silene

Makes sense. I'd add that most religions are traditional, their teachings and practices are fossilised in time of the first few centuries after they started. Islam actually has a taboo on 'innovation' doesn't it? So as long as they're still functioning to progress the development of society, then great. But at some point they start to slow down progress: treatment of women is a good example. Islam provided an improvement when it first started, but it hasn't continued to progress, so that now, secular movements like feminism and socialism have taken over the baton of progress. Feminism will reach its apex too in time, and need to be surpassed if it doesn't evolve. Change is important and requires a willingness to let go of the past when it no longer serves us.

The issue of metaphorical vs literal interpretation is an important one. Often the text itself doesn't guide you, although passages like Christian parables are clearly stories rather than facts. I chose these 2 quotes of yours to show how messy this interpretation can be. I understand that Muslims have a class of members called 'scholars' who are seen as authorities to help them decide. I wonder how much individual choice Muslims have in this, eg what would happen if someone decided one day that praying is only metaphorical so they don't need to do it literally? On the other hand, it must feel pretty insecure and defensive if you believe the whole scripture is literally, historically true. The slightest internal contradiction or conflict with science, and the whole world view would come crashing down. There's no room for compromise. There's a danger of believing yourself into a very dualistic bubble.

@Someone here I don't know which country you're in, but judging by this thread you're in the West. Where I live (UK) there's plenty of well educated and prosperous Muslims in business, medicine, academia etc so it's more complicated than making generalisations like most Muslims are poor & uneducated. They go through the same education system as anyone else here. Also by your logic, left wingers in Muslim majority countries would be doing the mirror image: vigorously criticising Islam and making allowances for Christian and other minorities. Do you see that in practice? (I don't have much experience of travelling in the Islamic majority world so I'm not sure. I'm genuinely interested, it's not just a rhetorical question).

The left is really trying to attack "Western" culture (meaning white Christian capitalist) and Islam just happens to be another culture around which they haven't the courage to tackle, perhaps because Muslims tend to defend themselves more than Christians do. But yeah, it's all very embarrassing for the left, considering that Islam is historically guilty of all the same faults (including slavery) as Christianity.

"Why do so many religions believe in doomsday or judgment day?" Why so many Hollywood disaster movies? Now that old-time religion is on the wane. We love it don't we, thinking it's all going to pot.

Do you mean move from spiral dynamics stage red to green, or something else?

True enough, but in a truly socialist world charity wouldn't be necessary because the system would already provide for everyone. Voluntarily donating your surplus wealth generated via capitalism to poor people (in exchange for enhancing your reputation), is like going back to a 19th C philanthropic capitalist model and not addressing the fundamental problems. But hey, we need short-term assistance like this while those inequalities are dealt with. If they are, I've never asked any African farmers if they want to be socialists!

Discrimination and persecution, yes. Islam's as guilty of that as most. Us humans have always divided ourselves up into competing groups. But my inclination at the moment is to see race as a modern idea, and we have a habit of projecting our modern world-views backwards in history onto people who had different world-views. Or maybe I'm wrong, in which case there will be references in the historical record to people buying into racial identity rather than say, tribalism, nationalism, religionism etc. Do you know of them?

I'm doing some basic research on the history of race and racism at the moment. Although I'm at an early stage however, it appears that race as we know it is a modern Western social construct dating to the 18th C. From Wiki article on Race_(human_categorization) "The modern concept of race emerged as a product of the colonial enterprises of European powers from the 16th to 18th centuries which identified race in terms of skin color and physical differences. This way of classification would have been confusing for people in the ancient world since they did not categorize each other in such a fashion. In particular, the epistemological moment where the modern concept of race was invented and rationalized lies somewhere between 1730 and 1790." So racism only exists in societies (and individuals) which believe in it. For early Islam and other early Medieval philosophies, race wasn't an issue, rather it was things like tribalism that were the problem. Uniting the pagan Arab tribes in the name of the new religion of Islam created an awesome imperialistic force which started conquering as far as they could. It reminds me of a related historical process when the competing and warring British 'tribes' (England, Scotland, Wales etc) came together in the name of the UK and stopped fighting each other, just in time to go out fighting in the rest of the world and create the British Empire. But it's not entirely successful, look at Afghanistan for example where tribal loyalties seem to rank higher than Islamic unity. Plus Islam is split between Sunni, Shia, etc.

+1 Peace comes from within, so can we find peace before answering this question? When we try to make the world a better place, without finding our inner peace, we end up making it worse.

Isn't he just advocating a Hindu version of totalitarianism, rather like Islamic Sharia law for his proposed new Kailasa country?

It looks like we have a different understanding of Tibet. My version is, that the Tibetan state is living in exile in northern India, while their country is occupied, colonised, and its mineral wealth taken by a foreign power, China. Maybe the Dalai Lama is interested now in economics, but he's not in charge of Tibet at the moment. Tibet used to have limited contact with the outside world until the 20th C, which limited its economic development but being essentially a Buddhist theocracy (so to speak) they valued different things anyway. They could sustain themselves at a basic living standard for most of the population, but lack of economic strength meant they didn't have a very effective military to withstand the Chinese invasion apart from the difficult terrain. Anyway, this issue isn't just about Tibet with it's own particular history, but about a broader question of rule by enlightened gurus. Does that mean we should do away with democracy and have some cabal decide who is enlightened enough to rule over us? Who chooses the people who decide who the next ruler will be? We would need enlightened people to choose an enlightened ruler. Sorry but I don't see how this would work.

