It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This is all tangential. You asked about terrorism, and I replied that terrorism is a reaction to draconian policies. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. If certain countries start wars, is it really surprising that some people from those war-torn countries become militants? Or if a certain country oppresses a certain community, is it really shocking that some members of the oppressed community take up arms? Cause and effect.
I find Gandhi's example of peaceful resistance much more compelling, or Thich Nhat Hanh's retreat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Violence spawns more violence, it is not really a means to progress, it is usually counter-productive.
What they should do is another matter entirely. I was simply pointing out that people who lose their homes (and their hopes) are going to be resentful. And in their resentment, they might grab any opportunity they get to hurt someone, anyone, just to find an outlet for their pent-up frustrations. When emotions are involved, things are hardly rational.
Another tragedy. The third in three months (just in England) and because of what? My imaginary friend is better then yours. Fools.
It's more complicated than that. Terrorism is not about religion; it's about politics. Terrorism is often a reaction to draconian foreign policies.
What draconian foreign policy does the Philippines have?
In certain cases, it's domestic policies - institutional racism, or economic/social reforms may not benefit the minorities, and so on.
In these cases, they are not the minority even. Moderate voices are being drowned out.
This is all tangential. You asked about terrorism, and I replied that terrorism is a reaction to draconian policies. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. If certain countries start wars, is it really surprising that some people from those war-torn countries become militants? Or if a certain country oppresses a certain community, is it really shocking that some members of the oppressed community take up arms? Cause and effect. Do not just look at the effect (terrorism), try to analyze the causes and conditions as well.
Speaking as someone who has had more drink and drugs than most people have had hot dinners, I'll paraphrase @SpinyNorman's signature here, they are all a load of old bollocks, I'd rather have a peaceful mind than a drug hit these days. If psychedelics led to enlightenment the world would full of Buddhas, it's not. The psychiatric wards are full of acid and other drug casualties. 'Nuff said.
Intent matters. If you take psychedelics to have a good time, it may lead you in a certain direction. If you use it for spiritual awakening, it may lead you in a completely different direction. It's all about intent.
I do not believe we can accept any religion in its entirety. Certain parts of it are the result of primitive, conservative cultures prevalent at that historical stage. The attitude toward drugs and sex, especially - it has more to do with the conservative nature of society at that time and less to do with spirituality.
Indeed! Well Psychedelics for me was that raft. I would never have encountered Buddhism without them. As I said, I no longer take any drug including Alcohol. I simply don't need any of it. Meditation has filled that slot. All I'm saying here is not to write-off Psychedelics they can be a useful tool and no one in the history of use has ever developed an addiction problem with them. Where as booze can be highly addictive. Along with the usual stimulants and opiates.
As long as you have self-control it shouldn't be a problem. People who are conditioned by social morality may abstain from psychedelics. In Buddhism, self-control matters, not twisted notions of morality imposed on us by society.