Where did the idea of unity in diversity come from?

p02 Where did the idea of unity in diversity come from?

Feb 14, 2024

Where did the idea of unity in diversity come from?

I’m trying out the new Gemini AI today. I was wondering about the idea of unity in diversity came from. Is it unique to the Baha’i teachings? Surely not. Philosophically, any group has to have some stance on what they agree upon, its unity, and what can be allowed to branch out, its diversity. Wherever you find unity there must be diversity. And conversely, wherever you find diversity the commonalities must oriented to some sort of unity. In view of that, here was my first question for the AI:

Where did the idea of unity in diversity come from? Is it a Hindu teaching?

While the idea of "unity in diversity" can be found across various cultures and throughout history, its origins are somewhat complex and can't be attributed to a single source. There are multiple contenders claiming its birthplace, including:

1. Hinduism: The concept is often associated with Hinduism, particularly through the motto "Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti", meaning "Truth is one, the wise call it by many names." This reflects the diverse paths within Hinduism that ultimately lead to the same Brahman, the ultimate reality. However, it's important to note that Hinduism emphasizes both unity and diversity, not just unity alone.

2. Sufi Philosophy: Another strong contender is the 13th-century Sufi scholar Ibn al-ʿArabī, who proposed the concept of "wahdat al-wujud" (oneness of being). This emphasized the underlying unity of all existence, with individual beings seen as expressions of the one divine reality. His ideas likely influenced later thinkers and contributed to the concept's development.

3. Other Sources: Similar themes can be found in various cultures and periods. The ancient Javanese poem Kakawin Sutasoma (14th century) uses the phrase "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" (Unity in Diversity) to promote religious tolerance between Hindus and Buddhists. Additionally, philosophers like Leibniz in the 17th century used related concepts, suggesting there were diverse influences.

Therefore, while Hinduism has a strong connection to the idea of unity in diversity, it's not exclusive to them. It's a multifaceted concept with roots in various philosophical and cultural traditions, evolving and adapting throughout history.

My next question was: Is it an indigenous teaching?

While the specific phrase "unity in diversity" may not be directly traceable to one specific Indigenous tradition, concepts reflecting harmony amidst diverse perspectives and interconnectedness within diverse communities are deeply woven into many Indigenous worldviews.

Here are some examples:

North America:

The Anishnaabe Four Colours of Humanity teaching recognizes four distinct groups with unique contributions, emphasizing their interconnectedness and importance to the whole.

Iroquois Confederacy's motto "Strength in Unity" embodies the power of diverse nations joining forces for a common good.

South America:

The Qolla Suyo (Inca Empire) incorporated diverse ethnicities and languages, valuing each for its unique cultural contributions.

The Mapuche concept of "Mapuche Kimün" emphasizes interconnectedness of humans, nature, and spirits, valuing differences within their unified world view.

Australia:

Dreamtime stories often depict diverse landscapes and beings interconnected through complex relationships.

The Yolngu concept of "Yirritja" speaks of interconnectedness and mutual responsibility within diverse clans.

It's important to note that Indigenous cultures are immensely diverse, and generalizations can be misleading. However, recognizing and respecting diversity while fostering connections and interdependence is a common thread observed across many Indigenous traditions. This aligns with the broader theme of "unity in diversity" even if the exact phrase originated elsewhere.

Next time, a revised essay I wrote originally in 2010 about the idea of unity in diversity.

How to be a Xenophile

...

Discussion on Humankind in Wainfleet, Ontario

This Month's Philosopher's Café will be on Thursday, October 11, at 6:30 p.m. in the Wainfleet Library’s meeting room.

 

This month’s topic is:

 

“Mankind is One”

 

 

What is the PhIlosopher’s Café?

 

A second Thursday of the month destination

for provocative, insightful discussion

around ideas and issues that matter.

 

 

. Everyone welcome. Drop in for a lively

discussion.

 

. There is no fee to participate.

 

. No formal philosophy training required;

real life experience desired.

 

Wainfleet Township Public Library

31909 Park Street P.O. Box 118

Wainfleet, ON LOS 1VO

 

905-899-1277

 

www.wainfleetLiibrary.caI

Portrait of Grampa: 4 X 10 to the 3rd

A Note for my Book, on the Oneness of Humanity

Since the mid-1990's tremendous advances in genetics have filled in many crucial details about when and where modern humans came into being. So new are the facts about the human story that no adult living today can grasp its full implications. We should have ingested it with our mother's milk, heard it told and retold in early childhood. We should, throughout our schooling, have thought long and hard about the implications, but we could not do so because the story was so sadly incomplete.

