Question on Kalachakra prophecy

[DGA]

In Kalacakra tantra, mleccas refers to muslims.

Yes. What is not clear to me is if the term mleccha refers to Muslims only, or also to others.

Generally, it refers to anyone speaking an unclear (to subcontinental Indians) language. In the context of the Kālacakra, muslims.

I need to go back and reread Mipham's commentary on this tantra. It seems to me that this is too limited an understanding for understanding this text at the present. I think Nemo's on the right track:

It seems the most dangerous thing to life on earth currently is capitalism, not Muslims. I remember Guru Rinpoche talking about both the Mohamedians AND those in the thrall of materialism. It's the capitalists destroying the atmosphere, making nuclear weapons, starting resource wars, etc ,etc, If you include both they have already conquered the entire world.

It's basically impossible to disentangle capitalist economic and social relations from the various devotions that are today associated with monotheistic faith traditions. The attitude of mind and habits of day-to-day life that capitalism demands of its subjects (honoring a debt in good faith, for example, requires certain austerities and renunciations) position capital as God and financiers as intercessors.

[Rinchen Dorje]

Yes. What is not clear to me is if the term mleccha refers to Muslims only, or also to others.

Generally, it refers to anyone speaking an unclear (to subcontinental Indians) language. In the context of the Kālacakra, muslims.

It seems the most dangerous thing to life on earth currently is capitalism, not Muslims. I remember Guru Rinpoche talking about both the Mohamedians AND those in the thrall of materialism. It's the capitalists destroying the atmosphere, making nuclear weapons, starting resource wars, etc ,etc, If you include both they have already conquered the entire world.

Seriously? You are comparing an ideology to a large and diverse group of people. It would be more accurate and less disingenuous to compare capitalism to islam itself...both of which are ideologies. In order to do that you would need to read accurate accounts of the life of mohamed. Why? He is the "founder" of the ideology of islam and regardless if one is a secular muslim, "moderate" muslim, or "radicalized" muslim he is considered to be the prophet and "perfect man" that is to be emulated by all muslims. After reading islamic accounts of his life you will begin to see one of the primary reasons behind isis, al-qaeda, boko haram et al.... They are all following the playbook of his life. And before anyone pulls out the racist or islamophobe card, remember, islam is an ideology and muslims are not only of arab descent...there are chinese, caucasion, african, etc etc who are muslims the world over. In other words it is not racist or islamophobic to question the ideology of islam as long as one does not allow that questioning to spill over to muslims themselves...which of course would be wrong and just plain silly as muslims are people, not ideologies. Can someone explain to me why in our current world society it is ok to question and debate the ideologies of capitalism, marxism, communism, christianity, Buddhism, etc etc but that for some reason it is taboo to question and debate the ideology of islam without being shouted down as a racist islamophobe?

[Quay]

... Can someone explain to me why in our current world society it is ok to question and debate the ideologies of capitalism, marxism, communism, christianity, Buddhism, etc etc but that for some reason it is taboo to question and debate the ideology of islam without being shouted down as a racist islamophobe?

Your complaint must actually be about specific, often urban areas of the U.S. or Europe, yes? Because the monolithic "current world society" you posit does not exist. In some places seriously questioning capitalism will get you censured or ostracized and doing the same in others to marxism & communism can get you jailed or removed from visible society. In yet other parts of the world publicly questioning the revelations of Christianity will incur social disapproval and can even result in your beating and death. And in at least two countries seriously stating you don't believed in the local Buddhist tenets can get you expelled from the country or thrown in jail if you're seen to be quite serious about it.

[Rinchen Dorje]

... Can someone explain to me why in our current world society it is ok to question and debate the ideologies of capitalism, marxism, communism, christianity, Buddhism, etc etc but that for some reason it is taboo to question and debate the ideology of islam without being shouted down as a racist islamophobe?

Your complaint must actually be about specific, often urban areas of the U.S. or Europe, yes? Because the monolithic "current world society" you posit does not exist. In some places seriously questioning capitalism will get you censured or ostracized and doing the same in others to marxism & communism can get you jailed or removed from visible society. In yet other parts of the world publicly questioning the revelations of Christianity will incur social disapproval and can even result in your beating and death. And in at least two countries seriously stating you don't believed in the local Buddhist tenets can get you expelled from the country or thrown in jail if you're seen to be quite serious about it.

good point! perhaps I should have been more specific and said western secular liberal democracies...

