> some interpretation of the Vedic texts, which doesn't actually entail all that much
If you studied the Vedas you would know why this issue exists in the first place. The Vedas talk of One Supreme Brahman who should be given Havis during a Yajna. The dispute between the sects is on who the Supreme Brahman is identified as. Every name in the Vedas is but a name of the Supreme. Vyasa composed the Brahma Sutras to unravel it. But then, as is the case with Dharmics, we have around 30+ commentaries on the Brahma Sutras itself. This, coupled with commentaries on Prasthanatrayi as well as interpretation of Puranas created sects.
All of them come within the umbrella term of Hinduism as all of it is Dharmic and native to the Indian subcontinent.
> Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.
Except for it's never done. No Hindu believes Allah or Jesus is an Avatar of Vishnu.
It can't be. Vishnu literally means the "All-Pervading One". Allah is explicitly not Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent but does not have infinite forms. So neither fit the bill. Even Buddha, who we Hindus associate as one of the Avatars of Vishnu is not the same Buddha as Gautama Buddha who founded Buddhism.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to argue the first point but that's too reductive of a view of Christianity and Islam.
There's a rich history of panentheism in both. Ibn Arabi, probably the most famous Sufi scholar was known for defending it ("[God] sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man"), Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics held similar views etc. Of course that often got them into hot waters with Orthodoxy but it certainly existed and continues to exist.
A lot of these traditions are much more flexible than whatever is the dogma or institutional version of the time suggests. David Bentley Hart's writing on Vedantic traditions and Christianity is worth reading
Sufis were meant to propagate that Islam is syncretic to get people to convert wherever they went. Once Islam got a critical mass of converts (15-20%), Islamic invaders would have the necessary internal support to invade and destabilize the Kingdom.
This is literally how Islam got to places in Asia and spread. It was through Sufis who acted as initial points of contact.
> A lot of these traditions are much more flexible than whatever is the dogma or institutional version of the time suggests.
This is only so when it comes to missionaries in each religion. Be it Evangelists saying Vishnu is Avatar of Christ (we literally have Christ idols shaped like Vishnu with multiple arms and sitting on a lotus in a Church in India), Sufis singing Krishna is same as Allah or heck even ISKCON claiming Christ is an Avatar of Krishna /Vishnu. That does not make "traditions flexible". It's just a cheap tactic to increase followers/harvest souls. These converts are typically fluid in their own convictions and can easily be swayed one way or the other based on reasons unconnected to the Religion/Dogma/Philosophy itself. Reasons could range from political, monetary to finding fame/popularity within a new sect/group/cult/ideology.
>That does not make "traditions flexible". It's just a cheap tactic to increase followers/harvest souls.
That's not mutually exclusive. You're certainly right that religions spread this way, but it's also what they become. Christians today are Pauline Christians more than anything else. The abolition of circumcision and dietary restrictions, household code, 'render unto Caesear' etc were obviously tactics to convert Gentiles, but once you had all the gentiles, you had genuinely altered what the faith is. They never went back to the radicalism of Jesus.
Buddhism is also an interesting case. By the start of the 19th century there wasn't strong Buddhist practice in India. When it was rediscovered it was heavily shaped by China, Tibet and Japan and had done a round about turn.
Same with modern Evangelicalism and Catholicism. Very successfully spread through indigenous cultures in LatAm and Africa but now the influence goes the other way, with real impact on the churches, just look at the last two popes. I don't think this deserves to be categorized as cheap tactic, that's very much what religion is.
I distinctly remember an Indian man on a bus in Kerala striking up a conversation with me (random white obvious tourist) in which he proclaimed both that he considered Jesus his Lord and Saviour and that he considered him to be an avatar of Vishnu. Not an explanation I'd asked him for, but certainly made a change from the standard bus conversation about where I was from and was I married yet and what salary...
I'm sure you are right that many/most Hindus would consider this incompatible with their belief system (and even more sure your average Christian would think he was missing the point of accepting Jesus as his Lord and Saviour), but this sort of syncretism definitely has been attempted and found its converts, probably rather more of them than Akbar's attempts to combine Islam and Hinduism.
I actually took a whole class in college on syncretic Christianity, and we had a unit on Goa, and there are Catholic shrines in Goa that are also frequented by Hindus, and you can find people there who identify as Christian but say that Vishnu is their favorite saint, and people who identify as Hindu who say that Jesus is their favorite god.
For central authorities of the Catholic Church, and Hindu theologians, this is all heretical, but the Catholic Church allowed for flexibility around traditions as it expanded. One big example is that many of what are considered Christmas traditions in northern Europe (the Christmas tree being an especially prominent one) are hangovers from traditions that predate Christianity.
Still a failure because it is propped up by an inflated US dollar. Those trillions would mean nothing when the US economy collapses due to a cumulative effect of massive national debt, unending wars and inflation.
At least if you have the population by your side, you wouldn't have "guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to" [1]
They are all willing to risk everything to see if their bet on achieving "singularity" fructifies. I don't see us getting anywhere close (at least with the current tech).
