, was he serious?
How does "suffering" come to be? 12 links.
The answer is: It is the unexamined assumption of what this "self" is that keeps us from awakening, keeps us from enlightenment (bodhi), keeps us from liberation (vimutti, moksha). There is something, lots of "things" (dhammas, "phenomena"). Such things arise by a process the Buddha called Dependent Origination (Conditioned Co-Genesis, Mutual Interdependence, this-that-that-this). This is, so that comes to be; when this is not, that does not arise -- as if "this" is not really more than "that."
Understanding D.O. in one example: What is a "candleflame"? If we break it down, deconstruct it, we find that it is five things. Who cares? Well, it's important because in place of this "self" we all believe in and never question the existence of, the Buddha is going to teach us that what we have been failing to see and penetrate is this very principle of conditioned co-arising or D.O. Okay, then, what five things?
Where does suffering go?
There is (1) wax, (2) wick, (3) heat, (4) oxygen, and (5) a very mysterious process of combustion. (Add to the list or take away, it doesn't really matter for the example to sink in). When these five are in a functionally integrated arrangement, bam, candleflame! Where did it come from? When it goes out, where will it "go" -- east, west, north, south, hell, heaven, the sphere of nothingness, the ground, my neighbor Robby Joiner's yard never to be seen again like all my frisbees? No, the designation does not apply; it is not correct to say the candleflame "goes" here, there, or anywhere. We just say it goes "out." That is to say, when these [factors, conditions, limbs] are present, that [candleflame] arises. When they are not, it is not. Therefore, in a sense one can say that a "candleflame" does not really exist, which is to say it does not exist independent of those factors upon which it utterly depends.
A candleflame does not exist.
Yet, we don't think it is any of those factors. It really seems independent, a new thing that came into being or brought those things (causes and conditions) with it. When does it come into being? When does it manifest what we conventionally call its "being" (beingness) into existence? When the final element (aggregate) is added. Try it. Put together any four of the five elements. There won't be a candleflame. Now, add the fifth. Viola! "Candleflame" arises in the mind -- which is what these five aggregate processes look like. We think it arises in the world, but probably all that was there before is still there now, nothing actually having been added. And when it goes out, one or the other factors (limbs) upon which it depended has been exhausted or removed. Right? Try it. Can we say that, for example, the heat is the candleflame? No, because there's heat everywhere yet there are very few candleflames. Is it the wax? No, because there's a world of wax yet relatively few candleflames.... But when we add the final element, "candleflame" seems to jump into existence. And, of course, it does conventionally speaking. But ultimately speaking, it does no such thing. It doesn't really ever exist, in a manner of speaking. I'll make this point again and again until it clicks what's being said and what is not.
This "UCLA" that I say does not exist, isn't it right over there in Westwood? There sure is something called "UCLA" in Westwood right now. But what was born and originated near USC, other than the name or some transient traditions and a charter or photos, and what things came over from that first place that remain unchanged?
All of the faculty are different
All of the students are different
All of the curricula, books, desks...
In fact, let's imagine the first place burned down and was completely incinerated, so that nothing, not a brick, not a scrap of the original went from DTLA to the Westside, would we still call it "UCLA"? We sure would! Why? What we identify or imagine to be UCLA is moving from here to there.
In a century, will there be a "UCLA"? No, but there almost surely will be a college (university) called "UCLA." All the faculty, students, books, lesson plans, and ephemera will be different, but it'll still -- in a sense -- be good ol' UCLA, at least in our minds and on some plot of real estate somewhere in LA.
There is no ship
Is it the same ship or a different ship?
Aside from the example of an empty college, a figment of our consensus reality to call this this and that that, maybe the ancient Ship of Theseus example would better communicate this. A ship sets off for Greece but along the way has to change the sails then the oars then the floorboards then the wheel then, piece by piece, every single piece. Is it still the same ship that arrives in Greece?
Whaddya mean "there's no car?" It's right here!
The nice answer is that it neither is exactly the same ship, but we can't say that it's another. It is, of course, not the same, but to say it's different does violence to our language and what we mean, as Bhikkhu Bodhi pointed out in As It Is. The same with your car. You could take it into the mechanic over and over so many times that they change every single piece. Then is it still the same car? It's your car either way, but not a lick of it remains, not a single piece. But a paper somewhere at the DMV says it's yours, even with a new license plate and engine block number, paint job, glass, carpet, upholstery, gas, oil, screws, everything.
