I do love the pseudo-science in this thread.
We have recently been invaded by many new members who are interestingly posting in only these threads and being difficult, anti-rational and antagonistic - want a wager they are aliases of members too scared to post with their normal handles? 
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;59578]We have recently been invaded by many new members who are interestingly posting in only these threads and being difficult, anti-rational and antagonistic - want a wager they are aliases of members too scared to post with their normal handles? ;)[/QUOTE]
Suspicion has also crossed my mind, now more than ever, I have one handle it?s all the confusion I can handle.
“The world of mind is not a physical reality. It is imaginary. It has no position in space or in time.”
The world of mind, or imagination is of use, and influences action upon physical manifestation. You are creating distinctions in the mind between what appears to be absolutely real or unreal, currently affecting each of your actions. There is no division, except in perception.
Your antagonistic attitude towards my seeming lack of intelligence is unhelpful.
“We have recently been invaded by many new members who are interestingly posting in only these threads and being difficult, anti-rational and antagonistic - want a wager they are aliases of members too scared to post with their normal handles?”
If you are not possessed by fear of your own, you will disregard what is not useful and remain uncompelled to respond.
“(Yoga, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen)…it is passed down from those before us so we may have better ability to make wise choices, practice, test and see what brings us closer to self-awareness…”
The seeds for understanding are ever-present and available.
[QUOTE=JenniLeigh;59623]"(Yoga, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen)…it is passed down from those before us so we may have better ability to make wise choices, practice, test and see what brings us closer to self-awareness…"
The seeds for understanding are ever-present and available.[/QUOTE]
Yes but with limited time, this life, is it not wise to mull over a few experiences from others?
It is, but since time is limited, acting upon a desire for potential future contentment is afforded when one is capable of seeing clearly in the present moment. If this has not happened, action is impeded in certain ways.
Then I’m surprised you did not repsond this comment from another thread you were involved:
Reading the many AmirMourad-Surya Deva threads provokes much self questioning however, if progressive stages of self-awareness are more about empting one’s mind of conceptual nonsense is it not counterproductive to fill ones head with intellectual scrutiny. Although practice seems most productive the gaps between practices do allow importance of this existence to be viewed more clearly.
I noticed it.
[QUOTE=JenniLeigh;59619]“The world of mind is not a physical reality. It is imaginary. It has no position in space or in time.”
The world of mind, or imagination is of use, and influences action upon physical manifestation. You are creating distinctions in the mind between what appears to be absolutely real or unreal, currently affecting each of your actions. There is no division, except in perception.
Your antagonistic attitude towards my seeming lack of intelligence is unhelpful.[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I am talking about the perception of our physical world of time and space where indeed there are physical constants like the speed of light.
Imagination and mind are different things. I apologise, even I conflated them earlier. Imagination is what Patanjali calls vikalpa(word knowledge) where we create new entites based on conjugations of words which are not necessarily existent - like a hare with horns. On the other hand mind as referring to the manomaya kosha is indeed an existent reality.
Just as there are constants in the physical world which are not relative in the physical world, but only relative if you consider other levels of reality. Likewise, there is a constant for all levels of reality: absolute reality. Dharma is based upon that absolute reality.
Getting this discussion back on track which has been ongoing but in the wrong thread. Continue from here:
“No civilised person can be proud of the West”
If you are a civilised person you would condemn Western civilisation and recognise Western civilisation is the cause of the current state of the world. The West has been in the lead in this world for the last 200 years - and look at what we got: World wars, holocausts, cold war, gulf wars, mass murder of humans by their own governments, the destruction of ecosystems of the planet, the collapse of the institution of family, sex drugs and rockroll, teenage pregnacies, terrorism and WMD.
Which civilised person thinks this is ok?
Well, I have begun to ponder that perhaps there is no need for clashing civilizations. What has happened in the past does not have to interve in present.
If you are a civilised person you would condemn Western civilisation and recognise Western civilisation is the cause of the current state of the world. The West has been in the lead in this world for the last 200 years - and look at what we got: World wars, holocausts, cold war, gulf wars, mass murder of humans by their own governments, the destruction of ecosystems of the planet, the collapse of the institution of family, sex drugs and rockroll, teenage pregnacies, terrorism and WMD.
