From the same dust

O CHILDREN OF MEN!

Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.

-- Baha'u'llah

Rituals

M told me this (true) story of a friend which, in my eyes, really captures the essential idea behind all the ritualism that exists in religion today.

This friend was cooking a dish with ham (or some other form of meat, the details are irrelevant) one day, and was being watched by her little daughter. She started out by cutting off the 2 sides and the dropping everything into the pot. Her daughter, out of curiosity, immediately asked her "Mom, why did you chop off the 2 sides?" She thought about it for a moment, and then said, rather perplexed, "Oh, I don't know - that's just how my mom used to do it!"

So they called her mother and asked her why she had always made the ham that way. A moment of silence on the phone line was followed by, "Hmm, I don't quite know - that's how my mom always made it."

Thankfully the grandmother was still alive and well - and so they immediately gave her a call and asked her the same question. Pat came the reply, "Oh, that was just because my pot was too small to fit the entire ham by itself - so I always used to cut the sides off to make sure everything fit in!"

I find that a very telling story - and a truly apt commentary on the ritualistic nature of most of our lives (particularly religious lives). There are so many things we just take for granted, because we've always learned it a certain way - and we never stop for even a moment to question why it evolved to be that way. Instead we just continue blindly following certain traditions, customs and rituals with little knowledge of what they really meant in the first place. I suspect that much of the rituals we hold on to so dearly, when subjected to close scrutiny, would turn out to have been started in a manner very much like cutting the sides of the ham.

Prayer for detachment

O Lord! Unto Thee I repair for refuge, and toward all Thy signs I set my heart.

O Lord! Whether traveling or at home, and in my occupation or in my work, I place my whole trust in Thee.

Grant me then Thy sufficing help so as to make me independent of all things, O Thou Who art unsurpassed in Thy mercy!

Bestow upon me my portion, O Lord, as Thou pleasest, and cause me to be satisfied with whatsoever Thou hast ordained for me.

Thine is the absolute authority to command.

-- The Bab

Ownership

Time spent with A yesterday, as usual, was filled with many delightful and enlightening conversations. Among the things we talked about was the idea of taking that which is not rightfully yours - now when I say it like that, I'm sure you're like "Oh, I never do that, for that would be tantamount to stealing!" But we actually figured that in some very minor ways we all violate this principle from time to time without even realizing it.

Lets take a few examples. Now here are some common ways in which we rationalize, to ourselves and others, the act of taking something that does not belong to us.

1. "He/she does not deserve to have it" - Making a judgment on what someone deserves, we sometimes use that as a reason to take something away from them. Clearly, whether or not they deserve it (which, firstly, we are no one to judge), its theirs, so we shouldn't be touching it. Such an argument might be used, for example, against someone who inherits a lot of money from his parents (and so one could argue that he didn't really earn it).

2. "I need it more than he/she does" - This is related to the first point, where again we make a judgment about our need versus someone else's, and use it to justify taking something. For example, if one were really thirsty, one might be willing to take a bottle of water from a friend without his/her knowledge.

3. "He/she has too much of it anyway, and won't care if I take some" - A combination of these first three is often used as an argument by the poor against the rich - and so a lot of people assume they have a right over someone's money just because he/she has a lot of it, and they themselves don't. Extreme socialism is built on the foundation of this principle. A slight variation of this is also one where you reason that what you're taking is so insignificant that it does not matter - in school, for example, a kid might decide to take a pencil from a friend without him knowing, reasoning that it's such a small thing as to be inconsequential. Again, this is still in violation of the principle. There's a saying in Hindi - "Whether you steal 10 rupees, or 10000, its still stealing" - and that's precisely the point.

There are other situations where such an argument is used as well - especially in the workplace, because there the owner is not a person in front of you, but some corporation/organization that doesn't physically exist - and so its easier to ignore ownership rights. Printing personal documents in office is one example - we do that all the time, but again, in the strictest sense, unless the company has formulated a policy which allows employees to do that, its unlawful. Taking office stationery home, using office phones to place personal calls, using official vehicles for personal transportation (this is oh, so common in Indian government offices) etc are all manifestations of exactly this attitude.

