Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 4/96
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 1 01:08:00 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 18:37:37 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: "Iskandar Hai, M.D." ,
Talisman
Subject: quote re: God causing evil
Dr. Hai, you requested a source for a quote I mentioned from the Master.
I was able to locate it. The parentheses appear in the published text:
"As to thy question, 'That 'Abdu'l-Baha hath said to some of the believers
that evil never exists, nay, rather, it is a non-existent thing": This
is but truth, inasmuch as the greatest evil is (man's) going astray and
being veiled from Truth. Error is lack of guidance; darkness is
absence of light; ignorance is lack of knowledge; falsehood is lack of
truthfulness; blindness is lack of sight; and deafness is lack of
hearing. Therefore, error, blindness, deafness and ignorance are
non-existent things. If we say that according to the text of the Bible,
'God hardened Pharaoh's heart' that he might not believe in Moses, this
signifies that, verily, He did not soften his heart. And when we wish to
say that God hath not guided a certain one of His servants, this would be
interpreted (by people) that God led him astray. The darkness spoken of
in the Bible as being created by God, signifieth that, verily, God hath
not caused light to shine; inasmuch as where there is no light, there
will be darkness..."
Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha Abbas, Volume III, p. 610
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 1 01:08:23 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 18:54:31 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Dcorbett@aol.com
Cc: jwalbrid@indiana.edu, candy@pc.jaring.my, Talisman@indiana.edu,
jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Big bang
On Fri, 29 Mar 1996 Dcorbett@aol.com wrote:
> Are we the only creation? Baha'u'llah spoke of "other creatures on other
> worlds"... Perhaps there are other Universes with intelligent life who are
> also God's Creation...
> - Dan
I figure that the night sky isn't there for decoration. I see those
lights more like the lights of my city when I look from a hilltop:
Evidence that somebody's home.
Brent
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 1 01:08:53 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 18:58:09 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Big Bang and Time without Beginning
My own favorite interpretation Baha'u'llah gives about God being alone
and without a creation, then calling the creation into being, is the one
in Gleanings (there are two in that book). In my favorite, He says that
when the new Manifestation appears, there is no creation -- no believers
in Him. After a time, the First Believer appears, the beginning of the
new creation. Between the time the Prophet's mission begins, and the
time of the first believer, the Manifestation is the expression of the
verse "God was alone with none to know Him."
My understanding of the application of this to the physical world, and
the Master's philosophical view that there were always creatures to know
God, that may or may not mean on this planet, or in this galaxy or
universe; but there were always sentient beings with the capacity to know
God, someplace.
Brent
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 1 01:09:49 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 12:16:22 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Question: The Meaning of Science in the Writings
Dear John Walbridge and all:
A question has concerned me for some time. What is meant
by the words translated as "science" in the Writings of the
Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Ab'dul-Baha, and in the writings of
Shoghi Effendi?
For example, the Bab uses the term *science* in the following way:
HOW vast the number of people who are well versed in every
*science*, yet it is their adherence to the holy Word of God
which will determine their faith, inasmuch as the fruit of
every *science* is none other than the knowledge of divine
precepts and submission unto His good-pleasure.
This seems, if I am correct, to be a usage that would be close to
meaning philosophies, or arts, as well as including modern science.
Baha'u'llah uses the word sparingly. I have yet to find it in His
Writings in the way that Abdu'l Baha uses it. He does use it in
the following passage:
Such things have appeared in this Revelation that there is no
recourse for either the exponents of *science* and knowledge
or the manifestations of justice and equity other than to
recognize them.
This, like the use in the Writings of the Bab, seems to be a very
general use of the word encompassing what we think of as modern
science, along with the arts, legalism, philosophy, etc.
Abdu'l Baha seems to also use *science* in the very broad sense
when he says:
We may think of *science* as one wing and religion as the
other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be
useless. Any religion that contradicts *science* or that is
opposed to it, is only ignorance--for ignorance is the opposite
of knowledge.
Religion which consists only of rites and ceremonies of
prejudice is not the truth. Let us earnestly endeavour to be
the means of uniting religion and science. Ali, the son-in-law
of Muhammad, said: `That which is in conformity with *science*
is also in conformity with religion'. Whatever the intelligence
of man cannot understand, religion ought not to accept. Religion
and *science* walk hand in hand, and any religion contrary to
science is not the truth.
Shoghi Effendi tends to sometimes use *science* in a more modern,
narrower sense. He notes, for example, that we are amidst a
"darkness . . which neither the light of *science* nor that of
human intellect and wisdom can succeed in dissipating." But, he
also uses it a the wider sense that Abdu'l Baha uses it. For
example: "In such a world society, *science* and religion, the two
most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will
cooperate, and will harmoniously develop."
Any comments that you can make on the meaning of the word *science*
in the writings from the point of view of translation and/or that
of Islamic philosophy, or any other ideas that you have, would be
highly welcomed.
My reason for concern is the question as to how to consider the
word *science* when trying to understand the way the Writings urge
us to consider religion, administration, and other affairs.
Modern science is a narrowly-defined enterprise aimed at accumulating
expertise in carefully delineated spheres of activity. This is in
marked contrast to the pursuit of wisdom thought to be the aim of
knowledge in older traditions.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From candy@pc.jaring.myMon Apr 1 01:11:36 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:25:09 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: rharmsen@music.ferris.edu
Subject: lawh-i-hikmat
Dear talismans,
Thank you so much for the inputs which I had recieved
concerning my inquiries on the lawh-i-hikmat .I find that Ahmad Anis's
points raised in his article pertinent and logical as it is evidenced by two
ancient religions of the world i.e Taoism and Hinduism.
"The Great Primal Beginning(t'ai chi)generates...the two primal
forces(yang and yin).The two primary forces generate the four images.The
four images generate the eight trigrams.The eight images determine good
fortune and misfortune.Good fortune and misfortune create the great field of
action".(CONFUCIANISM.I CHING,GREAT COMMENTARY)
"Rig Veda 10.129:In the account of the formation of cosmos out of
chaos(represented by the Waters),'that one,,tad ekam,is void of reality
prior to the creation;its motive is 'love',the desire of the One to find
fulfillment with a partner;cf Brihadaranyaka Upanishad1.4.17,p.252.The first
act of creation,dividing being from nonbeing,resembles the first creative
act in the Genesis account."
The 'bearers of seed' and 'mighty forces'are the male and female
principles---see Prasna Upanishad1.4-5,p.176;Rig Veda 1.185,p.177,Shiv
PURANA,P.179.
The story of adam and eve carry the same phenomenon of duality
.Bahaullah in the Lawh-i-Hikmat elucidates this active and passive element
or male and female phenomenon as the first interaction/first big bang from
which life evolved.
Bravo,Ahmad Aniss for bringing this concept into the open and for the
innovative explanation of why there are no women in the UHJ.Your article
except for a few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors is excellent
eg.the word SITE should spell Sight.Please keep up the good work and I for
one would love to have a look at your translations.There many Tablets which
are not translated and it may take long time before we can get the authentic
tablets,meantime people who are interested in handicapped if they do not
know the persian or arabic language.
C'MON TALISMANIS I AM SURE WE CAN GET MORE INPUTS.THE GIANTS SEEM TO
BE ASLEEP,PLEASE WAKE THEM UP
WITH EAGER ANTICIPATION
DR.CHANDRAN
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Apr 1 01:12:05 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:38:20 +1200
From: **Golden Eagle**
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: concealed knowledge
>> In the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf (1953 edition, p.32) Baha'u"llah says:
>> "In the treasuries of the knowledge of God there lieth concealed a knowledge
>> which, when applied, will largely, though not wholly, eliminate fear." Does
>> anyone have any ideas about (or know of any commentaries relating to) this
>> passage?
>
>The guardian wrote that Baha'u'llah either did not reveal the knowledge,
>or if He did, He did not identify it as such.
>Brent
Yes, but let us not fail to indulge ourselves with a little speculative
reasoning, huh!
In either the SV or FV it is written that love dwelleth not in a heart
possessed by fear, so we may infer that a heart filled with love is
fearless. But what is love? In Words of Wisdom, Baha'u'llah writes:
"The essence of love is for man to turn his heart to the Beloved One, and
to sever himself for all else but Him,and desire naught save that which is
the desire of his Lord."
And what is the "desire of his Lord"? To help Me is to promote My Word,
says Baha'u'llah, and -- surprise, surprise -- (Words of Wisdom also):
"The source of courage and power is the promotion of the Word of God, and
steadfastness in His Love."
Expressed in mundane terms we might say that to teach is to overcome
fear... Hey, Brent, do lawyers get opportunities to teach? Ever thought
of instructing at law school?
Best,
Robert.