There is no oxcart
There is no such thing as an oxcart.
In the same way, in ancient times, an oxcart. What is it? It is, broadly speaking, five components fitted in a functionally operational way (wheel, axle, body, steering, ox). Add pieces to the definition or take them away, it doesn't matter. But five is easy. Whose oxcart is this? It belongs to Thad. Its wheels are broken. Change them. Axle is broken. Change it. The body is broken. Change it. The steering is shot. Change it. Ox is exhausted. Change it. Now, every part having been changed, what oxcart? That one. Whose oxcart is it? Thad's. Why? It's because in a conventional sense (by our agreement and his delusion) it has been his all along, even though it is completely different. He has no control over it really; he can't keep it from breaking apart. But we still call it his, and we seem to have no trouble identifying it even as every single part gets switched out.
This "SELF," what is it? It is five things (form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness). Whose is it? This one's mine. What do you call it? "Me." Sometimes "I." It's myself, I mean, my self. My soul. My ego. My personality. My atta (Sanskrit atman). My vessel into which I load my store of karma (deeds, doings, intentional acts, or all of my willed actions).
By "form" you mean this rapidly deteriorating arrangement of materiality composed of solidity, movement, cohesion, and temperature? That's the one! So this material form, this body (this temporary vessel or vehicle), is actually just Four Great Elements, which are not "elements" as such but rather qualities of materiality, in a sense quanta or quantities of it because all material particles (rupa kalapas) are actually composed of all four elements or dhatus (or maha bhuta) but in differing amounts, so that when solidity is in preponderance, it gets labelled "solid" but still has all of the other features to a lesser degree. This is "you"? No. It is my body, but I am not the body. The body changes, but "I" stay the same forever and ever, the eternal self, the unchanged soul, the essence or core of the ego (psyche), the invisible watcher, holder, and owner of all that stands.
Okay, these feelings, that's "you"? Yes, that's me. I'm the feeler. So you're not the feeling? Well, no, not exactly, but feeling-feeler, same thing. Okay, all of them? Which all? You are all pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings passing through? Yeah, sort of, I am the feeler.
All right then. These perceptions? Yes, I am the perceiver. And you are the perceptions passing through, too? Sure, okay, perception-perceiver, I am the all.
And these other mental formations, like these volitions, impulses, motives, intentions (cetanas)? Yes, I am the intender. And the intention? Intention-intender, same thing. I am the all, the owner, the doer, the knower, the experiencer, the controller or the one-who-thinks-he's-in-control.
Okay, and this consciousness? Yes, I am consciousness. All of them? "All"? "You" are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind-consciousnesses? Uh, yes, I am consciousness. And all the consciousnesses passing through conscious experience? Uh, I guess.
"Self" as impersonal processes
Does anyone know why the Buddha called each of these heaps an "aggregate"? It's very important. It is because there are trillions of them, not one form, one feeling, one perception, one formation, one consciousness. At least with the oxcart, it seems like there is one (or more) wheels, axle, one body, one steerer, one ox, and the conglomeration of those forms one oxcart. But with "SELF," there are no such single items. There are aggregations (heaps of rupa kalapas) of material particles, countless numbers of them in every "material" thing, and that's just the body, the form, which has 32 main parts and lots of subsidiary parts, so many that one cannot find it tenable to consider one's "self" this body. So we cling to the other four mental formations as "self." (Yes, we call the fourth heap "mental formations" or sankaras, but the fact is that feelings, perceptions, and consciousnesses are all mental formations, too. The Buddha segregated them into these five for explanatory and insight purposes. As we develop liberating insight into these, we will clearly know-and-see that what we took to be MY feeling was just feeling being felt -- arising, turning, and passing away at all times, hurtling towards destruction, never standing still for even a submoment. The reason a feeling lasts is not because it arises and hangs around for a while then, realizing it's impermanent, it leaves. One feeling arises, turns, passes away, as another almost identical feeling arises, turns, passes away, in succession until this process dies out, at which time "the feeling" which was a heap of feelings passes to be replaced by another kind of feeling. The same is true of the other four aggregates. Science tells us this material body is nothing but a conglomeration of cells, which are molecules, which are atoms, which are quarks and strong-and-weak forces and thingies and whatnots, ever more subtle until they're not even material.