4. "I'm very close to this person, they won't really mind, and if I ask would probably give it to me anyway" - Here's where things start getting more gray (seemingly), and I'm sure a lot of us have done this. Our closest friend has some small thing we want, and he/she is not around, and so we just take it assuming they won't mind at all. It is entirely possible that they will not mind - and there are probably going to be no negative consequences of such an action. And yet, there is something not totally ideal about that action, because in the strictest sense, we only have a right to something once we have the owner's permission. Even if he/she is our best friend.

5. "Its for a good cause, I'm helping someone poor and needy through this act, so its ok" - The Robin Hood mentality is not all that uncommon - and we often violate the principle of ownership under the guise of selflessness. I have particularly seen this attitude in NGOs I have volunteered for, where, essentially, the end is used to justify the means. And of course, its never in the form of blatant stealing (as Robin Hood might have done), but in more nebulous and subtle ways. Company matching is one example - many companies match donations made by their employees to charitable organizations. It is therefore very common for people to donate money through friends of theirs working in such companies, so that it appears like their friend has donated the money - and so they can get the company to match it. Now it seems like its all in a good cause, and especially since these companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Cisco etc) are anyway making so much money, they won't really care (point 3). And yet, who are we to decide that? Most companies match funds because they believe their employee is taking money out of the salary it pays him to donate to someone - and so they match that effort. Unless a company explicitly says that it is willing to use its money to match not just an employee's contribution, but also funds raised by him from other sources, it is unethical to get a third party's funds matched. In most cases though, the grandiose veil of selfless action successfully occludes this principle of ownership and causes one to violate it.

I could probably come up with more examples, but I think these serve to illustrate the point sufficiently.

There is this quote of Baha'u'llah's, which in a very concise and beautiful way summarizes the principle of ownership, and one's rights when it comes to taking things. Here's what he says:

"They who dwell within the Tabernacle of God, and are established upon the seats of everlasting glory, will refuse, though they be dying of hunger, to stretch their hands, and seize unlawfully the property of their neighbour, however vile and worthless he may be."

I find this a very powerful quote, because it is so clear and unequivocal in its condemnation of any violation of ownership - even if one is absolutely dying of hunger, even if the person next to you, your neighbor, has what you need, even if he is the most evil and undeserving person ever, and even if he has so much food that he will not notice if you take some - taking it unlawfully from him still constitutes a violation of that standard. And so I think this quote makes it very clear what course of action we must take in any of those five situations above - and leaves us with no doubt about what is right and what is wrong.

Truth and Beauty

An exchange of emails with W generated some interesting ideas today. We talked about truth and aesthetic beauty - and how there is a close link between the two. This is not an uncommon idea even in science - where there is great value attached to the elegance and simplicity of a scientific theory. Occam's razor is a principle that is largely applicable in most cases - given a set of data, the simplest theory that fits the data is often the right theory.

The idea of beauty in knowledge is also a theme that is recurrent in the teachings of most religious traditions. Firstly, there is the concept of a "beautiful" God, in some ways. The Baha'i texts, for example, refer in many places to this beauty of God, and how it is reflected in the souls of human beings. Of course, beauty in this context refers not to physical beauty - though in some of the older traditions such as Hinduism, this is often how this beauty is manifested (for example, in the descriptions of Krishna) - but rather to a deep spiritual beauty of which all the beauty of the natural world around us is but an imperfect reflection. A good way to think about this is in the Platonic sense - what we see are just shadows in a cave, and the reality outside the cave, that projects these shadows - and the sun that enables those shadows to be projected is far more glorious, bright and beautiful than we can ever imagine.

There is also a very strong sense of how intrinsically we humans are attracted to this beauty. Given the way we are brought up in society, this innate attraction to beauty largely gets directed towards the material - be it towards a beautiful painting, or an attractive man/woman, or a melodious piece of music. But it is important to realize that again this attraction to physical/natural objects is a reflection of that deeper longing for that spiritual beauty. In the words of Baha'u'llah, "...every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified". This statement tells us two important things - first, that there is a glorious Beauty to God, and second that each of us has the ability to appreciate this beauty on our own. It appears, therefore, to be something intrinsic to us, external to the society we're brought up in - though it does get occluded/misdirected by our experiences.

Bringing the discussion back to the idea of simplicity and elegance in scientific theory, I think this is an aesthetic value that also carries over to spiritual thought. Therefore, when it comes to trying to explain the nature of life and the world around us, I believe that the ultimate truth would have a great measure of simplicity and elegance to it. And we already see a glimpse of this in the teachings of the Prophets that have come down to us over time - be it in the Gita, or the Bible or the Koran.