From richs@microsoft.comMon Apr 1 01:13:29 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:50:32 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Women on the House
Dear Friends,
In addition to Richard Hollinger's remarks in response to Tony's
post, there are a few other points worth noting:
Tony writes:
>From: Member1700@aol.com[SMTP:Member1700@aol.com]
>>First of all, Baha'u'llah nowhere states that women are ineligible for
>>service on the House of Justice. There simply is no such verse. All
>>statements about Baha'u'llah's supposed exclusion of women are derived from
>>one word in the Aqdas, rijal (men, noblemen, gentlemen), which he has
>>used to
>>address the members of the House of Justice.
I believe the specific verse to which `Abdu'l-Baha refers is in the
Eighth
Ishraqat (Tablets of Baha'u'llah Revlealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas)
which
is regarded as part of the Aqdas. I that tablet, Baha'u'llah addresses
the members ofthe Universal House of Justice with "O ye men of the
Universal House of Justice..."
>> Second, the well known Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha in which he states
>>that the
>>reason for the exclusion of women from the House of Justice will become as
>>manifest as the sun at noonday in the future can be shown, without a shadow
>>of a doubt, to refer to the Chicago House of Justice. It is a Tablet to
>>Corinne True in reply to her petition that women be allowed to serve on that
>>body. Her letter still exists. No one in Chicago (including True) doubted
>>the meaning of the Tablet as referring to the Chicago Assembly at the
>>time it
>>was received. So, to apply the meaning of this Tablet to the Universal
>>House of Justice it, I believe, quite clearly a mistake.
In that tablet, `Abdu'l-Baha refers to the "explicit text" of the law of
God, and,
therefore, what He says in that tablet constitutes an _authoritative_
interpretation.
At this point, it doesn't matter what Corrine True thought `Abdu'l-Baha
meant,
nor does it matter what the Chicago Assembly thought it meant. Our
belief
about the understanding these people had may be historically accurate,
but
their understanding is of absolutely no consequence.
There is, in fact, only one person in history who's opinion in this
matter is
binding, and his opinion is unequivocably clear. Shoghi Effendi
believed that
`Abdu'l-Baha was referring only to the Universal House of Justice, and
if Shoghi
Effendi's remarks, or the letters written on his behalf, are anything
more than
a restatement of `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation, those statements are,
themselves, authoritative interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha's words. No
matter
which of these exhaustive possibilities, what Shoghi Effendi says in
this
regard is binding.
Any attempt to substitute a different interpretation is, whether
wittingly or not,
an attempt to set asside a binding and authoritative interpretation of
the
Writings in favor of a non-binding interpretation made by someone who
was
never granted the authority to make such a binding interpretation. As
such, it
is, in my simple view, contrary to the rather clear provisions of the
Covenant
that Baha'u'llah made in the Kitab-i-Ahd and extended by `Abdu'l-Baha in
His Will and Testament.
Therefore, out of sincere concern for the well-being of my very dear
friends,
I ask those who believe that this restriction can be lifted before the
advent
of the next Manifestation of God to very carefully weigh the remarks
that
have been made in this forum and reconsider their positions.
I am especially concerned at the harm that may be done to the Cause when
the friends voice these opinions to seekers. At the very least, great
care must be given to state all of the views which exist on this issue,
not
the least of which is that of the Universal House of Justice which,
rather
clearly, seems to be that this is not something which they have the
authority
to change.
In closing, I'd like to point out that I found Steve's example regarding
changing attitudes about our involvement in the problems of present
society to be wholly uncompelling where this specific issue is
concerned. Where Steve's example is concerned, we have no
statements made by `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi which purport
to expound what the Writings mean (i.e. statements which constitute
binding interpretations of the Writings). Rather, we have statements of
general principle made by Shoghi Effendi, and an application of
those principles which has slowly changed as circumstances and
resources within the Faith have changed.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 1 01:13:54 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 21:58:33 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: 9+ members
---- BU
My dear Sen
I plead a sleepy brain early in the morning to the wrong date, but
thank-you for that and all the other points.
I am aware of the Tablet of the Master however it seems to me to be
more of a consultative document prior to the Faith obtaining a
majority.I feel a matter of concern is how we would treat minorities
and ensure we continue a consultative format under the direction of the
House of Justice.When you have a religious system that will in effect
rule the Planet that will change the manner in which such a Tribunal
will operate. The nature of it will need to be changed to take that
into account..
I notice once more the matter of Women and the House of Justice has
come around.I fully agree with John this is subject that has been fully
and endlessly debated.Just because you may want something to be so will
not make it so.At this time women do not serve on the House of
Justice.As I have said before there is no slick way out of this.Men
have to create a Baha'i Community in which Women have more than tacit
equality, we have to put the words into action gentlemen.That is the
hard part deeds to the effect change not words.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut.
Derek
The size of the supreme tribunal would presumably be flexible,
since there would have to be at least 3 judges in every court
I suppose, and it might be necessary to have dozens of courts
sitting simultaneously (unless anyone imagines that the world
will have so few problems they can be nicely lined up and
picked off one-by-one :-)). We do know that the electoral
college which elects the supreme tribunal should have two or
three persons from each country and nation (not just per
country - would that mean that there should be a Basque, Welsh
and French Canadian representative?) in proportion to the
number of inhabitants. This is in the Tablet 'Abdu'l-Baha
wrote to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace at The
Hague in 1919. Assuming an average of 2 representatives per
country and 150 countries that would be 300 or so members. The
tribunal itself is to be elected only from within the
electoral college (in contrast to the UHJ, for which all male
Baha'is with voting rights are eligible), so that puts an
upper limit on the number of members of the tribunal - a very
flexible limit since the number of countries and nations could
be increased by counting states within federal countries, and
'two or three' is rather vague. I know of nothing to indicate
that the Universal House of Justice would have any say in
determining the size of the tribunal, and it is prima facie
unlikely since the tribunal forms part of the world
government.
Membership on local assemblies has varied widely at times.
There's a letter from Shoghi Effendi in Unfolding Destiny, p
49, which says:
Concerning the membership of the Spiritual Assembly, I
have already communicated with America to the effect that
the members who are entitled to vote must be strictly
limited to nine. Additional members may attend only in a
consultative capacity. I realise fully the delicacy and
difficulty of your position but it must be made clear to
all that nine and only nine can vote. All other
subsidiary matters are left to the Assemblies.
Lovingly,
Shoghi
This was 11 April 1926. The National Assembly subsequently
elected had 10 members (UD p64), and Shoghi Effendi asked them
to limit themselves to 9 in the following year (UD70). I
suspect that the tenth member might have been a 'substitute'
for the event that one of the other members was unable to
attend. Isobel Slade was substitute member representing London
in 1926, and Shoghi Effendi apparantly approved the practice
or let it pass at that time, at least on local assemblies:
20 May 1926
...with regard to the election of the Assemblies and your
desire to have substitutes in order to ensure a steady and
easy-to-obtain quorum for business, Shoghi Effendi would not
like to give you any further special regulations but would
prefer you to communicate with America and follow the method
they have adopted. He has a keen desire that uniformity
should exist in the regulations. I am sure you would gladly
communicate with Mr. Horace Holley on the subject. (UD53)
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email:
Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Apr 1 10:21:51 1996
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:28:24 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: tribunal election
Dear Derek,
You don't indicate why you think the Tablet to the Hague should be considered
"a consultative document prior to the Faith obtaining a majority." or why
it should be necessary to change the procedures set out there, and since
you give no reasons I can make no comment. It is clear however that IF one
wants to change this, short of a new Manifestation, it would be necessary
to make an argument showing that the tablet was addressed only to a local
situation (difficult, because He says specifically that this is the system
described by Baha'u'llah) and preferably to find some other texts which
justify not applying the apparent meaning: that could be later texts showing
that `Abdu'l-Baha had changed his mind, or texts setting out general
interpretive principles which should affect our reading of this and
other texts.
This is rather analogous to the situation with the Master's tablets to
Corinne True: it is necessary to show that they are referring specifically
to her questions regarding Chicago, that `Abdu'l-Baha later changed that
ruling for reasons that are as clear as the noonday sun, and that general
principles in the Faith (such as Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha's specific
statements that women can be rijal) should be borne in mind when reading
the Aqdas text addressing the rijal of the house of justice. In the case
of the women-on-th-house issue, all three parts look close to watertight,
but a strong argument of any one of the three kinds would be a good
beginning, since any matter which is not unambiguously given in the
Writings is potentially within the sphere of the House of Justice to
make a ruling - and then to change its ruling.
