Is the theory of Inclusivism and Inclusivism formulated in Ayyavazhi good and acceptable?
483926
Religious Pluralism\nSeena Fazel\nPhilosophically, religious pluralism is the theory that the great world religions constitute varying conceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality. We can approach this theory by comparing it to its two main rivals, exclusivism and inclusivism. \n\n\nAlthough we may find instances in Baha'i scripture capable of exclusivist development, exclusivism - the view that one particular tradition alone teaches the truth and constitutes the way to salvation or liberation - is not supported by a reading of the Baha'i writings in context. A fundamental tenet of Baha'i belief is the common foundation of all the world's revealed religions: "Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin" (WOB, p. 58). With this perspective, the superiority of one religious tradition over another is denied: "One cannot call one World Faith superior to another, as they all come from God." (Shoghi Effendi, Letter 19.11.45)\n\n\nInclusivist theologies and religious philosophies state that one particular tradition presents the final truth while other traditions, instead of being regarded as wrong, are seen to reflect aspects of, or to constitute approaches to, that final truth. The Baha'i writings do not portray an inclusivist outlook as the Baha'i Faith does not claim to represent the final truth. As Shoghi Effendi explains, Baha'is "claim no finality for the Revelation with which they stand identified" (WOB, p. 59). Inclusivist trends do exist in the Baha'i writings in that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah marks "the last and highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man's collective life on this planet" (WOB, p. 163). Man's individual life will "continue indefinitely to progress and develop" but his planetary life has reached "the furthermost limits in the organization of human society" (ibid). This should be attributed not to "any inherent superiority" (WOB, p. 166) or "superior merit" (WOB, p. 60) of the Baha'i Faith but rather to the fact that the present age is one which is "infinitely more advanced, more receptive, and more insistent to receive an ampler measure of Divine Guidance than has hitherto been vouchsafed to mankind" (ibid). It is the present age, not the religion of the age, that is superior.\n\n\nExplicit pluralism accepts the more radical position implied by inclusivism: the view that the great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real of the Ultimate, and that within each salvation is occuring. Thus Baha'u'llah writes: "There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God." (Gleanings, p. 217)\n\n\nNevertheless there are Baha'i writings which seemingly do not support pluralist thinking, by implying that the different religions will cease to exist in the future as all believers become Baha'is. In the tablet to Queen Victoria, Baha'u'llah declares: "That which the Lord has ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith". (WOB, p. 163) Baha'u'llah is reported to have said to Edward Granville Browne that there would come a time when "all nations should become one in faith" and when "diversity of religion should cease" (qtd in Esslemont, p. 117-8). A tablet of TAbdu'l-Baha written in 1906 contains the following passage: "The fourth candle [of unity] is unity in religions (vahdat-i-din) which is the corner-stone of the foundation itself, and which, by the power of God, will be revealed in all its
739309
Sounds pretty good to me, that must be why I'm a liberal.\n\nhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism
1015561
I find, as both a member of the ACLU and a Christian, that they are perfectly compatible.  Quite frankly, the only people it is not compatible with are the highly conservative "Christian" extremists, a la Falwell and Robertson.  Quite frankly, they merely use Christianity as an excuse for bigotry and hatred.  Ironically enough, historically, those people who you and I would really identify as acting in a Christian manner are those on the forefront of the progressive movement today.  For instance, the Christians who were anti-slavery in the 1850's, or those working for desegregation in the 1950's.  The fundamentalists were on the opposite sides back then.  If Robertson was alive in the 1850's I have no doubt whatsoever that he would be pro-slave. After all, there is much more biblical teaching that is pro-slavery than there is anti-gay.