The question is are we civilized at all? According to Michio Kaku we are not. But first, pay attention to what he is saying here:
Well, I have begun to ponder that perhaps there is no need for clashing civilizations. What has happened in the past does not have to interve in present.
It does, especially when what has happened in the past is not being atoned for by the perpetrators.
History can only be forgotten and come to terms with when there is complete understanding, forgiveness, and remorse for what has happened. To say we should forget or disregard history at this point is like giving respect to a bigot. He/she most certainly does not need that respect and has done nothing to earn that respect.
Westerners still account for most of the hateful, ignorant, and supremacist people in the world.
We supposedly un-Christian and sub-human peoples are still being persecuted and discriminated by the Western world.
Our cultures are continually getting raped by missionary activity and Western intervention.
Our history is being denied and replaced by Eurocentric versions. This includes the rationalization, justification, and trivialization of Western colonialism/imperialism through Social Darwinist lenses.
To think that there won’t be a clash of civilizations is akin to saying that black people won’t fight back after their humanity has literally been demonized for centuries.
Namaste,
I am responding to Q’s posts in the third person because I want to involve the objective readers on this forum by presenting my arguments to them. Thus I am making my case to an audience for their consideration.
I’m not a white supremacist when I explain how and why a wrong-doer comes to their wrong-doings. I only fail to have black-and-white-worldview where I declare some people holy, some demonic.
The question has to be asked why is Q spending so much time and energy on defending wrong-doers like rapists, murderers, looters, Nazis? While, civilised people do not hestitate from condemning them, Q is on the other hand defending them so passionately and vehemently as if they are his family(Indeed, civilised people would not even defend bad family members)
His argument is that wrong doers are just products of their circumstances. Even if this was completely true, does this mean we excuse what Hitler and Nazis did? Shall we excuse Mao? Shall we not condemn what European colonialists did to the Indians, Native Americans, Chinese, Aborigines, Africans?
What kind of society would we live in if we did not condemn mass murderers, brutal dictators, looters, rapists? Is this the society Q wants us to live in?
But I don’t feel guilty for what my ancestors did. Why would I? I’m sorry for what they did, sure. But I didn’t do it, so where would guilt come from?
Q claims he feels sorry for what they did, then why does he say it so dimissively? If he was genuinely sorry for what they did would he say things like, “My dad kicked your dads ass, looted, raped and destroyed his country and now you need to catch up”? You would only say such stuff if you identified with them and clearly Q identifies with them. Otherwise he would not refer to them as “my dad” Then clearly if he identifies with then, he does indeed inherit the guilt.
My Western maths teacher did not inherit the guilt because she did not identify with her ancestors and condemned them. My friends, 90% of whom are Westerners, also do not inherit the guilt because they condemn what their ancestors did and certainly do not refer to them as “my dad”
And I feel not proud for what my ancestors did, neither the bad, nor the good things. I had explained that in detail to Nietzsche once, but I don’t have the time to search, you know, I can’t stand up to your guys slander-bombast. It’s overwhelming.
If Q is not proud of what his ancestord did why did he say, “My dad kicked your dads ass, looted, raped and destroyed his country and now you need to catch up”
Did “my dad” not kick your ass and looted, raped and destroyed your country? It’s a fact. And that I would be proud of that, is your invention. You just don’t like to deal with the question how it was possible, that your uber-superior strong-warrior-culture dad was not able to defend himself. It’s a valid question.
I said earlier to Q if he said this in the UK in public he would be prosecuted for hate crimes and definitely sacked from his job. If he went and said this to the black community he would be beaten up(badly) If he went and said this in China he would be imprisoned or maybe even executed. If he said this to a Jew he would be reported for antisemiticism.
Why? Because it clearly shows Q enjoys the fact that this happened to them, otherwise he would not say something like this. To say a historical fact that Britain invaded India and looted it, raped it destroyed it is valid. However to say it with the attitude, “My dad kicked your ass… and now you have to catch up to us” clearly conveys that Q is not apologetic whatsover about what his ancestors did to others, and even derives pleasure from it and uses it to undermine those people who suffered.
Q may not have raped anybody himself, but he supports rapists and and laughs at the plight of their victims - what does that make him? I will let the reader decide themselves.
The truth is that this is a bombast of slander.
The truth is we don’t need to slander Q. All we need to do is quote things he has said himself and that is enough to make him look bad to civilised people.