It will be very interesting to see how this can be done in the case of the
Tablet to the Hague, which looks rather unpromising for reinterpretation
on the face of it, without using methods and arguments which legitimize
the inclusion of women on the Universal House of Justice. I will be
watching this space with interest
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:29:07 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:25:27 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Cc: Baha'i-ABS-MidAtlantic ,
"Baha'i-Media-Arts-Assoc." ,
Laleh Bakhtiar ,
Tony Blake , Jack Chromey ,
Teck Chua , John Henry Dale ,
David GAINES , "Deborah G. Glass" ,
LuAnne Hightower ,
Harriett MacDougall ,
James McCaig , Cynthia McDaniel ,
"I. Olson" ,
Betsy and Peter Shor
Subject: Towards a group ecstasy function in the Baha'i community
Dear Friends,
Eric Pierce recently wrote,
"Were the Master and Guardian were too gentle in letting the
dominant anglo/protestant channels of experience form patterns
that later became much more deeply engrained than was
appropriate?"
This brings up a point about the Baha'i community that I have long felt,
namely, we get very high in verbal altitude at Feasts but we are really very
short on group and bodily kinesis.
I have had some slight training in the so-called Movements and Sacred
Dances taught by George Gurdjieff, which are real disciplines of the conscious
placement of attention in the thinking, feeling, and sensing aspects of our
being, and I am learning more about the same types of disciplines as practiced
in the Sufi zihkrs. I was very pleased to see that a zikhr occurred at Bosch
Baha'i School recently.
I believe we need real, genuine ecstasy and group bonding in the Baha'i
community. Free-form music and artistic expression are increasing in the Baha'i
community, but in addition there is a very ancient tradition of inner work
contained in these forms of movement called sacred dances, and it is universal
in content and sets ecstasy in a context of personal and group discipline and
active intense intellectual effort. Learning these dances is not easy. Anthony
Blake recently spoke of them as a "gymnastics of understanding". Some of them
are based on the Enneagram, a particular configuration of the nine-pointed star
that for Sufis symbolizes the "presence of God."
I think we could really usefully take a look at these things for our own
benefit in the Baha'i Community, because our Christian heritage is truly only a
small fraction of the richness of what globally is out there, and the Western
forms of prayer basically lost long ago IMO their contact with the holistic,
yogic quality of inner work that is there to be found in the sacred dance
methodologies. Prayer is most effective when it is felt and sensed and thought
with the whole of oneself. Sacred dances can activate and give us a taste of
the whole, and of a method of wholeness within ourselves that we never imagined
before. Through this increasing wholeness, they can lead to "reflection", of
which Baha'u'llah said that one hour "is preferable to 70 years of pious
worship." (Prayers and Meditation, p. 238.)
Let us therefore look at these things with some genuine interest and see
if we can organize a learning process through them and around them for our own
benefit.
Have any other people on Talisman had experience with sacred dances?
-- john dale
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:29:37 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:28:00 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: "Acceptance"/UHJ
Dear Kevin,
You wrote a while ago,
"To put it briefly, the difference between the power of the U.S. Supreme
Court
and the power of the Universal House of Justice is that, if the acceptance of
the people were to go away, the power of the Universal House of Justice would
still be there."
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you'll pardon my saying so, I
think you're missing my point, which was focused on the human side of the
equation and based on the laws of arithmetic.
We must observe, I believe, that if every Baha'i got fed up enough with
the Baha'i Faith, they could simply voluntarily turn in their membership cards,
and the Universal House of Justice would cease to exist as a human institution.
Period. 0 members. No power. Nada. Nenio.
Please let us note that it is our human acceptance of and love for the
House as an Institution of God that gives it the human part of its capacity to
act and to exist.
Please let us remember that Baha'u'llah has outlawed conversion by force.
Sincerely, John
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:30:03 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:26:37 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: "\"[G. Brent Poirier]\""
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST ,
Laleh Bakhtiar ,
Tony Blake , Teck Chua ,
John Henry Dale , "Deborah G. Glass" ,
LuAnne Hightower ,
Ben Hitchner ,
Harriett MacDougall ,
Betsy and Peter Shor
Subject: Re: Big bang/Gurdjieff
Dear Brent,
Dear Baha'i Justice Society brother!
I sympathize with your perplexities over this issue of time and
beginnings. A lot of thought is going into the foundational aspects of space
and time concepts, and it's very exciting to see how chunks fit together from
time to time to move us closer to a physical understanding. Have you read
Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"? Look also at Michio Kaku's
"Hyperspace". There are lot's of really fascinating things being written, and
we seem to be poised on a major integration of physics, cosmology, and theology.
The Book of Creation may begin to speak to us as clearly as the Kitab-i-Aqdas.
In this light, if you want a very inspiring picture of _what Life can
ultimately accomplish_ in this physical universe in the 100 billion years (or
more) still left in its life-cycle, read Frank J. Tipler's book "The Physics of
Immortality."
This book put the Faith and the human future and the role of life into a
whole new cosmic light for me.
We think of global unity as such a great task and accomplishment. Well,
it is, relative to what came before, but it is only a stepping stone.
The Baha'i Faith is literally the Faith under which humanity will lift
off of this planet and be guided by God into the common cosmic destiny of all
intelligent life. The Writings never say this directly to my knowledge, but
given what science will accomplish under a Baha'i administration, the conclusion
is inescapable.
Who knows what planet the next Manifestation will appear on? I always
naively assumed it would be the Earth. Now I see that maybe it won't be, and
maybe that is what may cause problems of recognition.
I think of the popularity of Star Trek. In fact it is interesting how
in the popular culture, in virtual reality, humanity has already unified long
ago. Our Faith's secondary literature, however, has failed so far to make the
celestial leap upward. I'm going to suggest to the National Spiritual Assembly
to write to Frank Tipler and commend him on his bold and daring vision. Maybe
I'll try my hand at a pamhlet. We need to give popular imagination something to
_do_ with all that Star Trek enthusiasm. Any Delegates listening? Time for a
national Baha'i Trekie conference! Time for a Trekie on the NSA! Help us get
up there and out of here. "Beam us up, Baha'u'llah!"
Another Tiplerian scenario: In only 900 million more years, changes in
the Sun will make Earth uninhabitable. The survival of life as we know it will
literally require us to have left the Geocentric Womb, and the Spirit of Gaia
will return to her Lord. Problem: At the rate politicians are wasting
resources, we won't make it in time. All the more reason for the World Order of
Baha'u'llah. Future life depends on it in a very literal way.
And the way Tipler's book in general confirms some of the ideas and
thought-forms found in G. I. Gurdjieff's "All and Everything" written 70 years
ago is almost eerie. From whence came the completely "at home", self-assured
extraterrestrial spiritual and cosmic literary perspective of Gurdjieff's book
at a time when Western science fiction was still shooting canon rockets at the
Moon? From whence came the formulations of "objective cosmic science" from
which people such as Russell Smith have been able to derive precise models of
the periodic table of elements? From whence came passages like the one about
the Five Being Obligolnian Strivings? To wit:
"All the beings of this planet [Earth] then began to work in order to
have in their consciousness this Divine function of genuine conscience, and for
this purpose, as everywhere in the Universe, they transubstantiated in
themselves what are called the 'being-obligolnian-strivings' which consist of
the following five, namely:
"The first striving: to have in their ordinary being-existence everything
satisfying and really necessary for their planetary body.
"The second striving: to have a constant and unflagging instinctive need
for self-perfection in the sense of being;
"The third: the conscious striving to know ever more and more concerning
the laws of World-creation and World-maintenance.
"The fourth: the striving from the beginning of their existence to pay
for their arising and their individuality as quickly as possible, in order
afterwards to be free to lighten as much as possible the Sorrow of our Common
Father.
"And the fifth: the striving always to assist the most rapid perfecting
of other beings, both those similar to oneself and those of other forms, up to
the degree of the sacred 'Martfotai', that is, up to the degree of
self-individuality.
"At this period when every terrestrial three-centered being existed and
worked consciously upon himself in accordance with these five strivings, many of
them, thanks to this, quickly arrived at results of objective attainments
perceptible to others. "
...
---------------------
Tell me what theologian, philosopher, or other spiritual teacher was
literally bringing a cosmic perspective down to Earth at this time? In the
1920s, Carl Hubble was just making his discovery about the galactic red shift
phenomenon. We were far from seeing the universe as we do today. At the same
time, Gurdjieff was presenting a view of the cosmic purpose of life as one of
becoming worthy of being of assistance to OUR ENDLESSNESS in the administration
of an enlarging world. Hardly an Earth-bound viewpoint there! A cosmic
administrative and consultative challenge lies ahead of us in the Afterlife of
the planetary body. It sounds familiar to us Baha'is, in a sense, but who else
was saying such a thing? Who else was giving the soul such a specific function?