Add ingredients to the definition of "SELF" or take them away, it doesn't matter. The same is true. What we call "self" is not-self. It is impersonal, and radically impermanent, and ultimately disappointing, painful, stressful, incapable of ever fulfilling us.
*What is a "band"?
Meet the future legendary "Mr. Jimmy" [Sakurai] as he shreds on guitar for an adoring crowd
If ANY of this has made sense, let us deal with the problem at hand: What is a "band"? It's a group, an assemblage, an aggregate, a "heap" of four or five basic members. Whose band is it?
(Whoever owns the name, which is just about the only stable thing other than ownership rights of music catalog performed and/or written under that name).
So one day four guys and their manager became the New Yardbirds. And they got threatened with a lawsuit, so they became Lead Zeppelin. But Peter Grant, the manager and fifth member, said, "To avoid mispronunciation, let's call the band Led Zeppelin." All agreed. They played, recorded, became famous, and then the drummer had a son and died. End of the story. Led Zeppelin was over. But capitalism and greed being what they are, Led Zeppelin lived on. There was even a reunion of sorts, but they couldn't bring back the dead, so they did the next best thing: They brought in the next of kin, drummer John Bonham's son Jason. It was like having 3.5 of the original four members present. It worked!
It worked so well, that everyone but Jimmy Page or Robert Plant could have quit, and the behemoth could have gone on like the Who, Stones, Chicago, or any other massive rock act has done for years and years until not even a single member of the original band is touring! How is that possible?! Ship of Theseus. Oxcart.
Who am I? There is no me?
What're ya doin in my hole?!
In fact, there's an Early Buddhist or later Chinese Buddhist parable that may illustrate this even better: A man (let's say it's YOU) is walking and falls into a deep hole, at the bottom of which are two ghoulish demons arguing as they prepare some human stew from human limbs strewn all around their gloomy hole. Seeing you fall in, the angry one asks what the h*ll you're doing there and tears your arm off. And the other, just to p*ss off the first, grabs another arm from off the ground and attaches it to your body. It works! You move the fingers. These demonic ghouls have black magic powers. You're elated to get your arm back, which p*sses off the first, who then tears off your other arm. The other grabs another arms, attaches it to you. Again it works, you're elated, and it, being p*ssed off, tears off a leg, which is replaced, a torso with heart and head. Getting all five limbs torn off and others reattaches, you get the heck out of the hole. Who got out? Who went in. All five limbs are still down in the hole, but here "you" are running away. Is it you, is it not you, is it sort of you?
There is no UCLA?
"UCLA" can restart anywhere with anyone.
Is there one "UCLA," many UCLAs, no UCLA? Is this feeling the self, is that perception the self, is this consciousness what dies and is reborn -- or is it all an impersonal ("empty," devoid of self) process just rolling on? And that's all it's ever been? Ask Jason.
Because Jason must have asked all the remaining members of Led Zeppelin, Inc. to join him on tour. But for one reason or another (think ego, clashes, not wanting to ruin the profitable brand, and solo careers), they did not. So he did. Jason did. Jason went on tour.
Is there a Robert Plant? - Now and Zen
The O2 Arena show (called the Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert) was in 2007, and on Saturday night, Jason Bonham said he's been doing JBLZE about 16 years or so. That seems to be how long Jason and Co. ("JBLZE," Jason Bonham's Led Zeppelin Evening) have been at it. They don't need Page; they have "Mr. Jimmy" (Sakurai) on guitar, and he looks and plays more like Page did back then than Jimmy Page does now.
AnattÄ is not a joke or punchline. All things are impersonal and always have been. And so long as we do not realize it (or that they are impermanent and disappointing, too), we will cling. And by clinging, we will suffer. And the way to let go (and stop suffering) is to realize the True Nature of All Things.
THERE IS NO SELF (an-attÄ, not-atta): "not-self," egolessness, soullessness, the impersonal nature of all phenomena (particularly the Five Aggregates clung to as "self") is the final and most incomprehensible of the Three Universal Characteristics of All Existence (ti-lakkhana).