To make an extremely long story short, genetic markers in the male "Y" chromosome indicate with a high degree of certainty that the branches of the human family split off and became isolated from one another far more recently than the most wide-eyed idealist could have imagined, as late as sixty thousand years ago. Archeologically and genetically, this is a mere blink of an eye, a mere two thousand generations. This makes every one of us very closely related to one another.

That is the good news. To express the same thing in another way, though, this shows that the human race at that time came within a hair's breadth of extinction. A major ice age was at its height. Global cooling had frozen much of the world's oceans. As the polar ice caps advanced southwards, the world's shorelines receded many kilometers backwards. With less precipitation, equatorial Africa, although still fairly warm, suffered severe draught, worse than anything we have seen in recent record.

This turned into a great extinction event that killed off not only most of Homo Sapiens but also our many rivals, varied hominids that for millions of years had evolved along with us, including the stronger, larger Neanderthals. All were wiped out in this cataclysm. Only as few as a single village of Homo Sapiens, about sixty individuals, remained alive somewhere in southern Africa. This happy few survived, and gradually repopulated the planet.

Although most traces of this story were long ago expunged from the archeological and anthropological record, the power of genetic tracing has painted a very clear picture of what must have taken place. We are fortunate that after so many ages have passed, the direct descendants of these original survivors remain, their language, culture and technology still intact. They are known as the Khoisan Bushmen of South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan ); they still live in the Kalahari desert, under the same dry conditions that were the undoing of similar hominids surrounding them so many ages ago. We know that, unlike their neighbors, who used wooden arrows, the Khoisan learned to hew arrows out of bone. Although small and delicate, these arrows are deadly to the largest animal because the Khoisan smear them with a poison that they find in local plants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/San_tribesman.jpg/200px-San_tribesman.jpg

Now that we know who these people really are, one gazes into their faces and discerns traces of every branch of the human tree as we know it today. A Khoisan face has it all. It has the regular features of the first wave of emigrants, the Aboriginals who travelled east and eventually inhabited Australia. It has light brown skin, which hints at the lighter skin of those who later emigrated north in a second wave, the antecedents of the Asian and Caucasoid peoples. These emigrants travelled across Africa, and into central Asia. Here, a single family living north of present-day Afghanistan, with members still alive today, were the ancestors of peoples who spread north, then branched into Europe, and south into China, and through the Bering Strait to the Americas.

::

Empathy, by Jeremy Rifkin

May 06, 2010 — Bestselling author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society.

Baha'is will recognize many of the conclusions and logic in this argument for Oneness of Humanity.

Stop dividing our world in your mind!

Talks Hans Rosling: Let my dataset change your mindset

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html

Brown on OH at TED

The British Prime Minister expounds upon the most important Baha'i principle, the Oneness of Humanity.

http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html

We're at a unique moment in history, says UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown: we can use today's interconnectedness to develop our shared global ethic -- and work together to confront the challenges of poverty, security, climate change and the economy.

I love the whole world song

Here are four versions of "I love the whole world" in one video, including one where the song is played in reverse. Amazingly, it works too.

I Love The Whole World! Discovery Channel's 'Boom De Yada!' [4 Versions]

My question for you is, why not make up a Baha'i version? 

If you do, I will post it here. 

Oh forget about it, I will make one up myself.

::

OH in Green Acre

Oneness of Humanity as a Baha'i Principle, Part II

By John Taylor; 2009 May 12, Jamal 15, 166 BE

I have been revising and rewriting an essay on the central Baha'i principle that originally was called "Oneness of Mankind as a Baha'i Principle," written back in March, 2001 for a now-defunct Geocities web site about the Baha'i principles.

In part one I compared the Baha'i principles to my son's Tinkertoy construction set, whose slogan is "build big fast." Like a Tinkertoy set, a person applying principle takes two simple pieces, truth seeking and oneness of humanity, and in the creative spirit of play connects them into big things fast. The method of principle sets two invariables before us on the assumption that commonalities will overcome difference.