At a time when Alfred North Whitehead was still deep into writing Process and
Reality, Gurdjieff was writing about several varieties of
"common-cosmic-processes" and how and why God at one point was forced to
_change_ this functioning from one precise mode to another, which is what led to
our universe being in its current form of manifestation. (What Baha'u'llah says
about "re-creation" may be more real than we think.) And what other tradition
was telling people "to know ever more and more concerning the laws of
World-creation and World-maintenance" as part of their basic cosmic spiritual
duty? What other author from such an impartial systemic stance of discourse
could describe the "peculiarities of the functioning of the malificent
properties of the organ Kundabuffer" (i.e., our egoism and upside down view of
reality)?
To me, Gurdjieff remains an enigma, a man apart, a man off the scale of
ordinary human accomplishments, a person who, through some still mysterious
non-academic training and self-discipline and set of talents and information and
circumstances and insights into human psychology, all bundled into an unflagging
sense of personal mission, which was never framed as a path of religious worship
but in terms of the strictest need for personal verification, was able to walk
into Europe in 1917 out of the mountains where he and others had searched in
Central Asia and lay a practical foundation in sacred dance, cosmology,
self-observation, and other practices for a psychology of human transformation
and for a "view from the real world," a view which John G. Bennett then tried to
incorporate into the mathematics of his six-dimensional physics and his program
for Systematics in The Dramatic Universe. Others (Tony Blake, Saul Kuchinsky and
"The Dramatic University project) are carrying this into information theory,
communication, management, and the "structure of the present moment". Seen as a
whole, it is one of the most intense linkages between science, philosophy, and
spiritual reality in our times, one which in my personal view can only be seen
correctly in light of the pathetically backward and limiting circumstances
nearly exterminated the origins and mission of our own Faith and which so
greatly inhibited the intellectual impulses it could otherwise have transmitted.
How many times does Baha'u'llah lament the "countless truths" that could not be
revealed or even alluded to?
But enough for now! Keep up the exploration! Peace!
-- john dale
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:30:15 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:30:33 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ/Symbolism
Dear Steve,
Thanks for adding your comments. I hope you are very clear that I feel
that since the number 9 is purely a symbol and since House can change the number
of members if it wishes, it can also change and eliminate the symbolic nature of
itsall-male gender if it wishes.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to do so to mark and celebrate some great
event of world peace like the global summit of leaders, to symbolize an end to
war!
-- John Dale
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:30:30 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:31:16 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Re: Fwd: UHJ: Beginning with words, ending with insight
Dear Derek,
Yes, I think your post of a couple days ago is accuarte. I have
summarized my personal understanding of how the 9-males character of the UHJ
serves as symbol of Baha'u'llah Himself and of how it is not a symbol of male
domination but of how it can actually serve to hasten the acceptance of the
Cause of God, including the advancement of women.
What was problematic is made radiant, I myself can with an untarnished
intellectual conscience send a clear sgnal to the world about the UHJ, and
therefore I have no problems.
Thanks for your wishes for my spiritual well-being.
John Dale
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:30:50 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:37:49 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Rigid cultural backwaters
Dear Friends,
John Walbridge recently wrote:
"If Christianity, ancient or medieval, or Islam had managed to studiously
avoid borrowing from foreign cultures, they would have remained rigid
cultural backwaters."
Bravo! Truth is truth from whatever candle or source it may shine. And
if these religions had somehow been able to continue to incorporate
self-renewing, progressive scientific methodologies into their institutional
framework, they would have remained luminous bodies of light and cooperation,
and hundreds of millions of lives, and the unbelievable evils committed in the
name of God during centuries by rigid backwater personalities could have been
avoided. How much easier Baha'u'llah's task would have been to lead humanity
into all truth! Unfortunately, each of them became petrified by human-created
stagnative dogmas of "only through Jesus" or "Muhammad is the last Prophet".
Praise be to God that He has clearly commanded us to incorporate science
into the Religion of God so that we will have an organic growth process that can
avoid stagnation.
Our Baha'i institutions should evidence the highest love for science.
They should shine with the impartial light of science.
Through faith in this self-renewing principle of science and the
scientific generation of "light," this epoch of Baha'u'llah will be a Day which
will not be followed by Night, for it is by science that the mirrors of finite
realities can be polished to reflect the brightness of the bestowals of the
Infinite Source.
It is by and through science that we can polish ourselves to reflect
truth from whatever angle it shines.
-- John Dale
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:31:20 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:37:53 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: Bryan Graham
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Re: The UHJ, Men, & Secret Socieities (fwd)
Dear Bryan,
I was encouraged by your statements in a recent post. You wrote,
"Finally, I share you horror at the state of the world we live in. I also
share your frustration with the response of the Baha'i community to these
problems. Teaching and more generally becoming active and productive
members of our wider (not just Baha'i) communities seems in complete
accordance with our Teachings."
The whole point of debating things on Talisman is to learn how to become
better doctors to the sick patient of humanity. The point of teaching is to
create more doctors. Doctors are people who bring a scientific and disciplined
_understanding_ to a situation. They are not dogmatists. They continually
learn from experience and ask questions, always in the light of trying to
improve their effectiveness.
If the doctors themselves become sick, however, how will they be able to
cure the patient? If the sickness the patient suffers from is a lack of
applying scientific investigation and reasoning to a problem, and if the doctor
suffers from the same problem in the same degree, it is clear that the doctor
may not be able to even see the problem, much less cure it.
No faith can be a faith which leads to all truth if it does not
incorporate the spirit of science into its operative principles.
At the level of divine principle, the Baha'i faith talks about the
"harmony" of science and religion in the Real World, so to speak, which our
human subjectivities are striving to learn about. However, how does it
incorporate this principle into its functional operations? In the framework of
Baha'i institutions given to us ab initio, we have, not a Universal house of
Science, but a Universal House of Justice. Justice here, in my opinion, is
larger than just legal justice. It is, or includes, the use of intelligence to
balance and steer a process from beginning to completion in the light of rights
and responsibilities and the need to prioritize scarce resources.
Now, science is making rapid advances all over the world. It is a
decentralized flow of information and new ideas into the human system. Thus the
only Baha'i institution which ensures that this information gets absorbed and
used in the appropriate times and places is the semi-informal institution, or
rule, of general and complete consultation on the issues at hand. It is then up
to official groups, including the Universal House of Justice, to make decisions
based on the best facts and the best logic available to them, in light of the
Teachings, and these decisions are revisable and in the spirit of truth and
progress _must_ be revised as facts change and as new light is cast into the
application of principles. In this way the Faith becomes guided not only by the
spirit of Baha'u'llah in some possible personal sense but by that same spirit
embodied in a set of light-generating principles that He has taught us to put
into place as Baha'is so that the nescience of this world will become "light
upon light". This holds true of every Baha'i institution.
Discussions such as those in Talisman are thus part of the process of
general and complete consultation. Obviously there is room for improvement in
terms of their constructive quality. But first we have to get all the ideas out
on the table. Then we can look at them from various perspectives. Then we can
analyze, synthesize, and make judgments, draw up consenses, make
recommendations, etc.
Talisman also serves as a forum for discussing "difficult questions" and
cutting edge types of phenomena. It is a wonderful, divine addition to the tool
kit of the Baha'i community.
Sincerely,
John Dale
From jwalbrid@indiana.eduMon Apr 1 10:31:40 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:42:56 -0500 (EST)
From: jwalbrid
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "science"
In translations from Arabic and Persian 'science' probably renders
"`ilm", which refers to a systematically organized body of knowledge.
This really tells you more about English than about the original texts,
since English is the only major language I know of that has a separate
word for natural science. German, for example, uses "wissenschaft" to
refer to both natural science and intellectual disciplines of other
sorts. In Baha'i texts the most common use of "`ilm" would be for the
religious sciences of Islam.
john walbridge
From cenglish@aztec.asu.eduMon Apr 1 10:39:07 1996
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 08:33:29 -0700 (MST)
From: "THOMAS C. ENGLISH"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: New thread - agriculture, resources, economics
Taking a cue from the Lovely Dawn regarding how are food is
produced, and because, John you suggested a new thread, I propose
the land, the plants growing from it that feed us, and the economic
systems surrounding these issues. As I recall John, you were on
the original Ag newsletter address list. Ag has now received
official recognition by the Association for Baha'i studies and
there are enough facets to agriculture/land tenure-ownership/
and taxation to boil the Talisman pot.
This is only a proposal. I'd take a few days to gather the Ag
emailers to Talisman, then the fun can begin. With the
scholarship resources out there, the text searching capability
that I don't have, and the general fermentable state of the
discourse, I believe this group could produce a benchmark
discussion of agriculture/community building issues.
Remember, no matter what our gender (was or is), no matter what
we do, the sun that shines upon the earth, she gives us *all*
our food.
And if you thought Tahirih dropped a bomb at the Conference at
Badasht, wait 'til some of our BAha'i communities assert the
Law of Baha'u'llah in the face of international corporate
development.