The anattÄ doctrine is unheard of throughout the universe, except that a supremely awakened buddha has made it known (or a nonteaching buddha has cultivated up to supreme realization) and thereby opens up an escape from the phenomenal world of endless rebirth and incomprehensible suffering.
This doctrine teaches that neither within body-and-mind (nama-rupa, the bodily and mental phenomena of existence) nor outside of them can there be found anything that in THE ULTIMATE SENSE able to be regarded as a self, soul, self-existing real ego-entity, or any other abiding essence or substance.
This is the central doctrine of Buddhism. Without understanding it, real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.
It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddha's Teaching (Dhamma) stands or falls.
All of the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found or hinted at in other philosophical systems, doctrines, or religions. But the anattÄ-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by a buddha.
It is on account of this that the historical Buddha was known as the anattÄ-vÄdi, or "Teacher of Impersonality." [He was also called a karma-vadin for emphasizing personal actions and karmic results.]
Whoever has not penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming PROCESS of arising, turning, and passing away of bodily-and-mental phenomena and that there is no separate (independent, self-standing) ego-entity in or outside of this process, that person will be unable to understand Buddhism.
That is, that person will be unable to understand the teaching of the Four "Noble" (Enlightening) Truths (sacca) in the correct light. One will instead think that it is:
one's soul, self, ego, or personality that experiences suffering (dukkha, disappointment, pain, distress),
one's personality that performs skillful and unskillful deeds (good and evil actions)
one's soul who will be reborn according to such actions (karma),
one's personality that will enter into some kind of everlasting heaven, sphere, place, or state the Buddha called "Nirvana" (Pali NibbÄna),
one's "self" that practices on the Enlightening (Noble) Eightfold Path.
So it is said in The Path of Purification (Vis.M. XVI):
(Genius) I'd like to be a princess on a throne/ To have a country I can call my own/ And a king who's lusty and requires a fling/ With a female thing/ Great, men will be men/ Let me turn on the gas/ I caught them in the den with Marvin grabbing Whizzer's ass/ Oh sure, I'm sure, he's sure he did his best/ I mean he meant to be what he was not/ The things he was are things which I forgot/ He's a queen I'm a queen/ Where is our crown?/ I'm breaking down/ I'm breaking down/ My life is shitty/ And my kid seems like an idiot to me/ I mean that's sick/ I mean he's great/ It's me who is the matter/ Talking madder/ Than the maddest hatter
If I repeat one more word/ I swear I'll lose my brain/ Oh, what else should I explain?/ Oh, yes, it's true/ I can cry on cue/ But so can you/ I'm breaking down/ I'm breaking down/ Down, down/ You ask me, "Is it fun to cry over nothing?"/ It is, I'm breaking down/ Now let's consider what I might do next/ I hate admitting I've become perplexed/ I'm bereaved/ I've cried, I've shook, I've yelled, I've heaved/ I have been deceived
As enemies go Whizzer is not so bad/ It's just he's so damn happy/ That it makes me so damn mad/ I want to hate him but I really can't/ It's like a nightmare how this all proceeds/ I hope that Whizzer don't fulfill his needs/ "Don't" is wrong/ Sing along!/ What was the noun?/ I'm breaking down/ I'm breaking down/ I'll soon redecorate these stalls/ I'd like some padding on the walls/ And also pills/ I wanna sleep Sure, things'll probably worsen/ But it's not like I'm some healthy person/ I've rethought my talks with Marv/ And one fact does emerge/ Oh, I think I like his shrink/ So that is why I might turn to drink/ I'm on the brink/ Of breaking down/ I'm breaking down/ Down, down/ I only want to love a man who can love me/ Or like me/ Or help me/ Help me!
Marvin was never mine/ He took his meetings in the boys' latrine/ I used to cry/ He'd make a scene/ I'd rather die/ Than dry-clean Marvin's wedding gown/ I'm breaking down/ I'm breaking down/ It's so upsetting when you've found/ That what's rectangular is round/ I mean it stinks/ I mean he's queer/ And me, I'm just a freak/ Who needs it maybe every other week/ I don’t know/ I've rethought the fun we've had/ And one fact does emerge/ I've played the foolish clown/ The almost virgin who sings this dirge/ Is on the verge/ Of breaking down/ I'm breaking down/ Down, down/ The only thing that's breaking up is my family/ The only thing that's breaking up is my family/ But me, I'm breaking Down!