Cannot take profits of these companies seriously when they have been laying off employees by the droves the past couple of years. Obviously profits will increase when workforce expenses have reduced. I'll only take it seriously after a couple more years and see how the company has held up with massively reduced workforce (powered by AI™). Another point would be to see how these incumbents get challenged by new startups and if incumbents can survive this phase.
Don't you think those companies are mostly correcting for their massive covid overhiring + zero rate bonanza coming to its end?
Also, back when elon had bought twitter and had been firing people left and right, it was prophesied that with such inept management the company was going to collapse very soon. I thought it was obvious it would collapse. But that has not happened (yet, but it's been quite some years), and the service seems to be holding up after some initial shakiness.
I would partly agree with you in so far as Twitter not collapsing and working well. I'll go so far as to say it was the right move by Elon to downsize the company as you really don't need so many people to run a social media site. However, I don't think Twitter can be compared to the scale at which Alphabet/Amazon operate. Alphabet/Amazon run hundreds of businesses (on the scale of X) within their parent umbrella organization. So even if one collapses it won't affect the other as much as it should. But since they are removing workforce by the thousands, I am wondering how much of it will have an impact on their bottomline in the coming years. I mean... they will be under pressure by their own stakeholders to put their money where their mouth is and remove workforce if AI has reached levels where workforce can be replaced. If they don't do it then they are tacitly admitting that we haven't reached that technical breakthrough needed. The only way forward for these companies is to make it happen one way or the other. They are heavily invested in it and cannot back out now.
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't?
If you want the honest, brutal take it is because I remember, at least in my country, that for the ozone stuff there was a lot of scientific people taking lead roles in educating the masses. Especially those with credibility who were otherwise not media savvy.
Climate change on the other hand, whenever I think about the words, I can only get Greta Thunberg and her antics in my mind. Even for someone who believes in climate change I can't help but feel these crazed lunatics have only caused massive damage to what should have otherwise been a wake up call. It is like how COVID got associated with Fauci and Gain-of-function.
> is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them?
Ofcourse it was politicized. It became a party vs party, an ideology vs ideology thing. Science took a backseat.
This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one. Greta Thunberg and her "crazed lunatics" have caused massive damage? By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change?
That is demonstrably false. Greta Thunberg only became famous in 2018. The world before 2018 was that world without "crazed lunatics", and things weren't any better than. Greta Thunberg got frustrated precisely because after all this time practically nothing was being done.
Also, exactly why do you call Greta a crazed lunatic? What has she done to deserve such a negative designation? What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
> Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
Funny how this same media brought Greta to limelight. If you want to kill the messenger at least realize that it is the one that gave Greta her popularity (for better or worse).
> What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year. The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously. Instead it turned into a big joke.
> By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change?
Ofcourse there would have been. The World took scientists seriously when it came to ozone. It did take scientists seriously when it came to COVID even (though Fauci and co caused a lot of damage by becoming a political hack causing polarization when it should not have been). There was absolutely no reason to assume people would not have taken climate change seriously if it was presented in the right manner.
> This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one
The very fact you are seeing it often recently should tell you that a lot of people feel that way. Irrespective of which side of the divide you are on, the messaging is lost if an issue as critical as climate change is hijacked by a bunch of teens who are not taken seriously by those in power. If you ask me, the politicians and media were more than happy to let Greta be the face of the movement. Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
In all the decades before Greta Thunberg, all the scientists who warned the world about climate change were largely ignored. Almost nothing happened to fight climate change. Greta has been in the spotlights for less than a decade. And yet it's all her fault? That is completely preposterous.
> Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year.
Billions and billions of people did exactly that, and nothing happened.
> The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously.
When would they have been taken seriously? They have been warning the world since at least the 1980's. How long do we have to wait?
> Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
My opinion on climate change has not changed by the appearance of Greta Thunberg. It looks like you're the one who lets Greta's opinion and actions influence yours. Why do you let someone you seem dislike so much have that much power over you?
> Why do you let someone you seem dislike so much have that much power over you?
I don't dislike her. I am talking about her antics doing a disservice to something as serious as climate change. To the point where there is at least 50% of the World not believing in climate change and associating it with Greta and her antics. (also, when I say Greta I mean all the crazy lunatics like her... which includes fools gluing themselves to the streets, blocking roads used by common folk and splashing oil on paintings).
> When would they have been taken seriously? They have been warning the world since at least the 1980's. How long do we have to wait?
It was not pushed with same urgency as that of Ozone by the media. What was needed was putting a sense of urgency into the public through media without making it into a clown show.
> Billions and billions of people did exactly that, and nothing happened.
I am saying she should not have been the face of the movement. And yes she is one of billions and she should have stayed that way. Maybe excelled in some field that actually suits her. Instead of becoming a prop for politicians and media who love to have her face plastered everywhere as a caricature of climate change activists.
> In all the decades before Greta Thunberg, all the scientists who warned the world about climate change were largely ignored. Almost nothing happened to fight climate change. Greta has been in the spotlights for less than a decade. And yet it's all her fault? That is completely preposterous.