Sure, let good Western people of this form let themselves known. Let them discuss you Hindu nationalists ultra-aggressive superiority claims. Well, actually good Western people of this forum already did that. They all ended up being insulted, misrepresented and slandered by you and Nietzsche. And that is why noone is talking to you anymore. And now they see how far you go. How hysterical you are. You’re actually psychotic, Surya Asura, I personally am faszinated, plz, keep it coming. :lol:
According to Q all Hindus here are Hindu nationalists. However, a few have already told him they are not nationalists and do not identify with Hindu nationalism. I have already made it clear I do not agree with Hindu nationalism and I even started a thread a time ago entitled, “Hindutva” where I expressed my disagreements with Hindu nationalism. I have said repeatedly I am a humanist and globalist. Now, considering that Q constantly complains he is being misrepresented and slandered, how ironic is that he is calling Hindus here all “Hindu nationalists” when we have clearly stated we are not.
How ironic that he calls me a “damn racist” when I have repeatedly condemned racism, revealed most of my friends and partners have been of other races. I have fought with Neitzche in the past for branding all Western people as supremist and I have clearly spoken highly of many Western people.
Is it not clear then that Q is actually slandering us rather than the other way around?
I wouldn’t say they had to rape, you only include that to make it sound more awful. And even attacking another tribe and kill their people and steal from them is of course aweful. Yet do I indeed think this is the explanation for why a culture can become militant and aggressive.
You call that an “apparent absurdity”. Then why does a culture become militant and aggressive? For what reason if it’s not the circumstances? Because they are like predators? In their genes? And that is how and why not racism?
Ones free choice and will. More later.
See. You’re the damn racist. You declare an explanation for wrong-doings absurd and fail to present an alternative. What could the alternative be, if it’s not circumstances? It could only be the nature of the wrong-doers. You call them “Asura”. I call that: Damn racism.
Ones free choice and will. More later.
Any “good” person can ask themselves what they would do if they were in a position like that: Steal from others or have themselves and their loved ones die? Stealing, then, unfortunately mostly has to come with killing, because those who are rich mostly don’t want to share their wealth.
A good person would no longer be good if they stole and killed innocent people just as a king would no longer be a king if they did not have the throne. As soon as one start stealing, murdering, raping one cease being good.
Does Q think you can be good and a rapist, murderer and thief at the same time? Again, who would want to live in Q’s world where rapists, murderers and thieves are considered to be innocent victims of their circumstances and we should not condemn them? Would Q himself be speaking up in defense of somebody who has raped and then murdererd his spouse, put the clip on youtube and bragged about it?
Are we there yet…?
Are we there yet…?
yawn Is there a point to your bombast somewhere…?
Yeah, exactly? How can we say that? How can we decide wether the rabbit or the tiger, the apple or the peach is superior?
But dude, that is quantity. One thingy has more. So you say it’s superior. I said that before.
I think Q is allergic to being educated. When somebody with a degree in history attempts to teach him history he says “boring” When somebody with a degree in philosophy teaches him philosophy he says “boring” Is it right to call such a person who willfully would like to remain ignorant and not make any attempt to understand what another is saying, an ignoramus?
The reason I bought up the philosophy of Lockes representationism of primary and secondary qualities was to first show the origins of the ideas of quantity and quality dichotomy so we can understand how these ideas came into being. Secondly, to show that these ideas are just that - ideas. Kant later demonstrated that Locke’s representionism was wrong: there is no such thing as primary and secondary quality distinction - they were all sensory qualia created by the mind. One is not more real than the other. Nothing one sees is real, but a representation by the mind.
There is no inner and outer and no quantity and quality distinction. These are nothing more than conventions of language. Just as one can study physical matter, one can study mind(psychology and phenomenology) one can study society(sociology) One can study imagination(art) one can study numbers(mathematics) one can study language(linguistics) Now, depending on the context we can say what is greater and what is lesser.
Anybody knows that happiness/love/peace and wisdom are superior to misery/hate/discontent and ignorance. Simply because the latter are actually defined in terms of the absence of the former - just as darkness is the absence of light. Therefore we can say that one who has happiness/love/peace and wisdom is greater than one who has who misery/hate/discontent and ignorance.
