“I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by God’s creative activity,’ and I said to them: ‘Is it true that you venerable ones hold such a doctrine and view?’ When I ask them this, they affirm it.
"Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is due to God’s creative activity that you might destroy life, take what is not given, indulge in sexual activity, speak falsehood, utter divisive speech, speak harshly, indulge in idle chatter; that you might be full of longing, have a mind of ill will, and hold wrong view.’
"Those who fall back on God’s creative activity as the essential truth have no desire [to do] what should be done and [to avoid doing] what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them.”
— The Buddha (Anguttara Nikaya 3.61)
I sometimes wonder where the narcissism that seems prevalent among many religious conservatives comes from. Is it a prerequisite for extreme religiosity, or is it a side effect of the teachings they cling to? I can’t understand how some people are able to take a subjective worldview, hold it to a higher regard than verifiable evidence, and then insist that everyone else do the same.
Light travels at approximately 1 million kilometers per hour. Therefore, the light we see from distant stars took over a million years to reach us. Some people are able to dismiss this very clear mathematical observation, and continue to believe that the world is only 6,000 years old because a literal interpretation of the bible suggests this.
There’s a political group in America trying too push creationism into science classrooms. First off, it astounds me that there are adults, in the year 2013, still trying to fight evolution theory. And second, as Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ eloquently stated, “‘Creation Science’ is not useful, because it can make no successful predictions about nature or the universe.”
One day, hopefully, humanity will finally grow up.
Panic over Google Chrome’s security. Or what happens when an Apple troll writes an effective piece of link bait, and a bunch of people who don’t know any better fall for it…
Google’s “go-to” argument is right. If you’re worried about security, don’t share your operating system user profile. Understanding and using OS user profiles would solve the “problem” of local password hacking.
Why Everyone Is Pissed Off About Google Chrome’s Sound Security
In response to the protests and outrage over the George Zimmerman verdict, I’ve seen these black-on-white crime photos show up on my news feeds. Some people are wondering why Trayvon Martin became such a big story, and these stories didn’t.
The American news media tends to focus on dramatic narratives that can bring high ratings to their networks. The “juicier” the story, the more commercially viable it is. So what made the Trayvon Martin story so commercially viable?
Once upon a time, blacks were shot, hung, and tortured just for being black. This grim time in American history has made people sensitive to racial issues against blacks. A similar observation can be made in regards to gender. Sexual harassment against women tends to be a bigger deal than sexual harassment against men because the former has been more prevalent and destructive.
Does this mean that the news media should only report on crimes against women and blacks? Of course not. But, unfortunately, this is the news media that we have helped to create. If more people cared about something other than race, gossip and celebrity shit, the news outlets would cover a more even balance of relevant stories.
Almost nothing pisses me off more than hearing about someone hurting an animal. A police dude thought it would be a good idea to reach for an agitated dog who was trying to protect his owner. When the dog lunged, as they’re instinctually wired to do when someone’s being a fucking idiot around them, the cop shot him.
The headline of a Washington Post article reads, “Deep-seated prejudice, radical Buddhist monks fuel violence against Myanmar’s Muslims.”
Some have tried to use this and similar stories to fuel the idea that Buddhism “has a violent side.” But is this a fair assessment?
The Tipiṭaka, the oldest collection of Buddhist texts, takes a very clear and strong stance against any form of violence or hatred. Additionally, you won’t find any discourses in the Tipitaka that condone violence or hatred. If a person intentionally and repeatedly inflicts harm on other sentient beings, that person cannot rightfully call themselves a Buddhist, let alone a monk.
Imagine this scenario: A group of “atheists” go out and say “We accept Jesus as our Lord and savior.” Would it make sense to then conclude that “atheism” is a Christian philosophy? Of course not. Anyone can claim to be anything, but if their actions are not in tune with the philosophy they supposedly adhere to, those people cannot be used as a representation of that philosophy.
Most Buddhists see the violent “monks” in Myanmar in the same way most Christians see members of the Westboro Baptist Church. These thugs should not be used as examples of “Buddhist violence” because their behavior alone disqualifies them from being Buddhist, just as worshipping Satan would disqualify someone from being a Christian or a Muslim.
"Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels."
— Dhp I 5-6