From gec@geoenv.comMon Apr 1 11:29:30 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:27:40 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: New thread - agriculture, resources, economics
Ag has now received
>official recognition by the Association for Baha'i studies and
>there are enough facets to agriculture/land tenure-ownership/
>and taxation to boil the Talisman pot.
> .......
>And if you thought Tahirih dropped a bomb at the Conference at
>Badasht, wait 'til some of our BAha'i communities assert the
>Law of Baha'u'llah in the face of international corporate
>development.
>
>
Dear Thomas,
I would be very much interested in widening my meager knowledge of
agriculture, land reform, sustainable development, etc., etc.
I only hope that the tremendous challenge that such a thread may pose will
not compel the Talisfolks to shun it like the plague. After all, in many
parts of the world (including U.S.), the very mention of agricultural reform
brings the rifles and shotguns out. Few topics hit so close to home (pocket
book/means of production/control) as does bread and butter. Masses get
involved and philosophers grope for a belly full of answers amidst the mayhem.
Cautious Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From jrcole@umich.eduMon Apr 1 16:10:42 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:28:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science and religion
John has called for new subjects, and one that I would like to see
discussed is the possible contributions of the Faith to the dilemma of
the `two cultures', the split between science and the humanities, and the
opposition between scientific ways of thinking and religion.
This divide has been one of the central themes of Western culture during
the past two centuries. The subject is of the utmost importance, because
the rise of science, technology and capitalism have produced a realist
and pragmatic mindset in Westerners that clearly challenges religious
ways of thinking. The problem is even more acute in Europe than in the
US. 40% of the French do not believe in God at all (only 8% of Americans
report "none" for their religion, and apparently not all of these are
atheists).
It seems to me clear that the major religious reply in the
US, fundamentalism, does not have a prayer of resolving these problems.
Fundamentalists are demographically concentrated in the less-educated,
less well off sectors of the US (with, of course, exceptions). But the
tendency is for the population to become more educated over time (50% of
the US population gets some amount of college education now, even if it
is only a course or two at a community college; a fourth drops out of
school, and a fourth has a high school education only; the less-educated
50% are where the fundamentalists are strongest, but it is unlikely that
the US can afford to continue allowing half its population to be
intellectually squandered. Studies have shown that even a semester in
college makes significant changes of outlook . . .).
The possible positions on religion this crisis has produced include:
1) secularist atheism. This appears to be the position of most US
scientists working in the hard sciences. What can be known about the
world is what can be known through either empirical evidence or
mathematical and logical proof. Most religion is seen as superstition.
2) scriptural fundamentalism: This arose in the early 20th century as a
direct response to 1) above. Medieval Christianity had seen some of the
Bible as metaphorical or allegorical. Fundamentalism rejected these
approaches in favor of literalism. Thus, evolution is rejected in favor
of a short chronology of 6,000 years for the age of the earth, etc. Pat
Robertson is an example.
3) Neo-Thomism: This Catholic response to 1) above went back
intellectually, not to a literalist approach to the Bible, but to
medieval scholasticism. It rejected freedom of conscience, speech, and
religion, and for decades looked upon Franco's Spain as the ideal society.
Aspects of this tradition have been championed by Alasdaire MacIntyre.
4) Islamic equivalents of 2) and 3) were put forward, with the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt more like Protestant fundamentalism and the
Khomeinists in Iran more like Neo-Thomism.
5) Religious liberalism: This strand attempts to find an accommodation
between science, with its experiential orientation to reality, and
religion, with its authoritarian orientation. The
Unitarian-Universalists in the West, and thinkers such as Muhammad `Abduh
in Islam, are examples of this tendency.
Now, when I became a Baha'i, I read `Abdu'l-Baha on science and religion,
and I assumed that Baha'is would contribute to the debate largely within
the framework of 5) above. But it has gradually become apparent to me
that very large numbers of Baha'is, perhaps a majority, want to work out
of framework 2) above, while others are oriented to 3) above. This is
complicated, because Baha'is are often quite willing to borrow the
arguments of religious liberalism for thinking about Christianity and
Islam; but when it comes to the Baha'i Faith itself, they retrench to
scriptural literalism or a sort of scholasticism. I feel that both these
latter are unfruitful for resolving the crisis, and that blindly adopting
them from our Christian and Muslim milieu is not good for the Baha'i
Faith. `Abdu'l-Baha presented the Faith as a vehicle for a potential
resolution of this crisis, but I have not seen much evidence that Baha'is
have contributed significantly to the debates. I haven't even seen
Baha'is cite the major figures in the philosophy of science--Kuhn, etc.
Most Baha'is with a serious scientific background appear oddly willing to
simply be silent and to work with a divided mind, and even to support
scriptural literalism as a hermeneutical approach.
Baha'is have spent most of the twentieth century erecting the
administrative order, pioneering, and teaching the faith. But it is now
time for us to start taking seriously the *intellectual* tasks laid
upon us by Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal
House of Justice. Warmed over Pat Robertson or Thomas of Aquinas,
dressed up in Baha'i quotes, will not do the trick.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 1 16:11:22 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 11:32:18 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Talisman
Subject: Rationalism and Perception
Dear Members of Talisman,
The ongoing debate over membership by women on the Universal House of
justice calls to mind the limits of *Rationalism* as a discovery tool
when attempting to peirce the veil surrounding an issue. It may well be
a mistake to take the view that this is a situation that must be made to
conform to our desires. Our own prejudices and superstitions inevitable
inform such a discussion masquerading as one or another form of sound
logic. Rationalism limits possibitities to those things our experience
has uncovered so far. It interfers with the full scope of human
perception. Thus, one can perceive Baha'u'llah's Revelation without
prematurely attempting to rationalize it with the experience at hand.
Rationalizing is an important human need but it can not be forced.
If one seriously examines the view put forward by the Guardian that the
Administrative Order is *Organic* then one would not want to impose upon
it those desires that we personally hold dear but rather encourage it to
grow according to its own reality. That is not to say we can truely
point to what that is at this time, but one need not argue that there
must be a *correctness* of gender that applies to the the UHJ. Although
that appears to be the rational approach--rationality is not organic.
Our rationality is informed by our personal will and our personal will is
the greatest stumbling block to a new world order.
I have found that one can understand one's perceptions to a considerably
higher degree if we are able to remove the superimposition of the ego--as
a lens so to speak--from our vision. It also helps one a great deal to
try and insulate, to whatever degree one is able, the ego from all of
one's activities. Thus one trys to let go of: "I AM DOING THIS". If
one lets go of the self-importance of the personality--that is not to say
the personality isn't useful--one finds they can navigate the world far
more effectively.
It seems that each of us--to some extent-- has a disabling karmic cycle
that we ride like a merry-go-round refusing to get off. In this
connection, it is interesting that Zoroaster taught a three-fold path
1). Good Thoughts 2). Good Words 3). Good Actions. In other words,
elightenment begins in our thoughts and the changing of karmic patterns
or thought patterns begins with perception. Perception is blurred by
will. The conscious and inner act of of setting aside personal desire
clears perception and thus Good Thoughts can follow-- spawning Good Words
which edify others and Good Actions among everyone.
Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From Member1700@aol.comMon Apr 1 16:13:59 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:48:44 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
I do sense a sort of weariness among the Talismaniacs concerning this topic.
And for good reason. We have been over this ground before. Now, I am
willing to discuss it all again for the benefit of those who were not here
the first time, or in hopes of finding some new insights that were not
discovered earlier. But, I must admit a certain weariness myself--especially
with the need to defend the positions that I and others have taken as being
compatible with the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. (Ahem!)
In any case, I do appreciate Richard's corrective remarks. The argument
that I presented in the last post on this subject was rather condensed, and
therefore truncated. It simplified the situation too much, perhaps. But,
Sen's restatement of the basic line of argument today does catch the jist of
it.
It is not clear to me, for instance, that Baha'u'llah in his Writings
makes any clear distinction between an international House of Justice and a
local House of Justice. Such a distinction is implied in some passages, but
never stated, and therefore the terminology used to refer to one institution
as distinct from the other is rather loose. It is generally accepted that
Baha'u'llah never referred to a National House of Justice (secondary House of
Justice) at all.
In the Aqdas, and later Tablets, it appears that Baha'u'llah addresses
the House of Justice as a general institution--not a specific one. Clearly
there is no distinction in his use of the word rijal (men) between
international and local institutions. He uses the word to refer to Houses of
Justice in the plural, for instance. It is an honorific term with refers
generally to all members of all Houses of Justice, local or national or
international.