Indeed isn’t clinical psychology all about bringing one out of a state of misery/hate/discontent and ignorance? Why? Well, because nobody wants to be miserable, full of hate, discontent and ignorant. Not even Q.
The truth is the kind of moral relativism Q is advocating here is inconsistent. No relativist can remain consistent. Like I said if somebody raped and murdererd Q’s spouse and then put a video on youtube bragging about it, the last thing Q would be doing is defending the rapist and their actions as being products of circumstances and their behaviour as just relative. A relativist is a walking contradiction.
Q is rather just hiding the savagary his ancestors did by giving insincere arguments of moral relatativism. He says nobody is superior or inferior and yet at the same time says, “my dad kicked your dads ass” it is clear Q reeks of white superiority attitudes. There is no relativism here. He genuinely believes white civilisation is the culmination of evolution and thus he believes they are naturally superior.
No, it doesn’t. And if you say really a lot, write a long essay of bla bla bla to point out the superiority of India’s systems and so forth, you come to the same result. It’s a matter of quantity. And if you have culture which has “high love” and compare that to one which has “high hate”, then it’s about quantity. And you still have to wonder how it came that one culture has “high love”, but the other “high hate”. I can tell you: It’s the circumstances. One culture has the easy going life in some friendly valley and the other lives a hard life in a mean winter.
Note I had said to Q that it goes without saying that a culture high in love, peace, wisdom is greater than a culture high in hate, war and ignorance. How could any civilised person argue against this and why? Does Q really think a culture high in hate, war and ignorance is the equivalent of a culture that is peaceful, loving and wise? If so, what kind of person is he? I will let the reader decide.
Again Q is trying to hide behind moral relativism when he has made it clear it on several occasions he thinks a culture high in peace, wisdom and love is inferior to a culture that is high in hate, war and ignorance, because the culture high in hate, war and ignorance can beat down the other, steal their philosophies and wealth and better themselves. He has clearly shown he has no sympathy for victims and has spoken of them as “pathetic” Therefore clearly he is not relativististic on this matter.
See, here you go with racism again. Who doubts “that a culture which has high love, bliss, compassion and peace is superior to one has that has high hate, pain, violence, greed, lust and anger” is of a “low evolutrionary development”.
Is it not based on scientific fact that from the evolution of single celled organisms to humans there has been an increase in consciousness? Insects are less conscious than a bird which is conscious than a dog which is less conscious than a human being. Amongst human beings you have neaderthals who are less conscious than Plato. In other words we can see evolution tends towards greater and greater consciousness.
It is a fact that people who regularly practice consciousness increasing practices like yoga develop naturally peace, compassion and equanmity. Simply, because the more conscious you are the more you tend towards these positive states of being.
A neaderthal is less conscious and full of violence, discontent, anxiety, fear, misery, anger. They have no control over their senses and this leads them to do barbaric actions. On the other hand, a sage has control over their senses and this leads them to do do virtuous actions.
We all must ask ourselves why does Q need to be told this? These are natural intuitions humans have. Nobody needs an explanation for why rape, murder, theft are bad. Nobody considers them the equivalent of compassion, love, wisdom. Even Q does not. Like I said where would his relativism go if somebody raped and murdered his spouse and put the clip up on youtube to bragg about it? If I invaded his home and started taking his stuff and said “I am taking this for my betterment” would he say, “Yes, you’re right sir, take my stuff”?
Again Q is not a relativist. He is simply hiding his real white superiority views behind relativism. He reeks of it.
Easy: Your assumption that the environment of the West would be good, is wrong. It’s not good. It’s superficial, people have too much time to think and find out how pointless their life often is, how they are taken advantage of, people are greedy because every day the advertising shows them bling bling, people have the opportunity to get filthy rich, so they take advantage of those people, war in Iraq and Afghanistan is waged cuz there is oil, and so forth.
Q said circumstances lead to ones behaviours. He expects us to overlook the great contributions the Indian people made just because they had good resources and and land. But why is it that now the West has good land and resources - it still is involved in non-stop war and barbarism. This proves that it is not that India had a good resources and land itself which lead to India developing a virtuous culture of sages - and it is not because of bad resources and land that the West developed a barbaric culture of criminals.
