Be the best!

Words like “best,” “top,” etc. usually indicate a subjective judgment. If something is the best, it’s usually just the best in someone’s opinion, not necessarily the most accurate, precise, etc. according to some objective measure. If no objective measure is given (e.g., if they don’t say something like “that sports star is the best in terms of points scored in one game”), I assume that it’s just someone’s opinion, and I suspect that they have some agenda behind calling it the best (e.g., they’re selling something).


God Bless [insert group name].

Dear monotheists,

Did God make all humans on Earth, or only the humans in your country or ethnic group?

Best Regards,


Hermeneutic circle

Just because you say, write, or do something doesn’t mean that others understand it in the same way that you do (called your authorial intent). “Understanding” means that two or more people’s worldviews (your worldview is all of your views about how yourself and the world/universe are organized and work), mental models (a mental model is how you imagine something in your mind), and intuitive feelings about something match, which often requires considerable back-and-forth communication or study about both people’s ideas, societies, cultures, past experiences, feelings, beliefs, etc. This process of negotiating a common understanding with a person, book, etc. using a back-and-forth process is called the hermeneutic circle.

Whenever you read or hear something important, try to learn about the author and understand their perspective. If you read things only from your own perspective, you will often misunderstand others.

Would science corrupt nirvana?

Most science and technology do not contain any inherent ethics or morality. It is up to people to behave ethically or morally with scientific knowledge and technologies, and history contains many examples of people using science or technology unethically or immorally (e.g., using nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, using the Internet to facilitate human trafficking and child porn, dumping large quantities of plastic into the oceans or burning plastic even though the smoke is obviously toxic, etc.)

This is different than Buddhism, where only people who are very pure of heart/mind are usually mentally capable of attaining nirvana/nibbana. The universe seems to have a kind of natural safeguard around nirvana/nibbana, in other words. Sometimes I wonder (obviously, since I haven’t attained enlightenment) if monks/nuns who have advanced meditation abilities should be hesitant to help scientists understand or measure nirvana/nibbana, citta, karma/kamma, gandhabbas, etc., because if a machine can measure or affect these things, then anyone might be able to attain them, exploit them, destroy them, etc. Nirvana might be safer as long as it remains shrouded in religious mystery.

Technically easy, socially hard

It seems to me that many of the problems facing the world today are very technically easy to solve but very socially difficult to solve. I believe that humanity can solve these kinds of problems, if only enough people mobilize themselves. For example:

  • Ethnic, gender, religious, national, wealth, etc. equality. Treat everyone with fairness and respect (in every way), heavily tax or outlaw wealth greater than a certain amount (I suggest $1 million for individuals and $100 million for companies), collaboratively create a global government (i.e., the UN with more power), use the Internet to let everyone collaboratively construct a common human language (which everyone must learn in school, but which is optional to use in daily life), and so on.
  • Global warming. We have many ways of generating clean energy: solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrogen, nuclear fusion (coming soon), etc. — we just need to use them on a larger scale.
  • Over-population. People around the world need to either control themselves or use modern birth control or sterilization methods.
  • War. “Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war” (Albert Einstein).
  • Direct democracy. Many critical government and corporate services are already available on the Internet: healthcare, banking, etc. Why not voting? Using the Internet, every citizen who wants to could easily vote on the issues of the day and votes could be counted instantly, replacing most politicians and letting the people represent themselves.
  • Pollution and destruction of nature. Stop using plastic or require everyone to recycle it, stop using synthetic chemicals as much as possible, use electric or other clean-energy vehicles (hydrogen, bicycles, etc), and so on. Stop large companies from using so many pesticides and large harvesting machines, fracking, oil drilling, replacing humans with machines, emitting toxic chemicals from factories, etc.

Why choose a conqueror’s religion?

Especially as societies become more free/liberal and people have more of a choice, I find it curious that so many people around the world still choose to embrace the religions of conquerors. Christians and Muslims in particular have colonized, conquered, enslaved, and/or forcibly or coercively converted large parts of the Earth and many indigenous peoples over the last few thousand years. But still today Africans, Central and South Americans, South Asians, and Southeast Asians (and their descendents and diasporas around the world) in particular frequently convert to, and/or seem very passionate about, those religions. And as far as I can tell, they’re not always just paying lipservice to those religions (e.g., superficially following those religions in order to get some benefit or reward from the conquerors). So why do those people reject their native religions, or why don’t they follow more peaceful world religions?

To my clear, my complaint is about certain religions, not about God(s). A person can interact with God(s) either in a spiritual way without traditions or from within the conceptual frameworks of many large, old religions; it doesn’t have to happen within the framework of Christianity or Islam. Themes of violence, conquest, domination, superiority, etc. run deep/old especially in Christian and Islamic cultures. I think people should be wary and skeptical of those kinds of themes, and I want to point out that there are other major world traditions (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Bahai, Sikhism, Taoism, etc.) as well as local/indigenous traditions that either lack those themes or have them to a much lesser extent.

Two competing views of Buddhist nirvana

As I understand, here are the Mahayana and Theravada conceptions of nirvana/nibbana:


As do several later schools of Hinduism, notably Advaita Vedanta, with which Mahayana/Madhyamika philosophy may have merged to some degree over the millenia, Mahayana thinks that the relativistic, dualistic (self vs. other) reality in which we live is not real. Though both Mahayana and Theravada would probably agree that our current reality is empty of a permanent/stable essence, because everything in this world somehow depends on something else (e.g., consciousness depends on the body, the body depends on molecules and atoms, etc.), Mahayana claims that our current reality is not only impermanent/unstable but is totally unreal — a collective delusion or illusion, resulting from us having forgotten that we are all already enlightened and are actually one big, unified/monistic, real Mind (variously called absolute reality, Buddha-nature, Tathagata-garbha, etc.). As such, it was/is possible for the many past Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to come and go between nirvana and samsara, and to create and destroy dualistic worlds (such as Pure Lands, where it is supposedly as easy as possible to attain nirvana), as they please. Attaining nirvana makes one like a God in this world.


There are two states of matter/energy existing right next to each other, which rarely interact (similar to dark matter vs. regular matter): one is more permanent and stable (nibbana), one is more impermanent and unstable (our reality, called samsara). Both samsara and nibbana are real, though living beings may misperceive or misunderstand them, and both have their pros and cons. The cons of living in samsara are things like old age, sickness, death, loss, pain, fear, vulnerability, etc., but the pros are that it can be fun, exciting, pleasurable, etc. Nibbana is basically the opposite of samsara: no old age, sickness, death, etc., but it is also very still and lacking pleasure or pain. In that they are quite different states of matter/energy, a person cannot easily come and go between them. The samsaric body must die before an enlightened mind (having extinguished kamma/karma and totally let go of this world) can transfer into a nibbanic state (called parinibbana), and nibbanic beings apparently cannot or do not transfer back into samsara. When the Buddha became enlightened, his mind could only see nibbana from this world, like looking across a river at the other shore. His samsaric body had to die for his mind to somehow join with or become nibbanic matter/energy. The Buddha was just a man who discovered something great (i.e., a way for the mind to apparently live forever without suffering). He was/is not some kind of God — when Theravada Buddhists “worship” the Buddha, they are typically trying to gain karmic merit for themselves by doing something good or noble, not trying to interact with the Buddha (because nibbanic beings do not interact with samsaric beings; they just set an example for samsaric beings to emulate) — and nibbana is not an absolute essence for samsara.