Richard is quite right in pointing out that no study has been done on the
terminology in the writings used to refer exclusively to the Universal (that
is, the international) House of Justice. Just when the term baytu'l-adl azam
came into use, I am not sure. 'Abdu'l-Baha uses baytu'l-'adl ummumi in his
Will and Testament. But in his 1909 Tablet to Chicago, it seems quite clear
from the context of its use, he uses the same term to refer to the Chicago
Assembly. He uses this term also to refer to the Tehran Assembly in
published Tablets. (I should point out that I am relying on other people's
research for these points, since I do not read Persian or Arabic.)
Richard is also quite right to point out that 'Abdu'l-Baha, after the
early Assemblies had been formed, and once there was some controversy about
the service of women on them, stated that Spiritual Assemblies of mixed
gender were acceptable. But, at the same time he upheld the exclusion of
women from certain bodies that had been formed earlier--specifically Chicago
and Kenosha. In the case of Kenosha, for instance, he did NOT suggest that
women might be elected to this body at a later time, but rather that a
separate Assembly for women might be elected. This had, in fact, been done
in Chicago.
The point of seeking to understand how 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets were
understood by Baha'is at the time they were written is not to determine
Corinne True's interpretation of them, but to determine 'Abdu'l-Baha's
intent. Since this controversy continued for many years in the American
community--at least from 1902 to 1912, many letters were sent to 'Abdu'l-Baha
on the subject. He replied many times. It was universally understood by the
community at that time that the 1902 ("as clear as the sun at noonday")
Tablet excluded women from membership on the Chicago House of Justice. If
there had been a misunderstanding on this point, 'Abdu'l-Baha would have had
many years to correct it. The point here is that even Corinne True, who was
trying to have women elected and who had written to 'Abdu'l-Baha specifically
to request this recognized that his Tablet was a refusal--as did everyone
else. To say that his Tablet had some other meaning is theologically
possible, but ahistorical.
The opinion expressed here that simply holding the belief that women will
one day be elected to the Universal House of Justice and that there is no
scriptural impediment to such election is tantamount to Covenant-breaking,
seems to me quite extreme and unfounded. Such a belief does not challenge
the authority of the House of Justice or any other primary figure of the
Faith. No one has suggested that we run out and elect our own House of
Justice, with women on it. In fact, such a belief expands the discretion and
power of the House, it does not challenge it. Certainly, when women are
finally elected to the House at some point--as I have no doubt they will
be--it will be by decision of the House of Justice itself and not as a result
of Covenant breaking.
With regard to the interpretations of Shoghi Effendi on this point, I
have stated before that I believe the beloved Guardian's statements in all of
his messages on this matter (all written through secretaries, so the exact
wording is not so important)--but in all these letters the point is to refer
back to 'Abdu'l-Baha's 1902 Tablet. (There is no mention of the 1909 Tablet,
by the way.) In fact, the Guardian specifically declines any statement
concerning membership of women on the House in favor of the 1902 ("as clear
as the sun at noonday") Tablet.
In light of this guidance, it seems to me that our duty is to go back to
that Tablet and find out what it means, who it was sent to, what the context
of its revelation was, and so forth. Having discovered that it refers to the
local Chicago House of Justice--which it very clearly does (and as I have
said, even the House of Justice is willing to conceded this)--it seems to me
that the way is open to reconsider our current understanding of this matter.
Warmest,
Tony
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 1 16:14:55 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:18:13 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re. Tribunal
My dear Sen
If you are saying that the Supreme Tribunal has a place
in the affairs of the world prior to the Faith obtaining
it痴 majority.Then the very nature of that statement
requires the document to be consultative rather than
authoritative. Upon reading the document one notes that
it is intended for an existing political situation being
converted towards an international framework that will
allow the Lesser Peace to function in the manner that
Baha置値lah intended. I wonder if the Supreme Tribunal
will come into being in that form as Baha段s will not
have the political authority to ensure compliance. The
principle not the detail is what is more important.If
Mankind devises a method that allows the principle to be
achieved than the detail becomes of little consequence.
Now I personally believe that system the Master outlined
is the way Humanity should go, but I am more concerned
with the spiritual principle than the political detail of
the framework that needs to be erected.
However I was referring to a time when the Lesser Peace
will be ending and the Most Great Peace will be
beginning. It seems to me we as Baha段s can not demand
that Humanity accepts blindly this instruction of the
Master, nor do I imagine you would expect them too. So
the question still begs to be answered how will the
Universal House of Justice rearrange the Supreme Tribunal
to ensure that the peoples of the world feel it
represents them,
whilst there is substantial minority who are not Baha段
and yet the Faith has become the Religion of the World.
At such a time it could well be there will be a need to
reconsider the needs of such people.Of course if the
detailed method the Master outlined has not been tried
maybe then would be the perfect time to put it in to
practice.
There is no reason why such a Tribunal can not be created
at the Local and the Secondary level and this of course
could ensure a fairer world.
As far as your comment regarding women on the House of
Justice and these two being the same if we look for
change. I am of the opinion it is not the same. The Peace
conference that the Master wrote to was attempting to
redivide up the World痴 political map in a manner that
was beneficial to the victors of World War One. It hardly
follows that such a tablet from the Master is of the same
type as one that effects the very internal structure of
the World Order of Baha置値lah. One of the problems that
faces western Baha段s is that we often want the Faith to
conform to modern day norms. In the USA for example women
have technically legal equality but social disrespect and
inequality from men in general. Which is why I have
repeatedly stated the Faith is not allowing men the
luxury that they are allowed in the USA society of being
able to state well you have equality what do I need to
do. Equality as framed in the Faith is of a spiritual
nature in its root and we have not even started yet in my
view.
I do not accept that by analysis and speculation we can
place ourselves in the mind of another and create
scenarios that allow our ideas to be what a person
eventually would have thought and therefore decided on. I
do not believe you can do that for an ordinary person and
even less for some one like the Master. I actually find
it disrespectful and condescending to the average person
and even more so for Abdu値-Baha. I have no problems with
having Women on the House of Justice for me it is a
non-issue. I am firmly convinced that the major reason
for the debate is the immature understanding at all
levels that individual members serving on Institutions
have personal power. The moment we grow beyond that idea
perhaps the reason will become as clear as day.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Apr 1 16:15:47 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:41:50 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: CaryER_ms@msn.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Hannah flips and bodyand soul
Dear Hannah ,
Thanks for forwarding those posts ! You know until last fall I had
never given any real thought to the issues you have been grappling with in
your life . It has been a fascinating learning experience.
I especially enjoyed your tale of the "devoted" and "active" Bahai and
serving on the House . My own sense is that the day will come when this will
be a non issue . I have been persuauded by the "rijal " argument where women
are counted as men .
It seems to me that Bahaullah , within the language constraints of the
time, pointed us in the direction of a world beyond sexuallity ,at least in
terms of sexuality as biology being the defining characteristic of humanness
. It only seems logical to me that if the principle of the oneness of
humankind points to a world of identity beyond race as a biological category
defining our humanness and if this principle is the pivot around which all
the teachings of Bahau llah revolves according to Shoghi Effendi then the
very category of biology as definitive of our humanity is suspect. If
sexuality is a biological category and if it is used as the defining
characteristic of legislative capacity- that is as a form of, or basis for
exclusion - then such a construct is suspect in light of the principle of the
oneness of humankind as the pivot around which all the teachings of Baha u
llah revolves. My understanding is such that a literal and non contextual
understanding of any of Bahau llah's statements need to be filtered through
the foundational principle of oneness of humankind . If we come to a position
which seems to be at odds with this principle then our position is suspect
and needs to be reexamined.
There is a category mistake here as Alfred North Whitehead might say .
That mistake, it seems to me is betwen "differentiation" or differenceof
function, and exclusion . Our sexuality is differentiated by biology - male
, female- this differentiation gives rise in the course of our evolution to a
difference of biolgical function - pregnancy and childbirth - this difference
of function in turn takes on cultural significance in the course of evolution
as well . It seems to me we ought not lose sight of the fact that this
differentiation is a biological function given cultural sanction in history.
Excusion on the other hand is a category which has its origin in a cultural
realm and uses biological categories to limit the paricipation of classes of
individuals based on race , and sex.
While the biospheric dimension of human life most assuredly exists - and
a la Ken Wilber is *fundamental* to our existence in the physical world ; it
is not the most significant dimension defining our humanity. The world of
reason /mind/culture the noosphere- is more significant . We only need to
consider Baha u llahs ethical prescriptions and proscriptions to realize
they are directed far more to the world of mind/ culture than to the world of
our biology. Thus the biosphere is more fundamental to our physical existence
but less significant than our /mental/ cultural existence in defining our
humanness.