This is not to deny that the environment does not play a role, but to say it is an absolute determinant is obviously false. If we go by Q’s logic than the West should be the bastion of virtue today for it has been richest region on this planet for 200 years and everybody there should be a philosopher and a sage. In fact the opposite is true. Obviously environment and physical circumstances alone do not decide your consciousness.
I’m not saying that poverty leads to bad behaviour, I say that it can lead to bad behaviour. I wouldn’t know that Jesus was ever in a position where he had to decided between having his children die or steal from someone else.
Q has been saying from the start that India only developed a peaceful, rich and philosophical culture just because it had good land and resources. He has blatantly said criminals are the product of circumstances. Then why is he now backtracking on what he saying when I gave examples that people even in extreme poverty can end up being virtuous? Clearly I have disproven his argument that circumstances alone determine ones consciousness and actions.
In my world there is no justification for murdering, raping and looting the innocent, irrespective of what your circumstances are. I don’t care if Hitlers uncle molested him and some jews at school bullied him, what he did later was all his own free choice and he choose to commit mass murder. A crime is a crime and deserves condemnation and punishment.
Is it not ironic that apparently I am the “damn racist, psychotic, evil” person here and I am the one actually condemning murder, rape and looting and Q is defending it. I will let the reader decide who is the civilised one amongst us.
The Nazis did not rise to power by announcing they’d gas the Jews and indeed did not all Germans support the Nazis, mostly intellectuals did not see their “vision” as agreeable. But a majority did, the mainstream. And that was enough, and the mainstream supported the Nazis because Germans were poor and living miserable lifes.
In other words not all Germans despite living through the same circumstances of poverty as Q claims turned to murdering jews. In other words Q contradicts his own argument that only circumstances decide things. Clearly, one can have the same circumstances, but make different decisions based on their free choice.
What else would’ve been the reason? Why did the Nazis rise to power? Explain.
If Q drops this ridiculous view that only circumstances decide consciousness and actions then I am sure the resident historians on this forum can explain to Q why the Nazis rose to power, what were the ideologies, philosophies that contributed to this etc. Historians do not just look et economic factors, they look at them all. If poverty lead to holocausts all the time, then all poor countries in the world should have holocausts.
Historians are not narrow minded like Q.
And then some Germans helped the Jews out of compassion, once they saw their suffering. It’s something very different to get to hate people when they are depicted as being parasites to the nation, living wealthy in big houses, eating good, dressing fine and then seeing people fearing for their life and that of their children.
In other words Q admits that despite the circumstances some German people did indeed make a choice to help the Jews. Therefore, again showing that it is not just circumstances, but one has the capacity to make free choices.
If somebody rapes somebody the cause is not because of their circumstances, the cause is their own free choice to rape another person. A rapist cannot say, “circumstances made me do it” We have the ability to make free choices, to consider and reflect. If after that process we choose to rape somebody it is nobody elses responsibility, but our own. We are accountable for it - not society - not the environment - not our culture. Somebody can only be driven to an action like rape if they were a savage. A civilised person does not rape another person.
No? Then what leads to it?
And what leads to the quality of consciousness?
And why does it have a low spiritual development?
There goes your damn racism again.
It has low spiritual development because it is has a bad culture. Why does it have a bad culture because the founders of Western civilisation chose to be bad. They chose power and control over equality and co-existence; intolerance over tolerance; war over peace; technology over philosophy; matter over consciousness. Q will ask why did they make that choice? There is no why, because this choice has been made out of free choice. There is no why behind free choice.
On the other hand, we Hindus were fortunate that our founders were sages who chose to be good. We developed a Deva culture because our founders were Devas.
What leads to wrong or right doings are circumstances. It’s crystal clear. It counts for you too. What leads you to your behaviour are circumstances, it’s not your own decision. You did not decide to be a bitch now.
Q says that circumstances lead to all actions/behaviours. Right now circumstances are leading to my “bitch actions” What circumstances? I am relatively well off, have food, water, shelter that more than meets my needs. I have many good friends who I go out with regularly. I am well educated.
So what kind of circumstances lead to “bitch” actions? Can Q actually identify what these circumstances are? Clearly Q cannot find such circumstances where contradictions cannot be proven. So Germany was poor and that is why it became Nazi and killed of the jews - in that case every poor country should have holocaust like events. If Germans were so poor and miserable, then why did some Germans not go along with what the Nazis were doing?