It is important to realize, also, that there are a lot of aesthetic judgments that are essentially subjective - I might like a painting that someone else thinks is horrendous. But I do think there are certain elements to aesthetics - such as simplicity/elegance - that do hold more objective weight. And these are the elements that carry over to scientific/spiritual questions.

What does this mean in terms of how we try and find answers to questions? Does it mean we try and find aesthetically pleasing answers? I believe not. For the truth is beautiful - but not all that is beautiful is necessarily true. And so this link between truth and beauty - which is unsymmetrical - is only useful as an a posteriori check. Given a possible hypothesis for a question, one of the many ways one could check its validity is to check its aesthetic value. And that might give us a hint as to its truth value. However trying to a priori find an aesthetically pleasing theory will probably lead us nowhere.

Twelve points

Abdu'l Baha's twelve points - the sum and essence of a vision for the future:

1. Unfettered search after truth
2. The oneness of mankind
3. Religion a cause of love and harmony
4. Religion hand in hand with science
5. Universal peace
6. An international auxiliary language
7. Education for all
8. Equal opportunities for both sexes
9. Justice for all
10. Work for all
11. Abolition of extremes of poverty and wealth
12. The Holy Spirit to be the prime motive power in life

Dictates of conscience

Here's something I have thought a lot about at some point of time and struggled with, which recently came up - is it all right to give in to the wishes/opinions of people/society against the dictates of one's own conscience? Is it all right to give in to other people's expectations? And is it all right to choose a certain course of action because you want to prevent people/society from saying something distasteful/passing judgment on you?

Now before we start answering that, let's immediately eliminate all such actions from our discussion that are either unethical/unlawful. For of course if our conscience were to tell us to do something that were unlawful or unethical, it would be absolutely right to listen to society instead, and follow what was lawful/ethical. And so if someone's conscience tells them to go around killing people, society can of course impose itself on him/her. And so the discussion becomes irrelevant for such questions.

However, what of situations in life where we are faced with not ethical/legal dilemmas, but rather questions of interpersonal relationships, career choices, cultural choices, etc? What if, left to yourself, you would act in a certain way - but somehow something external makes you act differently? Now as I see it, there are three possible reasons why you might go against the dictates of your conscience:

1. Because you aren't really sure to begin with, and even when you thought your conscience was saying something, somewhere other things matter more to you. And so with some small external push, you are made to realize that what you thought mattered to you, didn't really matter as much - and so you choose to act otherwise. Again, in such situations the question really becomes irrelevant. So lets assume for the purposes of our discussion that, left to ourself, we would unhesitatingly act in a certain way - and our conscience is absolutely clear on that.

2. Because someone dear to you, or even just known to you, expects you to act differently. And so, you choose to give in to their expectations (even if your conscience says otherwise) because their opinion and happiness matters to you.

3. Because you fear what society/people might say if you acted the way your conscience dictates you act. And even if you don't fear it, you'd rather avoid people talking, and so you might choose to do what is socially accepted.

Both 2 and 3 are very common situations we see all the time around us - and each one of us, at some point or the other, has been in exactly one of those situations. Let's look at 2 first. There are so many examples that come to mind, that its a little hard to choose, but lets pick a few representative ones. You are really interested in art, and would like to pursue that - but your parents want you to do engineering, and so you give up your desire to do what your parents wish you to do. You are in love with someone, but your parents want you to marry someone else - so you give up your love to make them happy. You are friendly with someone of the opposite sex - but your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse does not approve of that relationship, and so even though you yourself trust that friend, you choose to give them up in order to make your significant other happy.

Each of the above situations essentially is one where one assigns a greater value/priority to pleasing someone else instead of oneself. And though superficially that might seem like a selfless act, might there be something deeper to it? I contend, yes.

