Your opinion: Does one's spirituality develop or change over time?
I Believe that we are constantly changing in our relationship to spiritual matters. Since spiritual enlightenment is WITHIN one's self, we are always changing in our understanding of who we are and how we relate to everything else. I see life as an ongoing process of removing barriers to unfold the truth which you already know. All perceptions, values, attitudes, and thoughts are changing as you rid yourself of the barriers which prevent you from being totally awake/enlightened. Conditions? I hardly know where to start. I have had some of my most profound and powerful insights when I was minding my own business and not thinking about spiritual matters at all. A growth oriented person will eventually ask certain questions about life, God, and man's nature: these questions are ALWAYS answered, but the timing can be strange and when you least expect an answer one may come to you. I believe that we will all experience a universal understanding of all the big questions, we will all end up in the same place, and enlightenment is guaranteed. We are not separate, we are ONE. BONUS: IF THERE IS A JUST AND LOVING GOD, THEN THE GIANTS WILL NOT BE CHAMPIONS AGIAN THIS YEAR. Just kidding, but I don't think they will go all the way.
What will happen if Kashmir becomes independent of India & Pakistan?
I'll try not to be biased towards Indian prospective. The answer depends upon how this independence is obtained! If the assumption is that all three powers - India, Pakistan and China mutually & peacefully agree to have an independent Kashmir, a firm border and any of these countries helping the development and upliftment- this may become a great country. But, let's face the real situation and not live in illusory world. I wish the world was so simple!Kashmir is located strategically between the three countries. India would like to keep Pakistan- China nexus difficult; Pakistan would need China connection both militarily and economically; while China has the habit of bullying neighbors besides trade interests to Pakistan and middle East. Hence, this region will be more volatile if left independent rather than being a part of a bigger nation.Assume an intrusion such as Kargil at the border by any of the three - can Kashmir alone defend itself? No! Further assume other of the three countries steps in to assist Kashmiris. History will repeat- either Kashmir of 1947-48 or Tibet of 50's or Afghanistan of 80's to till date. All will be a disaster for 'independent' Kashmir. Now, lets look at economic aspects. What is going to be the source of GDP of Kashmir? Tourism, Handicrafts, Wood, Fruits? I don't think all this will be competitive, and Tourism without infrastructure and peace won't make a Switzerland. We have had countries like Singapore or Taiwan or South Korea which went from rags to riches. And we also have countries like Afghanistan, Iraq or North Korea- which went the other way. It all depends upon the attitude of people on what the countries evolve into. Talking about Kashmiris, I have seen people letting the prospering tourism industry get down or religious cleansing or just focusing on all negative aspects and hatred rather than the positive aspects ( effort of rail network, PM celebrating Diwali in Kashmir)- bluntly saying, for them to be in the list of Singapore or Taiwan or South Korea is an uphill task going by these signs!And what is this stubbornness for freedom from India all about? I am sorry but Kashmir is the love of all Indians and not just Kashmiris. They will not like this love to ever part ways. I hope Indian Kashmiris understand soon that they are no different from any other Indian !
Why can't third world countries develop?
This is a very deep and broad question. It's the sort of thing many scholars have written many books and dissertations about. I will very briefly talk about two of the important aspects: governance and demographics. Most less developed countries have been kicked around by bigger countries in the past. This is especially true of former colonies that were robbed of their resources by imperial powers, and then abandoned. Situations like this give rise to political instability and massive corruption, and in a climate like that, progress is very difficult. Money that could be used for development is instead funnelled into the military and into the pockets of high ranking officials. Leaders in these situations are more concerned with keeping their power than about helping the people of their country.Second is the fact that these country can't keep up with population growth. In a completely undeveloped society with no technology whatsoever, death rates are very high; many infants die shortly after birth, and people generally die young from diseases, infections, accidents, etc. There is also a high birth rate because there are no contraceptives, and all the dying people have to be replaced. High births and high deaths means the population stays level.Once development begins, people die less. Medical advances allow lives to be saved, yet birth rates remain high. High births and lower deaths means that the population starts to grow. This is the trap that the developing world finds itself in. They are gaining people rapidly, yet they don't have money to accommodate them.In order to give people a place to live, there have to be plumbing lines, electric lines, roads, etc. just so that a house or apartment building can be built. Developing countries can't afford to build all of these things, so there aren't enough nice homes for everyone to live in. There are also not enough jobs for everyone. This worsens poverty, and promotes illegal activity. Also, gaining more people puts more strain on public services, so not everyone can get help from the government.The developing world is truly in a quagmire.
Does modernity necessarily lead to imperialism? If not, examples of nations?
In other words, are there examples of nations in history (beginning around the late 19th and 20th centuries, or even recently developed nations) who went through a prominent period of modernization - i.e. engaging in foreign trade,stable currency and economy, development of industry and technology, improved logistics, centralized govt, taxation, mass incorporation of the people into a self-recognized national unit through social institutions, etc - that did not engage in the act of moving into other countries and force their trade borders open with threat of war, ultimately establishing unequal treaties with these "inferior colonies"? Does modernization have to lead to imperialism? I have mixed opinions on this, and just wanted to know what all of you thought. In some cases, imperialism has been a byproduct of domestic pressure (Japan during the 1870s). But in other cases, esp with most of the western nations, imperialism seems to have been linked to economic opportunity and rivalry between nations. So again, I am mixed on whether imperialism is always the result of modernization. Looking for actual examples in history or currently in the world where this is not the case... not hypothetical examples. Thanks :)
SCIENTOLOGY? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH MONEY FOR IT!!?
Scientology is very much like multi-level marketing in that they have up-line associates (OT's) Operating Thetans who have different levels 1 thru 8 and they are much like upper echelon administrative directors of the down-line associates who perform menial tasks for free or next to nothing in wages, these OT's also keep (CoS) Church of Scientology big $$ accounts constantly paying for higher levels for hundreds of thousands of $$. Up-line are constantly searching for celebrities and Forbes-types to be recruited in order to make their so-called "religion" have some legitimacy. There is no real reason to charge such egregious fees only in order to supplement their relentlessly ravenous hunger for more properties, media & political power & control. This cult has done much harm to people simply searching for a positive world and end up being financially drained, dominated and controlled like a serf in the potato fields working tirelessly for a greedy landowner. .
Can there be morality without God? What would that even mean?
Let's do a thought experiment. If you can't engage in a bit of imagination, then I think you will never get an answer that you like.I am supposing that you consider yourself a moral person. You don't steal. You don't murder people. You don't vandalize. You probably would feel disgusted if you found a candybar that you forgot to pay for. (Perhaps put it in a coat pocket on the way to the cash register and paid for everything else but forgot about it.) You don't slam the door on little old ladies and you don't pull wings off of flies.If I got the above wrong, let us know.Now - supposing tomorrow, you found out, unequivocally, that there was no God. No supreme being. No nothing. Just the Universe - which somehow managed to exist without anyone making it.The force of the proof is such that you can't intellectually deny the truth: that there is no God. The thought experiment begins with the proposal that you have been shown and that you now believe that there is no God.So - do you now start pulling wings off of flies? Do you start vandalizing and making yourself into a pain-in-the-butt? Do you start engaging in ruining other people's relationships, maybe a little bit of murder on Tuesday nights instead of bowling?Your answer would be interesting to know.