Buddhism is about progress, not perfection. One might not attain buddhahood here and now. But will you go into the next life as a more wise and compassionate being than you were before?
There is something about Carl Sagan’s famous “Pale Blue Dot” passage that is, to me at least, perfect.
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again that dot. That’s here, that’s home, that’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there—on the mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Each word, each category, the overall rhythm—all of it is just right. I’ve read that passage (or listened to Sagan read it) countless times; it’s hard to imagine it any other way.
Which is why I was so intrigued to come across an earlier draft of the passage among the recently digitized items in the Library of Congress’s new Carl Sagan archive. The draft bears the date February 20, 1993. The first edition of the book would be published a bit less than two years later, in November of 1994 […]
Here, I’ve marked up every line that’s changed:
The rhythm has improved, helped along by added repetition of “every”; aliens have been excised (too distracting, perhaps?); acts of heroism and betrayal have become heroes and cowards, fitting in more neatly with the rest of the passage. Overall, the effect of the edits is a better flow, which, at least in Sagan’s sonorous voice, is what gives the section its punch. Or perhaps I’m just more familiar with it, and that’s why it sings to me.
Interestingly, the one substantively significant change between the 1993 draft and Sagan’s recording is one that proves enigmatic upon further digging. Are wea mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam? Or, are we the mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam? The draft says “a,” but the voice says “the.” It seems that Sagan’s verdict, in the end, was for “the.” A definite article! We are not just any mote of dust but the mote of dust.
But one detail adds a bit of ambiguity: The book agrees with the draft, not the recording, plainly calling Earth a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
So, in a way, Sagan has left us with the answer that we are both. We are just amote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. But at the same time, “for us it’s different,” Sagan says. For us, we’re the mote of dust: That’s here. That’s home. That’s us.
See full article here
Buddhists don’t fear an angry God who rewards and punishes. Instead, we are taught to take personal responsibility for our karma, the results of our good and bad deeds, both for this life and the life to come.
Speak the truth; yield not to anger;
Give when asked, even if you have little.
By these three means,
one can be reborn among the devas.
How can liberals be more tolerant, when they are so often intolerant toward the free speech of anyone who expresses a conservative opinion on any particular issue? Would the Buddha encourage such extreme partisanship?