First, I strongly believe that once one gets into the cycle of satisfying expectations, there is just no end to it. It is a very naturally human thing to expect - we expect other people to treat us nicely, we expect our near and dear ones to love us, we expect people to be fair, we expect that people recognize our merits, and so on - in short, we always expect things. And what happens when an expectation is satisfied? Temporarily we are pleased - but that just engenders another expectation. And so on, until we reach a stage where an expectation is not fulfilled. Which makes us unhappy. So, in my belief, one of the root causes of unhappiness is expectation. If we could detach ourselves from situations, and from expectations, we would be at much greater peace with ourselves. In an ideal world, no one would have expectations of others - we'd give advice, we'd love everyone without any inhibitions - but we would expect nothing in return. That is the ideal - and any deviation from that is of course non-ideal. So in our lives, to the extent possible - assuming we believe in that ideal - we should live up to it. Of course there are situations where it seems like it might be better to deviate from that ideal and give in, in order to make people temporarily happy, or prevent conflict. But beyond some temporary respite, all that does is encourage people to have more expectations - and so in the long run, it leads to malcontent.

Secondly, often when we try to satisfy someone's expectations and ignore our conscience, we end up up being unfair both to ourselves and to some other people involved in the situation. Giving up the love of your life and marrying the person your parents choose for you satisfies your parents, but is grossly unfair to the person you claimed to love. Sacrificing a friendship in order to sate a partner's jealousy keeps your relationship intact, but is undeniably unfair to that friend - whose only real fault was his/her loyalty to you! And so clearly again, there is something non-ideal about a decision that is unfair to someone. Note that the reverse is usually not true - by refusing to give up your friendship for your partner (assuming the friendship is completely pure to begin with), you are not being unfair to your partner - rather, all that you are saying is that their expectation is unreasonable.

Thirdly, what if two close people express contradictory opinions/expectations - and both different from your own conscience? How then do you go about satisfying them both?

Fourthly, such decisions often lead to situations where people later look back at those whose expectations they tried to satisfy, and blame them for making them take the decisions they did. It therefore prevents people from accepting full personal responsibility for their actions.

Despite all this, of course, we give in to people's expectations all the time, have expectations of our own. With many little things, it seems like it doesn't even matter that much - and if it can make someone happy, why not do it? All i can say about that is that as long as it doesn't end up hurting someone else, one can get away with it (even if it is non-ideal). It does, however, have subtle, long-term implications for how people in future will have expectations of one. Again, note that not satisfying someone's expectations, if unreasonable, is not equivalent to hurting someone who is fairly entitled to something.

Enough about that. Now let's look at 3 - fear of society. This, if anything, is even more common in society. We are, after all, social animals, and crave - more than anything else - acceptance in society. And this is especially true with, for example, the more conservative of my family members - people are truly afraid of what society might think of their actions, and it is a huge factor in determining how they choose to act.

The second argument given against situation 2 is also applicable here - namely that, often, in trying to avoid disagreeable circumstances we end up hurting other people. Choosing to break off your relationship with someone outside your community, for fear of what people might say, is just unfair to the person with whom you shared that relationship. And there are tons of other such examples.

In addition, there is the question of how far really one can go to prevent people from talking - for if there's one thing I've realized in life, its that people will ALWAYS talk. There is ALWAYS something to gossip about, and poke fun at, and pass comments on - and however careful one might be, there is nothing one can do to entirely prevent that. So let's accept that people will say what they want to say, irrespective of how careful you try to be about what you do. And usually such talk is idle, uninformed and sensationalized - and so if one is clear about one's conscience, there should be little difficulty in dismissing such talk.

A classic case is one where a stereotypical view of relationships makes people naturally conclude that there cannot possibly exist a close platonic friendship between two people of opposite sexes - and so, the gossip begins! In the face of such gossip, should the 2 people involved give up their friendship? What is it that is wrong in an absolute sense - the relationship, or the gossip? And which is more ideal - that ultimately people of opposite sexes stop having friendships, or that people accept that as normal and stop gossiping about it?

Finally, one fundamental issue I see with going against the dictates of your conscience in order to meet someone else's expectations/out of fear, is that it is, in some sense, hypocritical. Even though you firmly believe in something, you choose to act another way - and that just doesn't ring right. Baha’u'llah says, "Beware, O people of Baha, lest ye walk in the ways of them whose words differ from their deeds." There is great value, therefore, attached to the notion of being consistent in your thoughts, words, and actions. If one has conviction in something (again, within an ethical, rational and legal framework), one should be willing to act on the basis of that in the face of opposition from others. Being true and honest to oneself, and acting in consonance with one's conscience, is, I believe, the first step along the path of spiritual progress.