"If the points of contact which are the common properties of humanity overcome the peculiar points of distinction, unity is assured." (Promulgation 64-5)

As an individual seeks truth for herself their discovery, however unique and personal, must fit into a deeper consciousness of the underlying oneness of all that is human. The more we investigate the better we appreciate the oneness in all things, our selves, our planet and indeed the universe itself. Each part of search and oneness fits perfectly into the other, assuring that no fundamental is ever passed over.

Indeed the further dozen or so Baha'i principles are little more than the effects and implications in every major sphere of human endeavour of these two simple joints and connectors, search and oneness. Keeping these two things in mind we can use the Baha'i principles as a modular construction system that, if everybody adheres to them, can wipe war, suffering, injustice and other dislocation from the slate.

Nothing common to everybody can be left aside by the majority and relegated to the expertise of a few specialists. For example, one should not need a PhD in Women's Studies in order to be able to apply the principle of equality of men and women, nor a graduate degree in diplomacy, race relations or conflict resolution to be qualified to remove prejudice. These enter into every situation imaginable, and in a shrinking planet every social agent must understand and apply them. We therefore must build these universals into education from day one.

Yesterday we started into the fourth address that Abdu'l-Baha gave at Green Acre school in Maine (Promulgation, 369-377), which was entirely devoted to explaining the principle of the Oneness of Humanity. He began by saying that if we ever established the oneness of humanity the results would be astonishing, that peace would break out everywhere. This would snuff out the conflict that has afflicted human relations from the beginning, especially in the area of religion. He said that the problem is that this bias historically has been built into religions themselves. They saw their own group as the divine tree of God while picturing other faiths as of the tree of Satan. He pointed out Baha'u'llah's central teaching that "Ye are all leaves of one tree" has ended that parlous condition permanently. The law of Baha'u'llah established the religious grounds of the oneness of humanity by outlawing any words or deed contrary to that spirit. "Baha'u'llah has made no exception to this rule." Any badmouthing of others, or gossip, backbiting or even lack of courtesy to any servant of God is now considered a direct insult to God.

Having taken care of the legal, negative, protective application of oneness, Abdu'l-Baha turns to its positive application. This is a sort of unification imperative that might be called the sub-principle of "Merciful Action":

"He said that among mankind there may be those who are ignorant; they must be trained. Some are sick; they must be treated. Some are immature; they must be helped to attain maturity. In other respects humanity is submerged in the ocean of divine mercy. God is the Father of all. He educates, provides for and loves all; for they are His servants and His creation."

This positive teaching of Baha'u'llah is none other than the full application of pure monotheism. By holding that there are two "trees" mankind has throughout its childhood denied that God is kind and loving. Although characteristic of the Baha'i Faith, this compassionate vision could (and should) be extracted from the pure spiritual leanings of all older religious scriptures. Abdu'l-Baha continues, invoking reason rather than authority,

"Surely the Creator loves His creatures. It would be impossible to find an artist who does not love his own production. Have you ever seen a man who did not love his own actions? Even though they be bad actions, he loves them. How ignorant, therefore, the thought that God, Who created man, educated and nurtured him ... and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs, even though he be an atheist or materialist, nevertheless, God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light. How then can we believe God is wrathful and unloving?"

Having got the image of God right, the next step is to act upon God's example of kindness. To know God is to love Him and to love Him means acting in His loving, compassionate spirit.

"If, therefore, God be loving, what should we do? We have nothing else to do but to emulate Him. Just as God loves all and is kind to all, so must we really love and be kind to everybody. We must consider none bad, none worthy of detestation, no one as an enemy. We must love all; nay, we must consider everyone as related to us, for all are the servants of one God. All are under the instructions of one Educator. We must strive day and night that love and amity may increase, that this bond of unity may be strengthened, that joy and happiness may more and more prevail, that in unity and solidarity all mankind may gather beneath the shadow of God... Thus may they be confirmed in the Kingdom of God and live forever through His grace and bounty."

This is diametrically opposed to how racism, sexism and any number of other "isms" and ideologies respond to differences. These generally attempt to put one part of society down in order to raise another. They say:

"Yes, some are ailing so we need to eliminate, ignore or marginalize them. Yes, some are less intelligent, so let us direct limited resources to more productive ends."

While society has largely relegated the most blatant racist and extremist thinking to the lunatic fringe, it is safe to say that in many cases passive forms do greater harm. Even mild acceptance of a central moral imperative like this can amount to resistance and denial. In its secular form the "ism" of liberalism, which imitates this principle closely, tends to ignore Christ's dictum that it is better to give than to receive. Liberalism concentrates more on liberality of taking than the divine model of liberality in sacrificial, magnanimous outflow.