733524
Grand Ayatollah Sistani, as we all know, no decree is infallible, as man is not infallible, which does make for the reasoning behind these decrees coming to being in the first place, which makes divine inspired laws, or even earthly laws (which some may feel to be the same thing), just a wish, command, or a good intention through this understanding.  If this were not so, the word infallible would not be in every dictionary on the globe.  Free will is what enables man to find himself in the right place, if he so chooses wisely, as to these decrees, in any religion.(or society)  Free will is what also enables man to find himself imprisoned, or worse, if he so chooses poorly, as to these decrees, in any religion (or society)  Most laws are dictated in America, and elsewhere, by the norms, and popular beliefs of values.  And these values have remained pretty much the same for thousands of years, and in almost all cases, civility and rights towards other humans has actually very much improved.  And oddly, throughout VAST time, what was taboo then, and hidden, for whatever reason, still is today, globally, Grand Ayatollah Sistani.  And although some things do not fit within my realm of norm, I do know that many freedoms of choice that do not hurt others, when restrained, can hurt others.  As an example of changes in other ways, or out-dated in realm of the norm, I don't think marrying family is accepted at all in decrees any longer, like as it was acceptable in the Old Testament, but we know through science now that this tends to cause unnecessary mental-illness and deformity issues.  I feel that globally, most of the world treats each other in a civilized and rational manner.  But I also feel that some divine decrees made, and expected to be adhered to, are uncivilized, irrational and tyrannical as far as towards the treatment of other human beings.  It is like imprisonment on earth for some, so I have heard.  Which Church was it that broke away from the Catholic Church due to what they, the Catholics, decreed as not a norm, yet had adolescent boys for entertainment almost nightly?  This is why we have separation of Church and State in America, this is why most decrees have stayed the same for a VERY, VERY long time, unless of course for your rational, or common-sense, moving forward decrees that have changed due to big-picture, long-haul, or facing the facts problems solving solutions that we haven't been able to fix others ways before.  I wish you the best of luck on your endeavors in Iraq, but will tell you that I am highly disappointed that I have not received a letter back from you, from your web-site you had provided here for this purpose, here at YA, in regards to some questions I had for you regarding the Iraq that you wish to represent.  It was a very long, well-thought out and respectful letter, so I am sure you could not have over-looked this one.  I have worked in politics before, and I can tell you, If I were your constituent, you would have lost me.  There is a saying in America, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, easy come, easy go.  Good Luck.
79553
That's a large order - here is a really good source for Plato and major philosophers.  Hope this helps.
573321
I loved these articles by Walter Williams (Professor of Economics).  He states exactly how I feel about affirmative action way more eloquently than I ever could.  You should give them a read, if you really value diversity and are open minded, then you might find them interesting.
608859
Really complex, but interesting\n\nAyyavazhi அய்யாவழி (Tamil: "path of the father"), officially a Tamil monistic religion that originated in South India in the mid-19th century. The 'zhi' (ழி) in the word, 'Ayyavazhi', is a retroflex, ri.\n\nAyyavazhi functions autonomously. But since it was not recognised as a separate religion it was officially considered as an offshoot of Hinduism. Though it has not received official recognition, it has evolved into a distinctive religious phenomenon, making its presence felt in India's southern districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Tuticorin. As one of the fastest growing religions of southern India, its rapid growth had been noted in the Christian missionary reports of the mid-19th century.\n\nAyyavazhi focuses on Ayya Vaikundar; according to Akilattirattu Ammanai, the holy book of the religion, he was the Manu avatar of Trimurthi. The ideas and philosophy of the religion is based on the teachings of Ayya Vaikundar and the religious texts Akilattirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool.
989796
There is this philosophy that I like to call Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Diversity breads conflictt and without conflic we cannot evolve and adapt to the continuously changing world around us. Conflict gives life to new ideas but in order for those ideas to come forth a third party has to come in and say you think this way and you think this way so lets find some other way that you both can agree on. So that third person combines what those two people agree and he shows them the results and sometimes it takes a very long time for this to happen but eventually they will have to agree on something and from that they will evolve from the experience and learn to understand that they are not so different after all. The only problem though is finding someone who is qualified to play peace maker.
741607
Gandhiji's ideas were noble....but I dont think they really fit in todays world..also he had many dark sides of his personality.\n\nWe need to follow Krishna in Kaliyuga.
505066
yes thats true. but if everyone thinks in this way then there wont be anything. there must be someone who has to initiate or make an attempt. there r people in this world who may extend their hands to help and r satisfied with u. even history says that. gandhiji started solo but he soon got many followers.same way martin luther was one.