Maximizing happiness

We had an interesting conversation at our weekly devotional meeting today. The topic for the day was "The purpose of life" - and we talked about a bunch of things, but the interesting part really began with a question from W - can everything we do be boiled down to maximizing some kind of happiness? Clearly at the material level we do a lot to be happy. But can even spiritual acts be seen as the result of a desire for a more permanent spiritual happiness? As long as understand the existence of a greater plane of happiness - the spiritual plane - can the desire to attain that happiness in itself lead us to committing spiritual acts, following the spiritual path and evolving spiritually? And if yes, is the real purpose of life just to attain happiness?

Lets unpack this question a little further to really understand what he meant by everything being boiled down to happiness. First, there are some situations where clearly we choose the alternative that will make us happier - as we define happy normally. I choose to do a PhD as that's what makes me happy. I choose to sing instead of dance as that makes me happier. And so on. You get the drift.

Then there's those situations where it seems like we choose the alternative that actually makes us unhappy, because of some other value that matters to us. For example, it might make me very happy to own that Ferrari across the road, and so I might be tempted to steal it. But I value honesty more than that feeling of happiness, and so I choose to be less happy on that front. However, W argues, that's not quite how it is - because in some sense, it makes me happier to stick to that value of honesty; for if I did not stick to it, there would be a great feeling of guilt (which will make me unhappy). And so, he would argue, even our seemingly ethical choices are dictated by what makes us happy. If I could evaluate the situation very sincerely, I would realize that stealing the car would actually make me more unhappy - and so that in itself would prevent me from doing it.

Another example - I want to watch the football game today. But a close friend would rather that I spent some time with him. And so to satisfy him, I sacrifice my happiness (=watching the game), and spend time with him. But am I really sacrificing my happiness? Is it not that I realize that watching the game would give me a temporary happiness, but spending time with my friend would give me a greater happiness?

In other words, therefore, can we, through the sole objective of maximizing our happiness, end up becoming spiritual beings and progressing to the best of our abilities? Can we just follow the "Happiness vector" and hope to realize our spiritual selves?

An interesting proposition, isn't it? Actually, it's not entirely unreasonable, I think. There is a lot of truth in what W argued - but I think there's more to it.

For one, a basic assumption here is that we understand the true nature of happiness, the existence of temporary and permanent forms of happiness, and the ethereal happiness that spiritual actions give us. If we did understand this perfectly, I agree that the result of maximizing happiness would be the same as just doing the right thing. But we don't. And so maximizing happiness is not always an objective, detached process - and so will not always lead to the "right" result.

Secondly (this adds to the earlier point), happiness, to an extent, is subjective. What makes one person happy might not make another happy, if even one does not truly understand the nature of happiness. And so if happiness were the only metric to decide what was "right", we'd see lots of contradictions and conflicts between people. So clearly we need a more objective standard.

But let's assume, even, that everyone ends up truly understanding the nature of happiness, and are in agreement on that. And that people can actually rationally come up with the "right" decision in any situation by maximizing the happiness function. Is there still something non-ideal about such a framework?

In terms of action, I think there will be no difference between the decisions made by a person trying to maximize his happiness (assuming he understood everything about true happiness), and a person just trying to do the right thing according to the right standard, without a thought of his happiness. However, I think there will be a difference in the nature of their personal spiritual growth. For the former has put himself, and his happiness at the center of his decision - while the latter has put the standard/God at the center. Both will attain true happiness - and yet the latter will, I feel, grow more. And the reason this is so, I believe, is because true happiness is a consequence of a spiritual life - but not the sole objective.

Every religion talks about the highest ideal of spirituality being the love of God not for some benefit to oneself, or even to humanity, but purely for the sake of God. Abdu'l Baha says: "In the highest prayer, men pray only for the love of God, not because they fear Him or hell, or hope for bounty or heaven." And so even if the need to be happy impelled us to do all the right things (which, btw, would be in itself a great thing), the attitude of selfishness that motivates the action would somehow, in some subtle way, lessen its impact on oneself.

The attainment of true happiness, however, is definitely a reasonably good way to check, a posteriori, the spiritual nature of an action. Sincerely done, a spiritual act will definitely bring about a deep sense of happiness in the long run. And so the attainment of that happiness and peace can definitely serve as one possible litmus test (though again, not the only one) to measure spiritual growth. But if it is taken as an a priori purpose to the action itself, I believe something is lost.