[Harimoo]

Seriously? You are comparing an ideology to a large and diverse group of people. It would be more accurate and less disingenuous to compare capitalism to islam itself...both of which are ideologies. In order to do that you would need to read accurate accounts of the life of mohamed. Why? He is the "founder" of the ideology of islam and regardless if one is a secular muslim, "moderate" muslim, or "radicalized" muslim he is considered to be the prophet and "perfect man" that is to be emulated by all muslims. After reading islamic accounts of his life you will begin to see one of the primary reasons behind isis, al-qaeda, boko haram et al.... They are all following the playbook of his life. And before anyone pulls out the racist or islamophobe card, remember, islam is an ideology and muslims are not only of arab descent...there are chinese, caucasion, african, etc etc who are muslims the world over. In other words it is not racist or islamophobic to question the ideology of islam as long as one does not allow that questioning to spill over to muslims themselves...which of course would be wrong and just plain silly as muslims are people, not ideologies. Can someone explain to me why in our current world society it is ok to question and debate the ideologies of capitalism, marxism, communism, christianity, Buddhism, etc etc but that for some reason it is taboo to question and debate the ideology of islam without being shouted down as a racist islamophobe?

Typically islamophobic far-right analysis

[cyril]

Typically islamophobic far-right analysis

Islamophobe = he seems to know more about Islam than he was supposed to.

[Malcolm]

It seems the most dangerous thing to life on earth currently is capitalism, not Muslims.

No, the most dangerous thing on the planet for the environment is oil. And it is used freely by everyone regardless of ideology, economic system, or religion. World population did not explode because of capitalism, it exploded first because of the Colombian exchange, and then the discovery and development of all kinds of technologies that use petroleum in the late nineteenth century.



http://energyskeptic.com/2013/oil-produ ... roduction/

[Malcolm]

Seriously? You are comparing an ideology to a large and diverse group of people. It would be more accurate and less disingenuous to compare capitalism to islam itself...both of which are ideologies.

Capitalism, Communism, Christianity and Islam all share one feature in common -- they all regard the non-productive destruction of surplus value as socially unethical.

[Javierfv1212]

It seems the most dangerous thing to life on earth currently is capitalism, not Muslims.

No, the most dangerous thing on the planet for the environment is oil. And it is used freely by everyone regardless of ideology, economic system, or religion. World population did not explode because of capitalism, it exploded first because of the Colombian exchange, and then the discovery and development of all kinds of technologies that use petroleum in the late nineteenth century.



http://energyskeptic.com/2013/oil-produ ... roduction/

And it should be noted that Communist USSR and other states like Maoist and Post-Maoist China also contributed their fair share to the environmental crisis. So its not just capitalism.

[Rinchen Dorje]

It seems the most dangerous thing to life on earth currently is capitalism, not Muslims.

No, the most dangerous thing on the planet for the environment is oil. And it is used freely by everyone regardless of ideology, economic system, or religion. World population did not explode because of capitalism, it exploded first because of the Colombian exchange, and then the discovery and development of all kinds of technologies that use petroleum in the late nineteenth century.



http://energyskeptic.com/2013/oil-produ ... roduction/

And it should be noted that Communist USSR and other states like Maoist and Post-Maoist China also contributed their fair share to the environmental crisis. So its not just capitalism.

[fckw]

I remember Guru Rinpoche talking about both the Mohamedians AND those in the thrall of materialism.

Proofs please, I am not convinced. In my understanding, it were mostly internal factors that lead to the decline of Buddhism in India, not the violent destruction from "islamic outsiders" - at least not until the 12th century, which is already a long time after Padmasambhava's paranirvana.

Here's a - perhaps somewhat biased - article on the spread of Islam on the Indian subcontinent. http://lostislamichistory.com/how-islam ... -in-india/. This one is better: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Islam-com ... -it-spread. This one is also pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_o ... bcontinent.

[Harimoo]

I remember Guru Rinpoche talking about both the Mohamedians AND those in the thrall of materialism.

Proofs please, I am not convinced. In my understanding, it were mostly internal factors that lead to the decline of Buddhism in India, not the violent destruction from "islamic outsiders" - at least not until the 12th century, which is already a long time after Padmasambhava's paranirvana.

Here's a - perhaps somewhat biased - article on the spread of Islam on the Indian subcontinent. http://lostislamichistory.com/how-islam ... -in-india/. This one is better: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Islam-com ... -it-spread. This one is also pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_o ... bcontinent.

+1
It is certainly easier to give external factors to decline than to question the inner problems.