422745
Being a devote Christian myself, this source comes from a friend of mine.  I believe this is along the lines of what you are looking for and if not, it is something that may interest you.  My friend was explaining the Gnostic beliefs/ideas to me and let me this web address (see sources)
779438
You should do some reading up on Hinduism, specifically samsara, and Shiva and Vishnu. Not exactly the same idea, but a similar concept.
938364
insouciance and anomalistic
1110902
Yes, but be careful.  There were many, MANY branches of belief (the very philosophies of gnosticism made that a foregone conclussion) and it is deeper and richer than some of the stuff you'll see on line.\n\nMay I suggest a source to you?
186468
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/\nhttp://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bfvaughan/ic/101/notes/unit2/consequentialism.html
176138
This one's a real hot potato.  And it's not something you hear \nso much from ancient religious institutions... rather, it's simply \nthe 'politically correct' way to talk about spirituality these days.\n\n   It tends to be expressed something like this: 'You've got your\ntruth, and I've got my truth.  You find a faith that works for\nyou, and I'll find a faith that works for me.'\n\n   Well here's my question:\n\n   How many conflicting versions of the truth can actually be true?\n\n   I'm not going to use this space to promote an agenda today -- or \nto push any specific claim of Ultimate Truth.  I'm just going to\nhighlight a very simple, logical reality that each of us, in our search\nfor Truth, must recognize.  Pardon me if I offend you, but I'm \ngoing to put it bluntly.\n\n   It's impossible for all religions to be true.\n\n   In other words, if Islam is essentially true, then Buddhism,\nHinduism and Christianity are not.  If Buddhism is essentially true, \nthen Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are not.  And so on.\n\n   How can I say such a thing?  Because if you *really* study these \nreligions, it will become clear that each makes bold, fundamental \nassertions about reality that are not compatible with the others.  \n\n   For example, Hinduism states that divinity is present in everything.\nChristianity, Judaism and Islam all assert that God is distinctly \nseparate from what he has created.  The implications of these different \nviews run very deep, and they are fundamentally incompatible.  It's \nlogically impossible for both views to be true.\n\n   So why bring this up, anyway?\n\n   Well first I have to make a confession.  I would *like* to believe \nthat all religions could be true.  I would personally *like* to believe \nthat all paths lead to God.  It feels good.  It's a kinder view of \nthe world.  It puts everyone on equal footing.  \n\n   But it just doesn't make sense.  \n\n   Truth is, by nature, exclusive.  There are always more wrong\nways to do just about anything than right ways.  There are always \nmore wrong answers to any given question than right ones.  \n\n   True?\n\n   And you know what?  This really raises the stakes.  It puts a \nreal sense of urgency in our search for truth, because it shows \nthat if we're not careful, we can fall for a half-truth.\n\n   On the other hand, if you diligently search, seek\nout the facts, and your spiritual journey brings you to\na place where the pieces fit in place - if everything makes\nlogical sense and it feels right in your heart - then you \nshould not hesitate to share your joy with others.\n\n   OK... now let's stop right now and make something very clear: \n\n   If we possess the truth, it doesn't give us the right to \nbe unkind to those who disagree.  It didn't give Bin Laden the \nright to declare Jihad, hijack airplanes and fly them into the \nWorld Trade Center.  It didn't give so-called 'Christians' the \nright to kill people in the Crusades.  It doesn't give us the \nright to be disrespectful or violent.\n\n   What it does give us is the right - and the confidence -\nto go out into the marketplace of ideas and *see* if our Truth\nstands up to hard scrutiny.\n\n   C.S. Lewis was talking about this very thing when he said, \n'You don't need to defend a Lion.  You just need to let him \nout of his cage.'\n\n   If you really do have the truth, then you have nothing to fear.  \nYou don't need to burn books or censor speech.  Truth is its \nown best defense.\n\n   In our modern, sophisticated culture, spirituality gets\nlocked up in a cage.  It's a taboo subject.  Discussions about \nreligion are not considered 'polite conversation.'  So nobody \ntalks about it.\n\n   The result?  People don't talk to each other.  They live in \nfear and isolation.  \n\n   Some folks harbor ideas and notions that make absolutely no
209044
Here's a link about the Alexander Technique. From what I can tell, it doesn't have much to do with Plato.