A common vision

I first started writing this is as a comment in response to a comment on the previous post, but realized there was so much to say, that I might as well make it a separate post in itself!

One of the things I should clarify about the post below was a statement I made about people, over time, growing to share a common understanding about some basic questions. Let me say straight off that this does not, in any sense, mean that we will all come to agree about everything - most definitely not! Diversity of opinion will always exist, and it is what makes us essentially human, and what makes each of us a unique individual. So let's be absolutely clear about that.

What I did mean, however, was that we would all agree on some fundamental issues. We'll get to some examples shortly, but let's first make sure that this scenario does not sound totally inconceivable. It might help to take a look at society right now, and realize that this is true even now to an extent - for example, most of us would agree that every human on earth has some basic human rights - something thats starkly different from what existed a 100 years ago, when a large part of the world was not even considered "human". Most of us would agree that science and technology are key to the further progress of humanity, and that therefore it should be an intrinsic part of our program for progress. Most of us would agree that education is important for development, and that therefore some amount of resources (though we might disagree on how much exactly) should be set aside to promoting education. Therefore we see, even now, that almost every country on Earth believes in the above, and institutes policies and allocates resources in a way that in some form reflects the agreement that the majority of its population have on these issues. And these are only a few of many such examples. So agreement amongst a majority on something is not a theoretical, abstract proposition - its a hard reality.

However there are still some very basic things people don't see eye to eye on. People fundamentally disagree on the direction in which society should move. There exist very basic divides on questions of life, purpose, values etc. Religion and politics tend to divide us into polarizing camps. Stances on issues dictate our political leanings - and therefore divide us and prevent consensus. An overriding selfish concern for one's own well-being, and one's country's well-being over the well-being of others means that the way we fundamentally view the purpose of life differs.

But given that even over the last 100 years, we have achieved a lot of commonality of vision - on things such as racism, basic human rights, equality of men and women etc - and that this is still evolving and growing; and given that with each passing year we interact more and more with people from vastly different cultures, people with diverse viewpoints, and so come to see all the different dimensions of any question; and given that we're increasingly faced with problems where we HAVE to come together with a common objective to solve (climate change is a great example, but there are many others) - I see no reason to believe that at some time in the future we would not have achieved even greater commonality in terms of the basic questions, and in terms of a program for society to move forward. Of course, there would still exist great diversity in viewpoints - and that always would, and should. In fact, that is our great strength as human beings, and something that would be exploited by a system where we can come together in respectful consultation and discussion to find a solution to any problem. But commonality of vision is something that I do see coming about in a greater and greater way over time.

What time scale are we talking about here? I don't know. But it will be a slow, gradual, organic change, and so not noticeable on time scales that we're used to dealing with in our lives. It is only by looking at different points in history separated by several hundred years, and extrapolating based on current circumstances, that we can realize that in the long term, this is not such a far-fetched possibility.

By the way, most people agreeing on something is not the same as everyone agreeing on something. And let's understand that mathematically, the former is infinitely more probable than the latter. Gauss got it all - most things in this world have a normal distribution. There will always be people who dissent from the norm. So let's have no illusions about getting every single person on earth on the same page - that will never happen. But there is always a majority opinion, a mean to the curve - and what we're really after is shifting that mean. And that is not all that difficult over a long period of time - and in fact has been a continual process in our history.

The new World Order

Before I forget, here are some of the major points made by Hamid during his most excellent talk today on "A New World Order: A Baha'i vision of the political systems of the future, and the role of spiritual values in politics." As usual his clarity of thought and expression, and ability to hone in on the point left me marveling...

Anyway, here's some of what he had to say (in the order that thoughts come to me, not necessarily how he said it). I will expand more later:

1. Humans need to realize their fundamental identity as a spiritual beings.

2. The social and political order at any point of time is both a reflection/expression of the stage of humanity's spiritual maturity, as well as an enabler of further individual and collective progress in this realization of their spiritual identity (the first aspect, btw, is one of the reasons why when one country goes into another and tries to impose a system different from what exists there, it usually doesn't work).

3. Humans also need to realize their fundamental unity, something that is becoming increasingly clear at all levels. We will soon reach a stage where we cannot ignore out commonalities, and must necessarily come together to govern ourselves.