In turn there is an additional realm of spirit - the home of the soul -
the theospere which is even more significant to who *we* are as human beings
. This realm ,as you noted with Sandy, is a realm beyond gender and I would
argue is the source of the mental and biologcial differentiation we notice in
the phenomenal world . It is the theospere that is the most significant and
therefore controlling realm when it comes to defining our humanness our
"being." It is the realm of the theosphere - the soul - as source of what is
distinctively human which needs to be the basis of life in the world ," how
to be and how to live" as Abdul Baha stated. It sems to me that this is
precisely what Baha u lah is doing , radically deconstructing race and gender
(not eliminating them ) as the defining characteristic of human existence and
in turn reconstructing human existence on the basis of its most significant
dimension the theosphere or world of the soul. That there has never been a
cultural world constructed or woven on such a basis points to the profound
nature of Bahau llah's challenge to humanity. Biolgy is fundamental but less
significant than mind/culture, which in turn is less significant than the
theospere . It is the latter which is the defining characteristic of our
humanity and which provides us the most significant realization of the
foundational principle of the oneness of humankind.
The category mistake is all this it seems to me is the confusion or
collapsing of realms. The world of the polis - the arena in which decisions
are made as to how life is to be organized and on the basis of what
principles, is, above all, the world of mind/ culture- the noosphere. This is
the world of legislation. To conclude that Bahau llah intended to make the
biological differentiation of the species into the basis for the exclusion
of women based on their biology/sexuality is a category mistake . It is the
collapsing of the most significant realms, the soul and the mind, into
biology and making biology the basis for participation in the realm of the
mind - the polis and its legislative acts. I can only conclude that is
contrary to the foundational principle of Baha u llah - the oneness of
humankind and as such will not withstand the passage of time or the evolution
of *Spirit* in the phenomenal world. It is this *Spirit* which is calling us
to "recognize" and "observe" the many manifestations of its *attributes* in
the phenomenal world as preceediong from one *Source*. It is the human
analogue, in my mind, to "no distinction do we make betwen any of our
Messengers." As such exclusionary understandings and practices based on
biology (or race) are contrary to the logic of Bahau llahs revelation and
contrary to the *outpouring* evolution of Spirit in this world. Such
exclusions need to be rethought . located in their proper realms , or the
very evolution of Spirit ( otherwise known to Bahais as the major plan of God
) will remove them as a basis for life both within and without the Bahai
community.
Hannah - This can probably also be thought of as my response to Gale's
question on women serving on the House. --- And besides we already know I
think God is a women.:) :)
Thanks again for forwarding your thoughts during my absence from
Talisman . Your are, like another dear soul on Talisman - our Dan O. -
pioneers in a strange land .
"Carry on ,
love is coming,
to us all ."
- Crosby Stills Nash Young ( and Culhane)
warmest regards ,
Terry
From cenglish@aztec.asu.eduMon Apr 1 16:16:04 1996
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 11:47:46 -0700 (MST)
From: "THOMAS C. ENGLISH"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Reply to: New Thread - ag, etc.
Alex, if we take up the land, its products, and the institutional
means of distributing them, of course there will be heat. But
this is a topic interested people want to know more about. Like I
said, I'm sure the some kind of benchmark document could come out
of this thread.
We might get Ag researchers online, maybe a real farmer or two,
perhaps the Aggies from the Louis Gregory Institute, then get
a weigh-in from land tenure types, plus the writings on the
distribution of community resources.
It might give people ammunition for teaching. Not to mention
inspiring QD, goddess of poetry, to pour forth fountains of
praise and exaltation.
As to the split in the Western mind, I'm for that. My left brain
doesn't know what my right brain is doing. I have experiencedd
some pure left-brain adventures that would make a psychiatrist
make $250,000/year break out in a sweat and trade his Mercedes
in for a Toyota Tercel.
My editor is poor. Sorry about the typos. If we do explore the
mind, how about some nuts and bolts information. Like: if you
do this... you should feel... etc.
--
Chris English It does not require many words to
P.O. Box 10 speak the truth.
Phoenix, AZ 85001 -Chief Joseph, Nez Perce, [1840?-1904]
602.379.4511 cenglish@aztec.asu.edu
From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 1 16:17:20 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 13:21:38 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Juan Cole , Talisman
Subject: Re: science and religion
> I haven't even seen
>Baha'is cite the major figures in the philosophy of science--Kuhn, etc.
>Most Baha'is with a serious scientific background appear oddly willing to
>simply be silent and to work with a divided mind, and even to support
>scriptural literalism as a hermeneutical approach.
I have not found this to be so--but perhaps I travel in different
circles. I also don't expect everyone to have the same understanding as
myself, that one rationally defines.
Kuhn who you bring up pointed out the shifts in a world view or
scientific progress are not linear--which I would say is the hallmark of
*rationalism*. For Kuhn--as I understand him--posits breakthroughs-- not
as the culmination of previous information--but as a jump, a
reorientation of perception; probably intutitive that is essentially
phenomenological in nature.
Modern philosophy, if I may be so bold, rejects the straightjacket of
rationalism, but retains systematic methodolgies to map its progress.
The idea that all social aims have been sufficiently rationalized is only
potenially so. The debate between " science, with its experiential
orientation to reality, and religion, with its authoritarian
orientation." is a contest between competing rational constructs and
nothing more. Each side accuses the other of holding to positions that
are responsible for moral decay. Thus, I believe both sides of the
discussion would would be taking a normative approach--that is *reality*
should be a certain way. But as Baha'u'llah has pointed out (and I don't
think rhetorically)--to paraphraze: if He were decree that all things
lawful in the past were now unlawful and visa versa then this would be
our reality. This for me is the most challenging idea Baha'u'llah has
put forward.
They position that Baha'is are, in fact, oriented to a series of one or
the other of 5 categories of viewpoints can be useful to a point if we
want to critique tendancies. But then again not everyone is defining
things the same way. From my POV, which I have not been able to
articulate adequately--Baha'is are doing something different which on the
surface seems the same but is fresh because it is infused with a new
potential.
We do not attempt to understand Einstein's theory of relativity using
Newton's linear laws. Relativity defies rationality. It is an entirely
different order of experience. It has its own internal logic if one can
call it logic--creative and dynamic are possibly more accurate. This we
just attempt to investigate it and see how it works. We can't place
rational norms on it, as such, because it works the way it works. I
believe this to be true with the Administrative Order. It is not a
normative entity neccesarily, although, one would find it simpler if it
were.
The enlightened approach that we seek in these matters is not, in my
view, rational per se, but perceptive in nature which is a process like
all else. Whatever else one might say about the attitudinal limitations
of the believers, they are trying to make work something the vast
majority of this planet has yet to conceive within their own
souls--something as of yet unborn and not understood.
Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it." --Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From lua@sover.netMon Apr 1 16:18:32 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:28:42 -0500 (EST)
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sacred Dances
On 4/1/96 John Dale wrote:
.>I have had some slight training in the so-called Movements and Sacred
>Dances taught by George Gurdjieff, which are real disciplines of the conscious
>placement of attention in the thinking, feeling, and sensing aspects of our
>being, and I am learning more about the same types of disciplines as practiced
>in the Sufi zihkrs. I was very pleased to see that a zikhr occurred at Bosch
>Baha'i School recently.
Allah-u-Abha, John. I have only a limited amount of exposure to the (most
elementary of the) movements developed by Gurdjieff. They are difficult,
and for lack of instructors in my geographical area, I have never had
occasion to progress past the most basic combinations. I have seen them
performed - truly an experience beyond the sensory - much like watching the
sema. There is an energy that is created by the movements themselves that
penetrates that hidden faculty and reaches a deeper knowing. I long for the
opportunity of immersion in them, but alas the time has not come. Insha'llah.
Did not all of the revelations that came before make this one possible?
Don't these traditions, being divine in origin, have much to offer us? And
yet, I continually encounter those in the Baha'i community who criticize the
use of other traditions as part of personal spiritual practice by individual
Baha'is. The impressions that I receive are that these people think that
the prayers we have are all that we need, or they think that a Baha'i
paradigm will arise (how, they cannot tell me) so that these sorts of
practices will emerge in some uniquely Baha'i way. When Baha'u'llah
enjoined us to make mention (dhikr) or remembrance of God, he did not say,
"But I don't mean dhikr in the sense that the Sufis mean it. This is some
unique form that will only be revealed in time." He simply said, "Make
mention (dhikr) of God." When Abdu'l Baha was asked about a suitable form
of meditation, he gave a basic description that resembles zazen.
There is so much available to us from other traditions that already exists.
