There is always an abyss between those who understand life and those who do not. Regardless of how far social progress can go, the Buddha will stay light years ahead since his attainment has no measure. And yet, something vital changes with time—namely, our capacity for questioning tradition.

In the days of the Buddha the cultural state of the world was too primitive. People’s minds were enslaved by custom and superstition to the extent where it was impossible for them to examine their position. And it is very hard to be conscious with respect to your culture. The more one is able to look critically at the content of one’s own head, the more one is able to listen to the Buddha.

Time cannot make you understand, but it can prepare the ground. And the people who were on the Moon and looked into the eyes of nuclear war are not the same people who lived in India more than two thousand years ago.

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world.

How can harmony possibly exist among the books? Books are not living things, they cannot have relationship with each other. And people, who put their faith in books, are maintaining psychological division, thus making peace unachievable.

I submit that if we want to enter the Galactic Club, the challenge lies in reconstructing our global political economy. A few minor side benefits should result, like no more war, no more poverty, a future for all of humanity’s children with a substantial proportion of biodiversity intact. We should not expect the Galactic Club to save us from ourselves.

So even if the Club does not exist, it is worth trying to qualify for membership.

[M]any parents support corporal punishment as an integral part of education; while some see sexual relations between students and teachers as a viable way for the child to get ahead.

The second is found in Nicholas Kristof’s latest column:

[I]f the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children’s prospects would be transformed.

These are extremes but they show how wrong, unhealthy relationship among human beings is creating the whole spectrum of problems that we desperately try to solve through mechanisms of ideology, politics, and money.

Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes.

These are the words of an Iranian cleric, according to BBC. It is even more telling than Orthodox experts blaming Icelandic pagans and homosexuals for the Eyjafjallajökull eruption.

What is the kind of world we are living in?

The most reasonable comment I have read so far was made by Jill Tarter of the SETI Institute. She pointed out that the civilization old enough to be able to send the spacecrafts to other stars was bound to overcome the predatory traits.

I guess the Hawking’s idea stems from his believe in the power of evolution to shape the behavior and his concerns about the “selfish and aggressive instincts,” as he once put it.

For me, it is absolutely obvious that the only thing that makes us human—the mind—is not written anywhere in the DNA, rather the DNA provides a possibility for the mind with its whole structure of language and knowledge to operate. And as long as we agree on that, there is no reason to doubt the potential of H. sapiens and any other species alike to be completely free from the instincts through culture and the significance of this in terms of survival.

[S]ince everything from weapons of mass destruction to global heating is the result of changes in human culture over time, acquiring a fundamental understanding of cultural evolution just might be the key to saving civilization from itself.

It is impossible to deal with the present crisis by solely organizational means. The deepest attention to the culture, which is what we have become after million and half years of living on this planet, is required.

So what is the point to replace one name with another? If you go on with the same old way of life, it does not matter with what philosophy you fill your head. You cannot take someone’s words—however wise, however beautiful—and by merging them with your background, pretend that you have changed.

We really do not want big changes, we are frightened. We are comfortable with the idea of progressing in small steps: making our lives a bit more environmentally friendly, a bit more balanced. And the whole of our psychology is resisting the idea of radical change. But now, I think, it is the time to start getting used to it: we need the radical change, not only in order to attain the state of flourishing, but in order to survive. This should be settled, clear for everyone.

[S]ome cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.

Even such monstrous phenomena like earthquakes have a lot to do with culture. How do you live, how do you treat your neighbors, what is your relationship to reality—these are the things that are going to define endurance and sustainability of your settlement.

Now, should we make efforts to translate our culture to the Haitians? It may be slightly better in organizing, but from a global perspective it still looks primitive, immature. It fails to meet the challenges of the new era, whether it is terrorism, climate change, or overpopulation. I strongly suggest that we shall question the reliability of the way of living that we ourselves are used to.

Think of all the suffering we can prevent.