4. Ergo, the political order of the future will be one where the basic unit of government today, the nation-state, is expanded to the entire world. This is not entirely unconceivable, as we consider global problems - ecological, economic etc - and also consider cases where several countries have come together under a common banner, such as the EU.

5. Just as there exist states within a country today, each enjoying a reasonable degree of autonomy, but united under a common program for development, so will countries exist in the future global society.

6. The move from the current system to such a system would be a gradual, organic transformation effected by the individual spiritual transformations of people, as well as the rise in intellectual and spiritual maturity of people. Change will not happen by revolution but in an organic way through individual change.

7. Unity will also be promoted by the realization that collectively, humans can achieve much more than individually - the total is much greater than the sum of the parts. Consultation and discussion, carried out properly, therefore, will always yield better results than individual decision-making.

8. Nationalism is redundant (see earlier post!!)

9. The world today, relatively speaking (and we HAVE made great progress since the past, btw), is like an orchestra where each of us is an instrumentalist who isn't a very good player, we aren't playing a very good score, we all don't necessarily have a very good ear to realize how badly we are playing, and the conductor is really there because he wants to be conductor, not because he loves music. What we're trying to do is get to a stage where each of us has individually developed, and at the same time become better at harmonizing together; and we play a much better score (a plan for progress) under the guidance of a conductor (a leader) who is at that position for the sheer love of music.

10. Some features of this future world order include a world tribunal, an executive force, a universal auxiliary language in addition to our mother tongue, unique currency etc - everything we see at the level of a country today at the world level, but imbued with spiritual principles. Cultural diversity will be preserved and respected - but not allowed to become a source of dissension or disunity.

11. As we evolve more, and a majority of people reach a certain level of spiritual maturity, there will be a greater commonality in vision and viewpoints of how society should evolve, and which direction we should move in. Even now there exist fundamentally different viewpoints on some very basic issues, which will eventually disappear as we realize our underlying unity. Then decisions need to be made not on what direction society should move in - but rather, how we should move in that direction.

12. Leaders should be elected based not on what stance they take on issues (which is what happens now) but on the basis of their capabilities as decision makers, their characters, and the trust we can place in them to make the right decisions under changing circumstances based on fact and instinct. Interestingly this is happening with the current US primaries to a greater extent than before - there is much that is common between the 2 Democratic front-runners, for example, in terms of policy and stance on issues - and votes in this election are being decided more on people's perceptions of the character of these candidates.

13. We want our leaders to be competent, intelligent and capable - but at the same time selfless. However the current system encourages the selection of precisely those people who are NOT selfless, but are willing to get to the top at any cost. This is of course better than a dictatorial system, but still not the best we can do.

14. Partisan politics is based essentially on holding dogmatic stances on issues, and NOT on the ideal of consultative decision making based on the facts at any given time. Therefore it will always be inferior to a non-partisan system when a majority of society has evolved to a greater spiritual level.

15. Partisanship is divisive, and detrimental to the goal of unity. The very existence of parties depends on defining a set of dogmatic ideals that are different from other sets of such ideals - many of them at a fundamental level. Again, we need to develop commonality of thought and vision at a very basic level - and once we reach that stage, having political parties will be unnecessary (and even harmful) and so should be actively discouraged.

16. In general adopting a fixed stance on many issues (such as some of the hot issues of the day like abortion, state-financed medical care etc) doesn't make sense, because most issues have many sides, and the right decision is really a combination of these various sides, which would come about through consultation and deliberation based on the reality at that time in society. In addition, issues evolve over time, and so sticking to stances dogmatically does not help. The whole art is to balance out all dimensions to any given issue. Of course, you have to achieve commonality on some basic issues.

17. In addition, partisan politics implies that a candidate, even when he/she gets elected to office, still remains in some way responsible and accountable to the party, for their very political existence depends on the party. Therefore their policies and decisions are reflections of the idealogical position of the party as opposed to the results of a rational decision making process based on facts.

18. The current system of nomination and campaigning could easily be replaced by a system where people vote at different levels (first within their local community, then city, then county, then state, then country, then world), and at each level vote for those people whom they consider the best suited for the post of a leader at that level - based on a direct knowledge of the person, trust, what they see of people's accomplishments, etc. People at any level vote for people at the next higher level, and so on, till you get to the level of world governance. This process does require a greater involvement of the people in the political process and greater transparency in terms of knowing the accomplishments of people. The former will come about, again, organically as more and more people advance spiritually; and the latter becomes easier with every passing day, as our communications network and the internet grow exponentially.

