From: rbhatnag@uceng.UC.EDU (raj bhatnagar)
Subject: Re: Appeal to Arindam
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:56:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.170103.11208@menudo.uh.edu> mece1e3@Jane.UH.EDU writes:


>>I do. It is the overt or covert claims of exclusivity which lead
>>to pain and conflict.
>>
>Unless I have something better why should you come to me, this is not
>exclusivity.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This concept of "something better" is purely subjective. You must not
assume that what is "better" for yourself is also "better" for the next 
person. 

You have found a "Guru" in Bahaullah, Good for you. May you get what
you are looking for in life. My best wishes. 

But this is your personal path to salvation, moksha, nirvana, merger of 
ego with the Supreme Consciousness - or by whatever name you may call it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the objectives of world peace, social
upliftment, elimination of suffering in the world etc. All such claims are,
at best, the sugar coating to facilitate the marketing of this or that
faith.

The very claim that *my* faith is better than *yours* is a challenge 
for a fight to the adherers/propagators of other faiths.

The very claim that *my* messenger's words are the final truth is a 
challenge for a fight to the followers of other messengers.

The very claim that *my* faith can bring peace to the world in a shorter
time span is a challenge for a fight to the followers of other movements
seeking world peace.

And it is these challenges, direct or implied, that have ruined the world
peace since the time the first person got the delusion of being a
*messenger* and of possessing "The Truth."

We can not have peace in this world as long as we keep believing that
*my* faith is the ultimate truth and everybody else is groping in the dark.

The evolution of human society has reached the stage where it is well
accepted that the political ideal of a peaceful world can not be
achieved in the form of a single empire/kingdom with a single communal 
will, but only in the form of a commonwealth of free nations, differing
profoundly in institutions, customs, habits, social structures, and goals.

The same realization in the field of faiths and spiritual philosophies,
- that it is the commonwealth of faiths differing in ways of worship,
conceptualiztions of God, customs and in other characteristics, 
- is needed before we can envision universalist objectives such as
world peace etc.

So Arindam, you may seek your personal objectives in this or that faith,
but the solutions to the universalist objectives such as world peace lie
elsewhere.  You would have attained them the day you agree that joining
Bahai faith is irrelevant to the objectives of the social evolution of the
human society. And Hinduism, the civilizational whole, has sought to develop 
this concept of the commonwealth of faiths - none being superior to others.


>You didn't get the point. I am free to hold the belief that CAitanya is
>a manifestation within the framework of BAHAI FAITH even if all the Bahais
>do not agree with me

But then, can one also disagree with the Bahai custom of burial of the
dead, insist on being cremated, and still be called a bahai - even though
differing from other Bahais? "Confirming" to a particular set of customs
makes it only one of the faiths, and not a unifying agent of any sort.


>>But social institutions, no. 
>>
>The existing social institituions are also defective. We create a new
>society out of people
>

They are not "defective" - just "different" from your subjective view
of what is ethical. Just an example - Is cremation of its dead a defect
in a society? Going by the Bahai faith it would be!


---raj


Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian