How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

In Baha'i theology everything is created by God:

Subtle differences again, or perhaps more. How do you understand the word emanate? I wonder how it differs from create, endow, mirror, and manifest.

I'm no philosopher, yet Saiva Siddhanta also has it's philosophy. The explanation we use involves a potter. So in order to make a pot, we have efficient cause, the potter, material cause, the clay, and instrumental cause, the wheel.

My (probably poor) understanding of Abrahamism is that it is just the potter. In Saiva Siddhanta, it's all 3. Sparks from a fire, heat from a fire ... a natural process, not a 'thinking through' by a separate being. Personally, I use emanate, just to distinguish us from the potter version of 'create', which is how it's normally used in English, synonymous to 'make' like she will make a pie.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm not sure what Krishna means but He is an avatar or manifestation of Vishnu the preserver. Perhaps Vishnu can mean God too.

Moksha and reincarnation that are so central to your faith without similar concepts in Baha'ism appear to be the biggest differences.

The variance within Hinduism appears just as great.

Vishnu, for Vaishnavites, is not just the preserver. He does it all. He's God. This trimurti idea of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer, is a later development in Hinduism, yet probably the most well known, especially by outsiders. My personal suspicion, although possible totally wrong, is that western indologists were looking for something resembling their own trllogy because they always look for similarities, found some vague reference in the Vedas or Puranas, and put that into encyclopedias, hence everyone learns it that way. Western encyclopedias have done a great disservice to many non-European cultures by using that paradigm in writing. In reality, that view is there but not common. The more common is that there is God, called by different names, and that God does all those actions.

I would agree that moksha and reincarnation, and how that affects our paradigm, is huge. But so is the nature of God, at least with respect to fundamentalism.

Yes, there is a lot of variance within Hinduism, but moksha, reincarnation and dharma are common to at least 95% of us.

 

[leibowde84]

That makes sense. But it doesn't apply to you anymore. What has changed?

The war many Christians are waging on Atheists. Their inability to recognize the actual meaning of the term atheism. And, the lack of evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. Just to name a few things.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

An "agnostic Christian" is a person who has received Christian baptism and is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings, but also believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Basically, the belief is there with the understanding that it is based on faith not knowledge. This doesn't apply to me anymore though.

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

Chris·tian
ˈkrisCHən/
noun

1. a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

That's confusing. Most Christians I know don't claim certainty that god exists materially. Their certainty is through faith. Roman Catholics are the only ones I know that claim more certainty than any other denomination who rests on faith and mystery of the words of scripture that makes god exist nothing outside of their faith and authority.

So, I'd assume most christians are agnostic christians but because most feel faith (in things unseen and unknown) is embedded in the faith in christ, it would be redundant to say agnostic christian,

right?

 

[RoaringSilence]

Vishnu, for Vaishnavites, is not just the preserver. He does it all. He's God. This trimurti idea of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer, is a later development in Hinduism, yet probably the most well known, especially by outsiders. My personal suspicion, although possible totally wrong, is that western indologists were looking for something resembling their own trllogy because they always look for similarities, found some vague reference in the Vedas or Puranas, and put that into encyclopedias, hence everyone learns it that way. Western encyclopedias have done a great disservice to many non-European cultures by using that paradigm in writing. In reality, that view is there but not common. The more common is that there is God, called by different names, and that God does all those actions.

I would agree that moksha and reincarnation, and how that affects our paradigm, is huge. But so is the nature of God, at least with respect to fundamentalism.

Yes, there is a lot of variance within Hinduism, but moksha, reincarnation and dharma are common to at least 95% of us.

dude,
i ve been saying that from start , all these functions are icons of power by the great designer himself.. like krishna says , i reward people who worship these icons /deities myself.. to keep the sanctity of the system.
one can approach an x deity for an x task that's how it works ...and we know it ..that is the design.

 

[leibowde84]

That's confusing. Most Christians I know don't claim certainty that god exists materially. Their certainty is through faith. Roman Catholics are the only ones I know that claim more certainty than any other denomination who rests on faith and mystery of the words of scripture that makes god exist nothing outside of their faith and authority.

So, I'd assume most christians are agnostic christians but because most feel faith (in things unseen and unknown) is embedded in the faith in christ, it would be redundant to say agnostic christian,

right?

No, not in my experience. I grew up Catholic, so I might be coming from a different place than you, but I come across a lot of christians who claim to know that God exists beyond any doubt. They claim to base this knowledge on evidence, but when you ask them for evidence that can be verified, they come up with nothing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, not in my experience. I grew up Catholic, so I might be coming from a different place than you, but I come across a lot of christians who claim to know that God exists beyond any doubt. They claim to base this knowledge on evidence, but when you ask them for evidence that can be verified, they come up with nothing.

Hmm. I didn't grow up religious and the tiny bit my life as a christian wasn't nurtured as a christian but just by myself reading the bible and interested in religion. I had a huge break and then practice Catholicism for four years so that's the only spiritually I know as well.

What I find we differ is that every time I ask a Catholic about christ and the Eucharist, they tell me the nature of the Eucharist as taught by the Church. So, they are the only ones that I find say they are certain of god's existence. Protestants and Orthodox (as told on here) the former see god's "evidence" of knowledge based on faith in Hebrews. The latter say the Eucharist is a mystery and both them and Jews seem to not define god as fact with evidence but a mystery experienced.

So, Roman Catholics are the only one's I know that say and say they prove through theology, apologetics, and Church teachings that god exists. Everyone else base their belief on faith and grace. I notice many people doubt the authenticity of Catholic proofs and try to hammer evidence from protestants where faith is, by definition, has no proof available.

That was my experience. I don't know any protestant who believes god exist without faith and any Catholic who believes god exist without the Church's evidence of his existence in the Eucharist. Unless anyone can prove me wrong? Shrugs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The war many Christians are waging on Atheists. Their inability to recognize the actual meaning of the term atheism. And, the lack of evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. Just to name a few things.

I don't know how it is in your part of the world (?USA) but where I live that war of words has settled down as it's not satisfying for anyone. Atheists have their reasons for believing as they do, as do Christians. There are good people on both sided of the debate.

I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Bible as the Christians but have a different outlook that views the other world religions more positively. Are there proofs and arguments for some of the truths enshrined in the Christian Faith? Of course there is. Are there counter arguments to refute those truths? Sure.

It's not as black and white as extremists on either side claim.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm no philosopher, yet Saiva Siddhanta also has it's philosophy. The explanation we use involves a potter. So in order to make a pot, we have efficient cause, the potter, material cause, the clay, and instrumental cause, the wheel.

My (probably poor) understanding of Abrahamism is that it is just the potter. In Saiva Siddhanta, it's all 3. Sparks from a fire, heat from a fire ... a natural process, not a 'thinking through' by a separate being. Personally, I use emanate, just to distinguish us from the potter version of 'create', which is how it's normally used in English, synonymous to 'make' like she will make a pie.

That makes sense. It would be fair to say there is a diverse range of views amongst Abramahics about creation, and many favour a view that incorporates what we know from science, rather than literally interpreting their sacred scripture. In that manner the narrative of our origins sound more like the emanation you describe in Hinduism. The Baha'i view is of course is based on harmony of science and religion, at times rejecting religious mythology in favour of scientific certainty. Plenty of shades of grey too.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Vishnu, for Vaishnavites, is not just the preserver. He does it all. He's God. This trimurti idea of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer, is a later development in Hinduism, yet probably the most well known, especially by outsiders. My personal suspicion, although possible totally wrong, is that western indologists were looking for something resembling their own trllogy because they always look for similarities, found some vague reference in the Vedas or Puranas, and put that into encyclopedias, hence everyone learns it that way. Western encyclopedias have done a great disservice to many non-European cultures by using that paradigm in writing. In reality, that view is there but not common. The more common is that there is God, called by different names, and that God does all those actions.

Interesting about Vishnu and no fires in the iron from my perspective, although Vishnu and Krishna as God and names of God, is more aligned to a Baha'i theology than a triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. I suspect it would be more aligned with Christianity too, as Jesus is not part of that Hindu threesome. The other avatars such as Rama have similarities to how Baha'i would view Moses, but Christians would not see it that way at all.

I Understand Shiva manifests Brahman in Shaivism, where Vishnu manifests Brahman for the Vaishnavites. Is that correct?

I would agree that moksha and reincarnation, and how that affects our paradigm, is huge. But so is the nature of God, at least with respect to fundamentalism.

Hinduism appears to be the only religion with literal reincarnation as a central tenet, although some Buddhists believe in it too, which isn't suprising given Buddhism's Hindu origins. I wonder if the atheism of Buddhism (perceived or otherwise) is a result of Buddha's concerns about Hinduism's version of theism.

Yes, there is a lot of variance within Hinduism, but moksha, reincarnation and dharma are common to at least 95% of us.

I was quite suprised to find an atheist Hindu on this thread earlier on so presumably they wouldn't believe in Moksha and Rincarnation. Are you are of any research that looks at the proportion of Hindus who belive in what?

Does Moojen Moojen do justice to the topic of Dharma?

'It is not possible to translate the word Dharma into English in such a way as to represent all of its meanings. These include: the universal law, the right way of living, the moral order. At the cosmic level there is the Sanatana Dharma. This is the eternal, unchanging, universal law which governs the universe and to which all things conform. At the level of man, there is firstly the Sadharama Dharma. This is the general code of ethics. It includes the requirement to perform good deeds (such as going on pilgrimages and giving to charity) and also prohibits evil deeds (such as causing injury and lying). Secondly, there is the Varnashrama Dharma. This is the customs and duties relative to each person's caste, as well as the social duties relative to the stages in each person's life as set out in Hindu Scripture (study of the scripture, raising of a family, retiring from family life, and the wandering mendicant). There is also a personal meaning to Dharma. Everyone has his own personal Dharma, the right way for him to live.'

 

[Dawnofhope]

The restaurant example you gave made me think unity is the restaurant (not the earth), diversity are the people in the restaurant, and we are all sharing each other's dishes. Unless you changed the goal post that's pretty much it.



I can't remember who else here thought I meant "ask permission" I think it was lover. I don't think you understand cultural propriation or cultural ownership.

I'm trying to figure how to explain it briefly. Pretend the PRIDE Flag was around way before Baker was alive. Say it's a historical marker that meant not only equality of all LGBTQ people but PRIDE is actually education for LGBTQ youth as well. It's basically about educating people.

Anyway, say you come along and like the rainbow flag. Fine. It's all cool. Say you come to a PRIDE Parade and wear a Rainbow flag but you are not an ally because you identity homosexuality with an action. Wearing that flag is an insult. It's talking something that is culturally owned, using it in a manner you feel is respectful, and not knowing the disrespect you have by not being part of the group or an ally of that group.

It's really tricky. In Deaf culture, there is no "asking permission". American Sign Language in America, ASL is the Deaf community's language. It's not individual people so even being one person that, say you're deaf, and you come into the community without associating yourself as Deaf is a insult to even use the word you can use by technicality. Hearing people literally cannot ask permission to say make up an ASL word or some words that are only used (and aka owned) by the Deaf community.

Food is the same thing. It has the same intimate affair with the person who makes it more so than the person who is not part of that culture. I mean the Vietnamese were very nice to me and all. However, a family member cooked a dish for the monks, and I took the recipe, went home, and made it myself thinking "they like me. this is okay." To me, that's stealing. Stealing from the culture. Stealing from the Sangha. Stealing from the monks.

I wish I knew you more but if I find a video on it or something, I'll post it.



It's the best example I can think of. D-eaf meaning a person who is deaf or hard of hearing who are part of a community built on like growing up experiences, interests, language, cultural norms, and ways of getting around in the hearing world that a hearing person, no matter how close they are to the Deaf community, will not be a part of.

So, if I came in a decided to use ASL for my benefit because "I know Deaf people and we are friends" that's rude. I can't ask permission because permission is embedded in the culture not something you can get by asking.

A lot of Americans are sensitive with people coming out of the country and becoming American citizens here. People from other countries come here daily, but the cultural part is American's independence-American by culture, language, and nationality....not just nationality an learning about culture and language as a second language.

So some Americans see that as "stealing our independence that is solely for Americans". You can't ask permission because that thought is embedded in the northern and southern states here in the US. (Civil War states) The western states where native americans were taken as slaves and land sold.

It doesn't mean you can't be American. It doesn't mean you can no longer try Japanese dishes. Just note that there is a cultural separation between people and the things they hold dear to their country and ours. Like here I live among a lot of elderly Koreans. Yes, I say hello and how are you in Korean and they gave me "permission" to use it by teaching me more phrases I forgot. But to connect with them on that level just because I am friends with thiem (if I am?) is for me to say that is rude.

That's the difference.

I figure a good video so you don't have to suffer through all this. I can't figure a better way to explain it. We can share meals in the same restaurant. We can find them all delicious, savor the taste, talk about its commonalities, and so forth. There are different cooks in the back, they offer their foods to many different people. Just don't mistake their offerings to all people as a way to make everyone apart of their culture by food. It goes beyond that.

Foods just an analogy.

I wonder if we just have a different emphasis and sensitivity around issues of cultural appropriation reflecting our different backgrounds and experiences. I'm not African, a woman, gay, dharmic, atheistic, or associated with the deaf community. I am a white, male, married with kids, professional, monotheist, universalist, and a multicultural advocate.

The Jews can cry foul that the Christians have taken their Hebrew scripture, claimed it as their own, and interpreted to claim Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah. Do Christians and Baha'is have a problem with this? Not all all.

A good recipe, is a good recipe, and at some point it becomes a recipe everyone can use, regardless of the cultural background and origins. There may be exceptions but to try and reverse this reality is turning the clock back on globalisation.

Should we criticise the LGBTQ for stealing the rainbow from the story of Noah's ark. I don't think so. It has become a symbol used by many groups and peoples because of it universality. Most people have seen a rainbow. No one person or culture should be able to claim intellectual property rights on rainbows.

The areas I would exercise caution in New Zealand would be the treatment of Maori, our indigineous peoples, gender equality, sexual orientation and dealing with unfamiliar religious and ethnic minorities.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was looking up things on cultural appropriation and a lot of results I got were negative. Many said cultural appropriation is a lie or is immoral. The consensus is that minorities say Cherokee Indian cannot tell the majority American White people that they (Americans) cannot take from the Indians since it's public domain. They validate this because you have native american jewelry and artifacts sold to Americans all over the globe.

A lot of which that are sold directly from say tribes that aren't recognized by the US sell items for money for their tribes not to share in their culture, religion, items, and language (and dances I saw on youtube) with the majority. Of course, Bahai doesn't have the same intent and negativity as our American's forebearers. Given it's religious in nature, respect and sharing food isn't more the point of recognizing there are more than one cooks that are not related to each other and want to be respected and believed and trusted as such.

I'm not African, a woman, gay, dharmic, atheistic, or associated with the deaf community. I am a white, male, married with kids, professional, monotheist, universalist, and a multicultural advocate.

I don't know why, I had to laugh at this observation. African [American], woman, gay, dharmic [you can call be Buddhist now], atheist, and associated with the deaf [Deaf instead of deaf] community-that is a mouth full. I think it is cultural sensitivities. Even with typing and writing. I like how Jews don't mention god's full name and Muslims put peace be among him along with god and the prophets. I went to a universalist church but the mix of people made it confusing what the core beliefs were that didn't make it a social organization instead.

I put on my Facebook Profile:

I'm a smart dudette, teacher, poet, proud (L)GBTQ, Epilepsy patient advocate, & Deaf Community ally.

Multicultural advocate? Professionally??

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was looking up things on cultural appropriation and a lot of results I got were negative. Many said cultural appropriation is a lie or is immoral. The consensus is that minorities say Cherokee Indian cannot tell the majority American White people that they (Americans) cannot take from the Indians since it's public domain. They validate this because you have native american jewelry and artifacts sold to Americans all over the globe.

A lot of which that are sold directly from say tribes that aren't recognized by the US sell items for money for their tribes not to share in their culture, religion, items, and language (and dances I saw on youtube) with the majority. Of course, Bahai doesn't have the same intent and negativity as our American's forebearers. Given it's religious in nature, respect and sharing food isn't more the point of recognizing there are more than one cooks that are not related to each other and want to be respected and believed and trusted as such.

I agree that cultural misappropriation is regarded as bad thing by those who have been interested to write about it. I think we just examine it, on a case by case basis. The argument when applied to the Baha'i Faith from a Baha'i perspective appears to be accusing God of being politically incorrect and culturally insensitive.

I don't know why, I had to laugh at this observation. African [American], woman, gay, dharmic [you can call be Buddhist now], atheist, and associated with the deaf [Deaf instead of deaf] community-that is a mouth full. I think it is cultural sensitivities. Even with typing and writing. I like how Jews don't mention god's full name and Muslims put peace be among him along with god and the prophets. I went to a universalist church but the mix of people made it confusing what the core beliefs were that didn't make it a social organization instead.

I put on my Facebook Profile:

I'm a smart dudette, teacher, poet, proud (L)GBTQ, Epilepsy patient advocate, & Deaf Community ally.

Multicultural advocate? Professionally??

I think we have had this conversation, and the Baha'is are clear that we are not a fusion religion. We are an independant religion based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah.

My bad with the profile but pleased it gave you a laugh.

 

[Vinayaka]

1) I Understand Shiva manifests Brahman in Shaivism, where Vishnu manifests Brahman for the Vaishnavites. Is that correct?

2) Hinduism appears to be the only religion with literal reincarnation as a central tenet, although some Buddhists believe in it too, which isn't suprising given Buddhism's Hindu origins. I wonder if the atheism of Buddhism (perceived or otherwise) is a result of Buddha's concerns about Hinduism's version of theism.

3) I was quite suprised to find an atheist Hindu on this thread earlier on so presumably they wouldn't believe in Moksha and Rincarnation. Are you are of any research that looks at the proportion of Hindus who belive in what?

4) Does Moojen Moojen do justice to the topic of Dharma?

'It is not possible to translate the word Dharma into English in such a way as to represent all of its meanings. These include: the universal law, the right way of living, the moral order. At the cosmic level there is the Sanatana Dharma. This is the eternal, unchanging, universal law which governs the universe and to which all things conform. At the level of man, there is firstly the Sadharama Dharma. This is the general code of ethics. It includes the requirement to perform good deeds (such as going on pilgrimages and giving to charity) and also prohibits evil deeds (such as causing injury and lying). Secondly, there is the Varnashrama Dharma. This is the customs and duties relative to each person's caste, as well as the social duties relative to the stages in each person's life as set out in Hindu Scripture (study of the scripture, raising of a family, retiring from family life, and the wandering mendicant). There is also a personal meaning to Dharma. Everyone has his own personal Dharma, the right way for him to live.'

1) Generally, there is no manifesting between identical things, Siva is Brahman. Vishnu is Brahman. Also, some ould have it the other way around too, that Brahman manifests both Siva and Vishnu.

2) Could be. Not sure.

3) I was surprised as well, but it may boil down to definition of Brahman. One can be atheist to certain versions of God. I am. As far as I know there is no really good statistical data on who believes in what. As you know, any writer might distort stuff.

4) Yes, that description reflects the multiplicity of concepts, but for me, somehow lacks the fire of importance to individuals, and centrality to the religion. It has that 'outsider' feel to it.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know how it is in your part of the world (?USA) but where I live that war of words has settled down as it's not satisfying for anyone. Atheists have their reasons for believing as they do, as do Christians. There are good people on both sided of the debate.

I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Bible as the Christians but have a different outlook that views the other world religions more positively. Are there proofs and arguments for some of the truths enshrined in the Christian Faith? Of course there is. Are there counter arguments to refute those truths? Sure.

It's not as black and white as extremists on either side claim.

Completely agree.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think we have had this conversation, and the Baha'is are clear that we are not a fusion religion. We are an independant religion based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah.

I didn't type/say fusion. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

What I said is there are totally different cooks there's just receiving one group of ingredients that each cook fashions a different way. So it may look like different foods and tastes, in actuality, it is not. I disagree with this. Has nothing to do with fusion.