The oneness of humanity does the reverse of an ideology, it acknowledges that differences, deficits and inequalities exist and apply, but it responds generously, with merciful action. As Abdu'l-Baha puts it:

"Baha'u'llah has clearly said in His Tablets that if you have an enemy, consider him not as an enemy. Do not simply be long-suffering; nay, rather, love him. Your treatment of him should be that which is becoming to lovers. ... To consider a man your enemy and love him is hypocrisy. This is not becoming of any soul. You must behold him as a friend."

The influential contemporary Baha'i writer Paul Lample points out the broad implications on politics and social policy that rejection of this principle's liberal bias and divinely compassionate spirit has:

"Refusal to be generous and giving is an invitation to corrosive habits and practices, among which are impatience with the mistakes of others and a desire to control their actions. Ungenerous souls in positions of authority deny others the opportunity to serve, demonstrating interest and appreciation only for enterprises in which they directly participate. They are instead to be free `from every word and deed that may savour of partiality, self-centeredness and prejudice.' As community members, souls who lack generosity constantly criticize their leaders and institutions." (Creating a New Mind, 27)

In Green Acre Abdu'l-Baha insisted that this spirit is not mere idealism or emotionalism but an outcome of the most fundamental, binding laws of nature.

"When we observe the phenomena of the universe, we realize that the axis around which life revolves is love, while the axis around which death and destruction revolve is animosity and hatred."

He then traces the action of the principle of oneness through the mineral to the plant and animal kingdoms, and finally to us, where unfortunately we all to often fail to grasp its full implications. No matter what level nature works in, dispersal always means death while coherence and cohesion means progress and life. While I am tempted to cite the four large paragraphs covering each of the kingdoms, mineral, plant, animal and human, in their entirety, instead I will offer some general comments.

It is easy even for committed, highly educated Baha'is to pass over this "kingdoms of God" thesis. In fact I have observed that the more prominent and well-trained a Baha'i is, the more likely they are to be uncomfortable with, if not outright suspicious of this "kingdoms of God" idea, as well as the principles in general.

Some (and they are very outspoken in the blogosphere) even look at a few talks of the Master whose authenticity is questionable, and conclude that the principles themselves inauthentic. This ignores their central position in the Tablet of the Hague, a climactic, unquestionably authentic document that amounts to the consummation of the Master's entire ministry to the public at large.

We surely would avoid such egregious mistakes if there were a definitive biography of Abdu'l-Baha and all Baha'is were trained from an early age in His entire teaching.

What the Master is doing here is tracing the outlines of a future unified curriculum that would be in the spirit of the "university," which literally means "oneness in the whole." The university, significantly, originally came out of the Madraseh in Islam. It is an institution designed to unify all knowledge into a single, liberal education. Educational pioneer John Comenius appreciated this and propounded an educational system where practical, vocational training would be balanced by a liberal education for each and all. Unfortunately, I do not think Comenius understood as well as Kant did how fundamental generous, liberal hospitality is to the whole peace process.

The great contribution of Islam was that it took the "compassionate action" tendency of Christianity, which had generously taken the "love feast" begun at the Last Supper and extended it by instituting the world's first free schools and hospitals, which Christians founded throughout the Roman world, and carried that principle further still. It "force fed," as it were, the duty of hospitality into the family. Even today one can be assured of a hospitable reception in any Muslim household throughout the Islamic world, even if bigotry may oblige them to smash the dishes you ate off of later on.

Unfortunately, over the centuries the liberal spirit of the university, its tie to familial hospitality -- a process where host and guest eat and learn together -- became tenuous, and science came to stand as an amoral, neutral body of facts.

In these paragraphs Abdu'l-Baha is introducing this principle of generosity further still, into the spirit of science as well as religion. "... if attraction did not exist between the atoms, the composite substance of matter would not be possible." This changes forever our understanding of science and nature by distinguishing the need that even rocks and stones have for coherence and unity. This has lately been backed up, by the way, by studies whose calculations find that a large proportion of the more "advanced" minerals on the earth's surface are produced by biological processes, and in turn support the existence of higher forms of life.

"This power of attraction in the mineral world is love, the only expression of love the stone can manifest."