They already tried that in Tibet, how's it working out?

No comment. I have nothing to say.

@Preety_India Yes, I guess it depends if you mean Bitcoin in particular or crypto currencies in general. I think bitcoin was the first one that came out, so there will probably be more advanced ones soon, if not already. Perhaps bitcoin is trading on (ie being speculated on) its reputation rather than its actual technical advantage these days.

@DocWatts I was reading up recently on India, and the British takeover of India (from the Mughal empire don't forget, who had their own history of imperialism) was softened up by some of the earliest multi-national companies, first the Dutch East India company, then the British East India company who ended up as a paramilitary organisation with their own army. The profit was the motive before the colonisation. And yes the divides like Hindus vs Muslims, made it easier too. @Hardkill Maybe because it used to be in the British Empire and adopted a lot of British legal system, education, administration etc (ok maybe the railways need updating a bit now) so was put into a democracy when we left. China's never been a democracy and Russia only since 1989.

@DocWatts yes, I'd say SD orange in it's current form is becoming unsustainable. After only a couple of hundred years (a mere speck in the total history of humanity) the environmental impact and demographic trends make it clear to me that orange is already at or near its peak. Re the multinationals; we've had freedom of information for the public sector for decades now, how about extending that to large public companies? I guess the problem is, how to create a level playing field internationally. Govts will want to give competitive advantage to "their people".

@DocWatts Thanks for the reply. I can see how global corporations try to operate independently of national govt where they can, play them off against each other (eg shopping around for tax havens), and exploit weak and corrupt countries. What can be done about it, other than have strong, and to some extent authoritarian govt? Strong govt is ok for us ordinary folks as long as it remains democratic and uncorrupt. But there seems to be an implication that it's those same strong, democratic and (relatively) uncorrupt countries which, through their freedoms, generate these global corporations, that go on to cause the problems elsewhere. Looks like a catch-22 and a difficult issue to solve.

@Yoremo Try that for a while and notice how it feels. Then try a gentler approach and notice the difference. This way you can gain insights into your mind. For example, when I moved from a wilful attention to a relaxed awareness, I found the process became almost instantly effortless. I don't need to concentrate on the breath, awareness of breath is already present when I'm awake, but layered over with other sensations and thoughts. So it's a case of relaxing and letting go of all except the breath. Rather than holding on to the breath and getting into a struggle. But that's just me. By the way, I'm also reading TMI and it gives a great general introduction of theory and practice. It's on a free download too if you're short of cash.

The narrative I heard about this is that it was Russian oligarchs who bought up the state assets at cheap prices, under the govt of the ineffective alcoholic Boris Yeltsin who didn't stop it. Vladimir Putin later came along as a strong leader to bring the oligarchs under control, although he effectively became a govt oligarch himself. So what I don't understand is what involvement you're saying the Western govts & corporations had?

@Blackhawk "I don't want friends, " "Your love isn't worth anything until you actually fucking talk with me in private. These public forum replies aren't worth a rat's ass." Is this literally, or just venting? It's beginning to look like all you really want is PMs with women No judgement, I'm just deciding whether to 'butt out' of your threads. Take care and good luck anyway.

But dude you already told us a perfectly good solution to your problem yourself: Try doubting your beliefs, they're not showing you a way forward out of this hell. Throw them away and return to not knowing why you are unhappy. Go back to basics and work it all out from square one again. Get a second opinion from your doctor. Start to trust other good people. Re-read all the threads you've started in the last few years from a point of view of not already knowing or pre-judging. Man, you obviously can't deal with this all by yourself. Get whatever help is going.

"Don't trouble trouble till trouble troubles you" (Yorkshire saying)

It's a good place to start. I try and return to not-knowing every so often so I don't get stuck in a rut

I guess your mind's made up and the suffering you're going through isn't making you question your mindset. But I've been thinking about your quote above. Looks like you're a materialist right? Well we know that materialism isn't popular in this forum, however I'm also going to dissent. I think as partial truths go, it's got a lot going for it. If your mind with all its problems is basically emergent from a physical structure, made up of billions of neural networks, why isn't it possible to rewire those pathways and create a better experience? Sure it's a lot harder with us adults than with babies and young children, (which is what therapy for kids is all about), but I believe with work and time some progress is possible. Our brains still have some neuro-plasticity which can be manipulated and new neural pathways created which 'feel better' than the old pathways. Maybe also to behave differently in social situations. Maybe this is what's going on with all the intense spiritual practice, and why it takes years or decades to become liberated, and why some folks reckon that psychedelics (chemicals) provide a short cut. Just some thoughts for consideration, not saying what you should do.