Just making a statement. (Like I tell @Tony Bristow-Stagg I'm just making a statement of fact not a fact of argument) But good discussion nonetheless.

But, yeah, you threw me off there. Yeah, America has a lot of cultural appropriation and justifies it in many ways. It is not all religious in nature. Just I notice culture and religion are embedded hence the sensitivities of the issues. I wasn't raised strong in my culture but of course you have people here that are so I'd assume Bahai view would have a greater affect on them than me. I just like to learn by questioning different viewpoints. I wasn't raised religious to form bad/good or right/wrong opinions based from faith.

Edit: Also, your question to Vinakaya. Yes, Buddhism "atheist" view depending on the school is depending on how heavy the atheism view is was a response to The Buddha not agreeing with Hindu beliefs and the Hindu god. He was born and raised Hindu and realized that the practices didn't relieve people from suffering so he renounced his status and decided to teach on a people-level. There are suttas about his conversation with Brahma if you're interested.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes but he can no longer practice his normal sexuality according to the rules. I would imagine, as with many faiths, some people disobey the rules, and their conscience is fine with it. So if you knew somebody like that, would you be obliged to report them?

I didn't know a politician couldn't be a Baha'i'. That is interesting.

People are mostly left alone. We all have our own spiritual battles. I have great respect for the person who said , I like the Baha’i Faith a lot but I don’t want to join because I like my wine’.

That person is so sincere and I never forget him. He was honest to himself and us and accepted that he would not, in the long run ever be able to overcome his desire to drink so was mature enough and wise enough to not commit to something he couldn’t live up to.

But he loved coming to our meetings, he couldn’t stay away and we loved having his company. It didn’t matter to him that we didn’t drink and it didn’t matter to us that he did. We just accepted each other the way we were without either expecting the other to see it their way.

He was an Indian too. I’m not sure if he was a Hindu or a Sikh but it didn’t matter. He was awesome company.

Another Hindu helped my wife and I in 1992 commemorate the 100th Centenary of the Passing of Baha’u’llah. He helped us buy a 100 roses and stick them to our walls so our home was like a rose garden. It didn’t bother him that we were Baha’is or us that he was a Hindu. We felt honoured mixing with him.

It’s a far cry from the people who knocked on my door recently and when I tried to show hospitality and courtesy, knowing we were Baha’is they said they were instructed not to mix with ‘other religions’ for fear of being infected.

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s a far cry from the people who knocked on my door recently and when I tried to show hospitality and courtesy, knowing we were Baha’is they said they were instructed not to mix with ‘other religions’ for fear of being infected.

That mentality, fortunately, is slowly disappearing. But it's what my friend (the one with the gay son) left. And you asked why he left? Now does it make more sense?

So much is individualised, even within the same church. Of the 6 or 7 Baha'i' I've encountered on here, there is great variety. I'm sad to say that some are immovable. But they, at least they have a place where they can call home.

Still, there is a huge difference between your drinker example and someone who is gay. One has been proven time and again by science to be alterable (still there is some evidence of a genetic disposition to alcoholism, but it's not overwhelming) whereas science has overwhelmingly proven homosexuality is normal for some, and not alterable.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That mentality, fortunately, is slowly disappearing. But it's what my friend (the one with the gay son) left. And you asked why he left? Now does it make more sense?

So much is individualised, even within the same church. Of the 6 or 7 Baha'i' I've encountered on here, there is great variety. I'm sad to say that some are immovable. But they, at least they have a place where they can call home.

As Baha’is, we are not all mature and sensible. A lot of us including myself have very much to learn. The only real way to make the world a better place is to start with ourselves and that is a very formidable task.

By learning I mean not the words but the culture and practice. So I may believe in courtesy but also may be totally hopeless at being courteous.

 

[Vinayaka]

As Baha’is, we are not all mature and sensible. A lot of us including myself have very much to learn. The only real way to make the world a better place is to start with ourselves and that is a very formidable task.

By learning I mean not the words but the culture and practice. So I may believe in courtesy but also may be totally hopeless at being courteous.

LH, I edited my post to add something, just before you responded, I think. Yes, we have the less mature and sensible in our crowd too. Even people prone to anger.