19. At the top you would have not one person, but a group of people, again exemplifying the principle that collective decision making is better than individual.

20. Such a system is not just a hypothetical possibility - it is a reality. Switzerland is governed by a group of people who are elected, not one person. The worldwide Baha'i community is administered by a structure very similar to the one described above, where elections are democratic and yet totally non-partisan in nature, and involve no nominations/campaigning. So the question is just one of scaling by another order of magnitude or two as society evolves to the stage where such a system becomes closer to realization.

Friendship

And a youth said, "Speak to us of Friendship."
Your friend is your needs answered.
He is your field which you sow with love and reap with thanksgiving.
And he is your board and your fireside.
For you come to him with your hunger, and you seek him for peace.
When your friend speaks his mind you fear not the "nay" in your own mind, nor do you withhold the "ay."
And when he is silent your heart ceases not to listen to his heart;
For without words, in friendship, all thoughts, all desires, all expectations are born and shared, with joy that is unacclaimed.
When you part from your friend, you grieve not;
For that which you love most in him may be clearer in his absence, as the mountain to the climber is clearer from the plain.
And let there be no purpose in friendship save the deepening of the spirit.
For love that seeks aught but the disclosure of its own mystery is not love but a net cast forth: and only the unprofitable is caught.
And let your best be for your friend.
If he must know the ebb of your tide, let him know its flood also.
For what is your friend that you should seek him with hours to kill?
Seek him always with hours to live.
For it is his to fill your need, but not your emptiness.
And in the sweetness of friendship let there be laughter, and sharing of pleasures.
For in the dew of little things the heart finds its morning and is refreshed.

-- Kahlil Gibran in The Prophet

A few questions...

"The betterment of the world can be achieved through pure and goodly deeds, commendable and seemly conduct."

This quote from the Baha'i writings is one of the first quotes we studied as part of our newly begun study circle. Though seemingly obvious/trivial, there are some very profound ideas in this quote, and there is a wealth of knowledge to be gained from it about how we need to act in this world. I'd just like to pen down some of the questions brought up during our discussions (and some others) to get you thinking...

1. What do we mean by the betterment of the world? Who decides what is better for the world?

2. What are pure/goodly deeds? Again, who defines them? And who's perspective are they good in? Do we each develop our own personal moral code that defines what is good/bad, and act according to it? Would the betterment of the world be achieved in such a situation? Or is there a more absolute standard that exists beyond our subjective opinions about what might be good/bad? How much can we trust our instincts when it comes to deciding what is good/bad?

3. Who should our conduct be commendable to? To ourselves? To others? To our near and dear ones? To society? Or, again, is there an external standard that serves as a benchmark?

4. Can the betterment of the world really be achieved through pure and goodly deeds? What about rational self-interest? Can the world be made better purely by everyone acting selfishly? It definitely seems like in the short term, in some situations, acting selfishly and competitively could be beneficial. Is that true in the long term as well? And even if that can be beneficial sometimes, is that the best we can do?

5. How do pure and goodly deeds lead to the betterment of the world? What effect do our pure and goodly deeds have on those who benefit from those deeds? And what effect do they have on us?

6. How is the betterment of the world related to the betterment of the self? Can one improve the world before improving oneself? Or do the two go hand in hand?

I think that's enough questions for you to think about... :)

Who should I be?

Be generous in prosperity and thankful in adversity.

Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbour, and look upon him with a bright and friendly face.

Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer of the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge.

Be fair in thy judgement and guarded in thy speech.

Be unjust to no man and show all meekness to all men.

Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression.

Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts.

Be a home for the stranger, a balm to the suffering, a tower of strength for the fugitive.

Be eyes to the blind, and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring.

Be an ornament to the countenance of truth, a crown to the brow of fidelity, a pillar of the temple of righteousness, a breath of life to the body of mankind, an ensign of the hosts of justice, a luminary above the horizon of virtue, a dew to the soil of the human heart, an ark on the ocean of knowledge, a sun in the heaven of bounty, a gem on the diadem of wisdom, a shining light in the firmament of thy generation, a fruit upon the tree of humility.

-- Baha'u'llah

PS

On N's suggestion, I'd like to direct the reader's attention to the comments that follow the post below this... :)