The scientists were not ignored. Their messages never reached the masses as the media did not spread it with the same urgency that was Ozone or heck even COVID. You did not need someone like Greta to make people realize dangers of COVID right? Most countries followed lockdown procedures. It only became an issue once Fauci and co started becoming partisan. Initial weeks of COVID lockdowns (wherever it was implemented) were extremely successful. You just need the same sense of urgency for climate change and that can only happen through media and the right set of scientists. Take the Nepal disaster as an example of effects of climate change. How is the media portraying it? AS some natural disaster. Very few outlets are directly linking it to climate change.
> It looks like you're the one who lets Greta's opinion and actions influence yours.
My opinion on climate change is exactly that of Greta's. However, I know what I am. I am not a scientist. Much less a climate scientist. So I won't go on media claiming to be a representative of the movement and causing mayhem. I can at max educate the people around me to the dangers of climate change. But I won't make a fool of myself publicly by speaking on a topic that I have only cursory knowledge of.
> My opinion on climate change has not changed by the appearance of Greta Thunberg.
You are not the target audience. It is the remaining 50+% people who do not believe in climate change and think it is some grand conspiracy who need convincing. And they can never be convinced by a clown like Greta.
> The UK is still around and their empire fell a long time ago.
America is not an Empire. When America collapses it will definitely lead to societal collapse. The racial tensions are kept under control only because of the mirage of prosperity and equal opportunity. And when the mirage clears it will turn real ugly really fast.
> hopefully mitigate further damage with a blue wave in the midterms. Or with non-MAGA republicans who might even return to actual fiscal conservatism.
I don't think it is possible to fix this as it is a systemic issue. Irrespective of whether the next President is from D or R. All of the elite at the top know that it is a sinking ship, primarily due to the insane debt that has accumulated. There is absolutely no way to clear it the way it is going. Once AI bubble pops that is when downfall accelerates.
American imperialism is well documented. We have military outposts all over the world. Puerto Rico is still in essence a colony.
> When America collapses it will definitely lead to societal collapse. The racial tensions are kept under control only because of the mirage of prosperity and equal opportunity. And when the mirage clears it will turn real ugly really fast.
You say that like you want it to happen. Continuing to harp on that future is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you want a better America first you have to envision it instead of tearing it down.
It has already started [1]. It has increased 100% since 2015. Just in the past decade alone. This is only reported hate crimes.
> If you want a better America first you have to envision it instead of tearing it down.
That ship has sailed long ago.
> American imperialism is well documented. We have military outposts all over the world. Puerto Rico is still in essence a colony.
Still not an Empire. You can call it an outward expansion or projection of power but not direct control. An Empire has direct control over colonies that send back tributes which run the Kingdom and give its residents prosperity, at the expense of residents of colonies who are taxed and deprived of their wealth. The tributes outweigh whatever growth is happening within the Kingdom itself. Puerto Rico or any of the military outposts are not equivalent. Puerto Rico does not run USA. USA losing Puerto Rico will not do anything to its economic or military power.
It has already lost. America lost in Vietnam. Lost in Afghanistan. Turned Middle East into a humongous mess. Now losing badly in Iran. The only "wins" it had were against Countries where odds were already heavily in its favor (in other words invading tiny countries that did not have the technological wherewithal or the will necessary to fight back).
> 10y later they're richer than ever
The rich are richer than ever yes. Ask any common American citizen and he/she will come chasing after you for saying this.
> its companies have global dominance of the most world-changing technology of the last 20y. I just don't think "the collapse" is coming anytime soon.
That dominance is fast eroding. America itself has ended globalization. It is retreating from many crucial positions: like when it comes to cross-border payments, protecting freedom of navigation in high seas, deals that it had previously negotiated with all countries of the World, unable to protect allies in the Middle East and even in South East Asia, not delivering on defense commitments with partner nations... the list goes on and on.
> If anyone's interested in a friendly wager, my email is open. I'll happily go 1:1 odds that America will have a new president come 2029 and the country will still remain the world's richest and most powerful.
None of us believe America will collapse by 2029 and that there wouldn't be another President (unless Trump is really stupid enough to go down that route which I don't think he will). But by 2045? Yeah absolutely is possible.
I don't like China for how it is behaving with my country but it is rich to talk about "invasions" when all the invading in the past half a century has been done by a Sole Democratic Superpower and its lackeys. Cannot believe I am having to defend China here but here we are!
> some interpretation of the Vedic texts, which doesn't actually entail all that much
If you studied the Vedas you would know why this issue exists in the first place. The Vedas talk of One Supreme Brahman who should be given Havis during a Yajna. The dispute between the sects is on who the Supreme Brahman is identified as. Every name in the Vedas is but a name of the Supreme. Vyasa composed the Brahma Sutras to unravel it. But then, as is the case with Dharmics, we have around 30+ commentaries on the Brahma Sutras itself. This, coupled with commentaries on Prasthanatrayi as well as interpretation of Puranas created sects.
All of them come within the umbrella term of Hinduism as all of it is Dharmic and native to the Indian subcontinent.
reply