This viewpoint makes even materials science into a truly liberal study with far reaching ethical implications for society. Ditto in subsequent paragraphs for biology and the social sciences. All these adhere to a dry, life-denying, overly competitive caricature of the processes of evolution. This misunderstanding makes science toxic to both religion and ethics. In Abdu'l-Baha's view, the human world, as a superior entity, must intensify an attractive force of love, which is already vital in lower, simpler levels of creation,

"...man is the possessor of a degree of attraction which is conscious and spiritual. Here is an immeasurable advance. In the human kingdom spiritual susceptibilities come into view, love exercises its superlative degree, and this is the cause of human life."

Next time we will examine what the Master proposes that we make of this love dictum written into the very fabric of material and human existence.

::

Rome and OH

The "When In Rome" Principle


By John Taylor; 2009 April 22, Jalal 13, 166 BE

Last in a Series on Comenius and the Oneness of Humanity


Before I move on from the principle of oneness of humanity, there are some points made by Comenius that I want to go over one more time.

First is his argument that reconciliation among the earth's rival peoples may not prove to be as difficult as we tend to think. All that is needed is to hold fast to reality. If reality is truly one, the more we know it, the more we will agree.

"Let me give an example to illustrate my point and show how easy it is for opposing parties to be reconciled. Suppose that there are six hundred people who have heard or read a description of the city of Rome; the ideas of the individuals, if we were able to examine them, will certainly vary widely. But take them all to visit Rome, to have a careful look at everything on the spot, and soon the ideas of all will have much in common and will tend to become identical. In our present situation we should do likewise; those who disagree about the nature of things or about God, or the ideas of the mind, must be brought to see nature or God or the mind, and soon they will be reconciled." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 8, para 30, p. 121)

An objection might be raised that these six hundred visitors might visit different regions and buildings in Rome and come away with even more variant opinions of what the city is all about. This possibility is illustrated in the traditional story of the four blind men and the elephant. One feels the tail and says that elephants are like ropes, another feels a foot and says they are like tree trunks, and so forth. Comenius partly answers this by choosing a large number of tourists, six hundred. The wisdom of crowds tends to even out the large variance that tends to occur among small samplings of individuals.

Another way is to make certain that the six hundred visitors have a comprehensive view of the whole city -- rather than sinking them deeper in their own prejudices -- would be to require that each of them takes at least one guided, general purpose tour of the whole city of Rome. Or, better still, that they be accompanied by a guide and that they live with native Roman families at least part of the time. Such tours would be the most effective when integrated into the visitors' educational or professional development.

Australia did just this, it went from a backward, bigoted place in the 1950's to an open-minded, sophisticated, broadminded nation in the 1960's, a remarkably short time. It did this accidentally, just through increased tourism among young people, prompted by cheaper air fares. This about face took place very quickly, and I have often wondered how much more could be accomplished if teachers integrated tourism into the curriculum. This was done in Europe for centuries among the leading classes. A "grand tour" of Europe was expected after a student had finished schooling.

Today something like this should be required as a condition of graduation of all students, of all classes and both sexes. Guided tourism would broaden the minds of young people in poor nations and the Islamic world, but in my opinion it would benefit Americans the most, since insularity and unwillingness to see the same "Rome" have been holding them back from a high destiny.

One reason that guided travel is such an effective teacher is that the diversity one encounters while living in another culture forces us to learn what is essential and what is not in our own culture. A people without enough contact with the outside world trusts in the wrong kind of sameness, the kind of conformity that leads to factionalism and competition rather than unity. Comenius discusses this here:

"Concerning mutual agreement within the same order, the words of the poet Hesiod (Works and Days, 25-26) are still true: 'there is hatred between one potter and another, and one craftsman and another,' (Ovid Metamorphoses I, 145) and the same applies to schools, churches, and politics. Also neighbours, relatives and even brothers are seldom on friendly terms. This could hardly have been otherwise at a time when life was torn with distractions and everyone lived selfishly, and when nothing was safe from violence or dishonesty, and therefore every man viewed his neighbour with suspicion. Verily, if God gives us the chance to end partisanship, treachery and violence, it will also be possible to put an end to mutual distrust and the disagreements which stem from it. Therefore we must arrange to end them all. (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 34, p. 166)


--
John Taylor

email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

p02 Oneness of Humanity

Amazing long term history of the human race. We were reduced to a mere 2000 humans only 60,000 years ago, at the end of the great ice age.



human origins project