What is "salvation"?Moksha (Sanskrit ą¤®ोą¤्ą¤·, mokį¹£a) is also called vimutti* or vimukti and also mukti and vimoksha [3].
It is a concept in the Dharmic religions -- Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism -- that means liberation, non-bondage, freedom, emancipation, deliverance, escape, salvation, release, nirvana [4].
Los Angeles damnation
(PBS SoCal) The Chinatown punk rock wars of Los Angeles
I want your "Salvation"
In its soteriological and eschatological senses, it refers to freedom from saį¹sÄra, the incessant Cycle of Rebirths and Deaths [5]. In its epistemological and psychological senses, moksha is freedom from ignorance: self-realization, self-actualization, self-knowledge [6]....
NOTE: If moksha were just what the Vedas, Brahmins, or Hinduism says it is, there would be no need for a supremely enlightened one, the Buddha, to arise and make known a Teaching and Training that culminates in Buddhist nirvana, which is the real end of all suffering and rebirth, not mere rebirth in a long lasting heavenly plane or in the company of Brahma or other such stand ins.
Moksha (vimutti) is nirvana
Release from rebirth is release from all suffering
*In Buddhism the term moksha is uncommon, but there is an equivalent Pali term vimutti, "freedom," "release," "escape."
In the sutras two forms of freedom or release are mentioned, namely ceto-vimutti, "deliverance of mind," and panna-vimutti, "deliverance through wisdom" (insight or vipassana).
Ceto-vimutti is related to the practice of jhana or dhyana (shamatha), while panna-vimutti is related to the cultivation of insight.
Dharmas agree on moksha, they just define it differently, with Buddhism defining it as ultimate
. According to Gombrich, the distinction may be a later development, which resulted in a change of doctrine, regarding the practice of jhana to be insufficient for final liberation [108]. It is the first step, setting up the foundation of calm on top of which is built insight through mindfulness (sati,satipatthana, Dependent Origination).
With release comes nirvana (Pali nibbana), "quenching," "slaking," "cooling," "blowing out," or "extinguishing" the fires of the defiled passions and the wrong view of self [109, 110].
It is a "timeless state" (akaliko) in which there is no further becoming [111]. Nirvana ends the otherwise endless cycle of rebirth and suffering (dukkha) in the 31 Planes of Existence, which for simplification Mahayana reduces to six realms of saį¹sÄra [112, Note 2].
It is the third of the Four Ennobling (Enlightening) Truths of Buddhism, which plays a central role in Theravada Buddhism [117, 118].
What can be said of the ultimate attainment?
Nirvana has been described in Buddhist texts in ways that make it sound like other Indian religions. Every tradition says it has complete liberation, freedom, ultimate bliss, the highest happiness, fearlessness, emancipation, dukkha-lessness, permanence, the deathless, the unconditioned element that is the only thing that is not dependently originated, the unconstructed, unfathomable, ineffable, indescribable [119, 120].
The unconditioned element: nirvana (Ven. Bodhi)
It has also been described as release marked by a realization of the "emptiness" (impersonal, non-self nature of ALL conditioned things but most significantly the Five Aggregates clung to as self) [121, 122, 123].
Such descriptions are debated by scholars because "nirvana" in Buddhism is described as a state or condition after the dissolution of ignorance and suffering (disappointment, dis-ease, distress, ill, woe, off-kilter, unsatisfactoriness), of luminous mind, which would seem to be "stopped consciousness (blown out), but one that is not non-existent," as Peter Harvey states, and for him "it seems impossible to imagine what awareness devoid of any object would be like" [124, 112].
Nirvana is much more than the end of suffering.
See Bhikkhu Bodhi's exhaustive description in The Teachings of the Buddha: As It Is (early lecture series). Words and concepts cannot do nirvana justice because it is unlike everything else in samsara. Therefore, it is not a thought or concept but something very real to be personally experienced. Freedom awaits. More
Rock 'N Roll True Stories; Punk Rock MBA; Rancid; Dhr. Seven, Seth Auberon (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly Wiki edit
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.