Easy to answer: Free choice. Many germans chose to go along with their barbaric culture because they themselves were barbaric - and some who were not barbaric and more developed humans chose not to go with it. Virtue does not depend on circumstances. Virtue is something naturally present in more evolved humans.
You’re forced to. I do agree that intense reflection can help, a spiritual practice can indeed help, introspection, meditation, self-control. This is true. But you are a “great” example for how difficult that is even for one who is an expert on the theory of such practices. You know all about Yoga and the methods, yet you’re controlled by your lowest senses and instincts and most basic emotions of hatred and anger. Your ego is you master. Now think of a culture who has no time to read books on Yoga, no time to practice any techniques, not to mention one that does not even have access to such techniques, because it never had the time to develop them. How can you expect of such people to control themselves better than a spoiled bitch like yourself? It’s not possible.
I am not a pracitioner of Yoga yet. I have mastered the theory and my expertise only extends that far. I do things wholeheartedly and not half heartedly and then I do very well. I stopped doing the little bit of Yoga I was doing because I could not commit to it - but now I am ready to commit to it and I am doing it authentically finding a guru and starting a practice in an ashram for hours a day. I will do very well in it.
Q clearly does not do Yoga authentically. He himself says he considers it nothing more than gymnastics. If he did it authentically he would not be the savage that he is. I do not want to fall in the same trap by doing a half hearted practice. When I start it, every bit of my heart, mind and soul will go into it. The tapas I have will definitely bear fruit. I am doing this not just for myself, but for others. My vision is usher in the Vedic religion back to this planet. I want our future humanity to live in a world of peace, love and harmony - and not the world that Q wants us to live in where criminals are the equivalents of sages.
I am sorry but I must say it: What a sorry excuse for a human.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;61063]Well, I have begun to ponder that perhaps there is no need for clashing civilizations. What has happened in the past does not have to interve in present.
The question is are we civilized at all? According to Michio Kaku we are not. But first, pay attention to what he is saying here:
http://youtu.be/7lP9eTSVWlM[/QUOTE]
What Michio Kaku is saying here is speaking of civilisation only in terms of technology. In the same conference Stanton Friedman says this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5lbD6EKEOo&feature=related
He says it appears we have only got better in killing people. Kaku’s type 1, type 2, type 3 civilisation could also kill people - only a higher type would be able to kill a lot more people. A type 1 could kill of a planet; a type 2 could kill of a solar system and a type 3 could kill of a galaxy. The quality of consciousness remains the same; it is not that far from an animal.
We must also consider spiritual type. A type 1 civilisation would have basic control over their senses. They would all be very intelligent and calm and would be able to live on very little food and sleep. A type 2 civilisation would have control over their mind they would be telepathic and psychic, remember their past lives, leave and re-enter their body at will. A type 3 civilisation would have control over matter. They would be telekinetic, they would fly, teleport, transform their size, materialise objects, walk-in to other dimensions - they would seem like gods to us literally.
The true measure of civilisation is of course your spiritual development and not how many people you can kill. When your spiritual development matches your technological development you develop healthily. There will be civilisations out there who are type 1, 2 and 3 technologically and are type 0 spiritually; there will be civilisations which are type 1 technologically but type 3 spiritually. And there will be civilisations out there which are type 3 technologically and type 3 spiritually.
We are a civilisation who will be type 1 technologically by the next century but type 0 spiritually. In other words this means we will be able kill each other on a bigger scale than before. We need to match our type 1 technology with at least a type 1 spirituality - and this is where the Vedic religion comes in.
Granted. Clearly we need to evolve to become more aware of the self. Yet the problem is, our current science is getting its fuel from a very sharp opposition to religions - abrahamic religions, including dharmic beliefs. Physicists alike Hawking do not want slowdown; they get billions of dollars of research grants so that they could crack on their discoveries; they are tied to deadlines, thusly, they don’t give a damn to spirituality. Similar thing applies to the entire Western society’s work setup.
Western society - chaired by America - is a culture of deadlines. Fast-paced, unattentive, and irresponsible, yet organized, bearing a get-the-job-done mentality. As a result, they’ve become very good at producing technology. Now, we realize that this is the wrong way of doing things. It creates distress everywhere around the world. That’s why there is terrorism, famine, and unemployment, population increase and so on. However, how could one person or a group change the fabric of this design? Nobody in the West would accept this. For them development is unstoppable, and if you say otherwise, hell they will be your enemy at that instant.
So we are moving toward Type 1. But gonna remain spiritually illiterate. Unfortunately most people don’t give a damn to spirituality, and the ones who give are often labelled as New Agers, magic thinkers. Perhaps the problem is, we don’t have a spirituality industry to equate the science industry - and the whole idea of spiritual industry is rather stupid, for most, unethical, since the very word “industry” elicits materialism.
You can’t stop the pace of Western culture alone. If you want to do so, you need to change the entire fabric of its education system, as well as reducing military means to provide more funding for state welfare. Yet who is gonna do that? America? UN? EU? Don’t tell me China!!? 
They are the whole damn supremist wannabees.
We ought to fall upon our own swords, that is.
Indeed, the momentum of technology cannot be stopped. Now that the infrastructure is in place and everybody has a taste for technology, the emergence of a type 1 technological civilisation by the end of the century is inevitable. However, what we need is to give this technology a spiritual vision. Currently, technology is on for its own sake, to produce greater and greater profit and greater weapons and machines. It does not cater to the real guy - the self within all of us. Rather it caters only to the body, to maximize its comforts and enjoyments. Hence the human has been defined as a body, as matter, as a machine.
This is why all technology we are developing is making us more and more mechanical.
In other words our technology is not really benefiting who we really are. That is we are spiritual beings incarnated temporarily in a human body for the purpose of spiritual development i.e., to become more and more conscious. All our time and energy is going on serving the temporal body, and we forget the enduring and eternal spiritual being within us. As a result we end up living long lives of 70+ years but never develop spiritually and our soul then leaves feeling completely unfulfilled, mired in even greater delusion.
Technology should be in service of our soul and not the other way around. If we gave technology a spiritual vision we can develop more cleaner, ethical and humane technologies that faciliate our spiritual growth. For example, developing zero point energy technologies will allow us to tap a free resource of energy minimizing if not eradicating our reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. This would create a classless society where everybody has abundance and nobody lives in poverty. We can develop technologies to control the weather and earthquakes to eradicate natural disasters on this planet, which are the cause of much suffering. We can create mind technologies to increase our intelligence, memory, learning, attention and creativity. We can create medical technologies to deal with disease at the level of consciousness to develop more advanced diagnostic systems and treatments.
We can have all of this if only we change our perspective from a material one to a spiritual one. Unfortunately, we are getting the complete opposite because of our material outlook. Rather than tapping the ZPE field, we are looking towards other fuel based technology like fuel cells, fusion reactors, anti-matter. This we are using in turn to develop more powerful weapons like fusion bombs and anti-matter bombs. Rather than controlling the weather for our betterment, we are polluting it and exploiting it, no doubt we will create weapons out of that too. Rather than creating mind expanding technologies we are creating mind numbing technologies like mobile phones, ipods, virtual reality, AI, facebook/twitter. Rather than creating preventative medical treatments, we are focussed on only creating more pharmeceuticals, engineering new diseases and viruses as weapons.
The world is wrong because our outlook is wrong. Therefore the need arises for a spiritual outlook and this means we must have spiritual religion in place - i.e., the Vedic religion. We must actively spread the Vedic religion on this planet. This is to done peacefully through campaigning, intellectual debates, research. It cannot be done by being relativist and politically correct. We need to adopt a strong and passionate position on supporting the Vedic religion and this inevitably involves taking a deconstructionist view against other religions. The Vedic religion must become the religion of the planet.
The clash of civilisation is inevitable. There are two civilisations competiting for the title of becoming the global civilisation of the emerging type 1 civilisation. Do we want a Western type 1 global civlisation(who in the right mind, would?) or do we want a Vedic type 1 global civilisation?
As you can see I have no interest in nationalism. I have not even mentioned India in my last two posts. I am looking at the world here, including India.
Do you not think it will all eventually play out? kind of in line with what Abraham Maslow studied:
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html
If worldwide basic needs are fulfilled, if technologies advance with renewable energies/food sources without an undesirable impact on the environment, profits adjust not concentrated on the few rather spread evenly. Instead of a clash it may be a hybrid of civilizations that will eventually allow adequate time and energy for the general population to contemplate spirituality on deeper levels. Or will greed continue to rule?