Why wait for the invention of something that we can say is the Baha'i
method? And there is so much that has emerged AS A RESULT of the Baha'i
Revelation which may not have come from the Baha'is themselves. The work of
Gurdjieff is just one example. I write musical settings for the Writings,
many of which are simple dhikrs with prayers chanted over them. It is
always perceived by the friends as a "Sufi thing." I have also put some of
the Writings in a traditional jazz context, which some people find
objectionable. Personally, I find the inherent longing in jazz and the
longing in the prayers to fit quite seamlessly together. And it often makes
the Writings accessible to audiences who might not otherwise seek out the
Faith - it touches them. Perhaps this distaste for what already exists in
other traditions and cultures is only a symptom of the West - I wouldn't
know. But we're depriving ourselves of a whole lot of beauty that may just
be the soil from which this supposed flowering of the arts will emerge. If
we toss it out, what are we left with? A vaccuum from which nothing can
emerge. It's like erasing the apex of the enneagram.
Warm Regards,
LuAnne
From M@upanet.uleth.caMon Apr 1 16:19:53 1996
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 13:58:51 -0700
From: M
To: "Iskandar Hai, M.D."
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Big bang (and other stuff)
Re. . . .
>Abdu'l-Baha specifically testifies to this fact that God has creatures on
other planets who have free will and that life is not exclusively limited to
the Earth. It is in an as yet untranslated Tablet.
>Bye,
> Iskandar
Isn't this the same as the "know thou that every fixed star has it's
planets and every planet it's creatures" statement that was at the center of
the "Is science on par with religion?" thread back in Oct & November 95?
Re. The Big Bang vs. that which has no beginning but an end in the Lawh-I
Hikmat etc.. I see no contradiction. If the Revelation of Baha'u'llah
embraces the doctrine of degenerative monism, and I believe it does, the
universe was both created, (percipitated, emanated, thought or exploded into
being - call it what you will) - by God, but was pre-existent in God. Is
that such a difficult concept to accept or did my youthful shennannigans
warp my mind more seriously than I'd believed. If one wishes to
characterize the manifestation of Gods' cogitations as a "quantum
fluctuation in a vaccume" that's fine with me too. No contradiction at all.
Lyal Watson allegedly said "If the human mind were simple enough to
understand, we humans would be so simple we couldn't." And yet we try to
grasp the mind of God with our either/or thinking. "Oh No! this can't be
right! it contradicts our current scientific knowledge".
I bear witness to my powerlessness and to Thy might! to my poverty
and to Thy wealth! to my abysmal ignorance and to Thy infinite and limitless
knowledge.
(one of the least of a host of tiny parasitic creatures inhabiting a
dying spark in a remote corner of an exploding universe) M.
:-9 = P.M. Jean Crietien happy face
M &
E-mail: M@upanet.uleth.ca
11th Street South
, Alberta,
T1J 2P7 CANADA
**************************************************************
Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one
and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get
neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not
seek. (Boethius; the Consolation or Philosophy, 524 A.D.)
**************************************************************
From M@upanet.uleth.caMon Apr 1 16:20:13 1996
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 13:59:14 -0700
From: M
To: Denise Crafts
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Equality/Uniformity
Re. . . .
>Dale wrote:
>
>>>The "power" of the
>>>Universal house of Justice comes from exactly the same source: acceptance.
>
>Jim wrote:
>
>>...that the *power* of the Universal House of Justice came from Baha'u'llah
>Himself, in His connection
>>with us and our adherence to the Covanant.
>>
>I am at a lose to see the difference between these two statements. What am
>I missing.
>
>Denise
I wouldn't see the difference either if I continued to think of power and
authority as one and the same thing. Why do we keep forgetting that, in the
context of Baha'i teaching, there is a clear distinction between the two.
"Power" resides in the individual and in the covenant. We whine and whimper
about being "disempowered", Yatter about "empowerment", criticise anyone and
anything we believe has power over us and yet abdicate our own power at
every opportunity. Every time a Baha'i says "why don't the institutions -
or why doesn't the administration do this that or the other thing - they are
abdicating their power!" The institutions of the Faith have the authority
to decide an action should be taken; they have the power to do absolutely
nothing. The Universal House of Justice has the authority invested in it
by Baha'u'llah. It would still have that authority even if there was not
one individual to be found on the planet willing to exercise his/her power
to carry out it's decisions. A failure on the part of any individual to
recognize the authority of the House does not diminish that authority one
iota. The failure on the part of any individual to tap into and exercise
the power of the convenant, does not diminish the power latent in the convenant.
Gord
>
>
M &
E-mail: M@upanet.uleth.ca
11th Street South
, Alberta,
T1J 2P7 CANADA
**************************************************************
Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one
and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get
neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not
seek. (Boethius; the Consolation or Philosophy, 524 A.D.)
**************************************************************
From research@bwc.orgMon Apr 1 16:22:49 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 17:00:54 IDT
From: Research Department
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Cc: banani@humnet.ucla.edu
Subject: Your provisional translations
Dear Juan;
I was really delighted to receive your email telling me of your decision
to submit your translations to the Supreme Body to be used in the manner in
which they saw fit.
I think your contribution to the translation of the Writings of the Faith
into the English language will be highly valued and appreciated as it becomes
known through the publication and dissemination of the texts that have been
enhanced by your talents.
As you requested, I shared with the Universal House of Justice your
message to me. The whole question of the translation of the Sacred Writings
needs the close attention and final decision of that body. You will be
receiving from them, in due course, an acknowledgement of your generous and
gracious offer.
I have, with much delight, seen your translations but, in order to ensure
that I have them all, I would appreciate your forwarding a hard copy of the
final versions of everything you have done.
Please accept my best wishes for a joyous Naw-Ruz for you and for your
family.
With loving Baha'i greetings,
Vahid Rafati
From gladius@portal.caTue Apr 2 11:33:49 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:28:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Towards a group ecstasy function
I kind of got lost (I think) in your description of sacred dances. I felt
compelled to reply, however, because of my own experience of native sacred
dance, the pow-wow. I am not sure if this would qualify, in light of its
absolute simplicity, and lack of complicated steps (at least in the group
version; individual dances such as the Grass Dance and the Hoop Dance are
extremely complicated).
Every single time I have attended a pow-wow, and participated, I have found
myself in tears. I don't know what part of me the pow-wow touches so deeply,
but I cannot stop the flow of tears. I believe this is my "ecstasy". Note,
please, that these are not tears of anger or sadness. Nor is what I feel
really joy. I can find no words to describe what's going on inside me, so I
think this must be what mystics call "ecstasy".
I find myself moved in the same way by the simple exercise of singing in a
choir. Sometimes, when our voices blend *exactly* right, and no-one is
off-key (!), and the song is a particularly beautiful one, I get an elbow in
the ribs from my daughter (next to me in the alto section), with an offer of
a kleenex. I move heaven and earth to get to choir practices on Monday
nights, no matter how tired/frustrated I am. I know I will feel better after.
I wish with all my heart that I had the same feeling about going to Feasts!
What can I do in my own community to get this feeling started amongst us all??
Raul Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From mfoster@qni.comTue Apr 2 11:34:29 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:17:09 -0600
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Covenant
Talismanians -
Since John asked us to pursue new topics, I thought that I would introduce
one - the Covenant. I don't intend to be controversial or argumentative,
although others are obviously free to do as they wish.
A while back, I remember a posting in which it was stated that the Baha'i
Covenant was an acceptance of the Central Figures and the administration. I
believe that this message was in response to another posting which said that
there had been some Covenantally suspect messages on the list.
The question I am asking is the following: Is that all there is to the
Covenant? IOW (In other words), if I accept the above am I being faithful to
the Covenant? Or, to put it another way, what does it mean to accept the
Central Figures and the Administration? Have I fulfilled the Covenant if I
*believe*, or does it go beyond that? Does it mean that I need to recognize
the voice of God in the words of the Guardian and the House? How might that
recognition reflect in my words and actions?
To the Light, Mark (Foster)
***************************************************************************
"The Prophets of God have been the Servants of Reality; Their Teachings
constitute the science of reality." - `Abdu'l-Baha
"The sciences of today are bridges to reality; if they lead not to reality,
naught remains but fruitless illusion." - `Abdu'l-Baha
***************************************************************************
From richs@microsoft.comTue Apr 2 11:39:47 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:25:50 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'Talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Women and the House
Dear Tony and Friends,
Please accept my apologies for delving further into a weary issue, but
Tony has made some remarks which, I believe, do not accurately represent
what I have said. Also, while Tony has clarified some of the issues,
there are many questions which remain unanswered. So, I beg your
indulgence.
>From: Member1700@aol.com[SMTP:Member1700@aol.com]
>>But, I must admit a certain weariness myself--especially
>>with the need to defend the positions that I and others have taken as being
>>compatible with the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. (Ahem!)
I have little doubt that you and others who ascribe to this line of
reasoning believe it to be compatible with the Covenant. Moreover, I
believe that you are sincere in this belief.
I also believe that you are mistaken. I believe that this positition is
not compatible with the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, and I think my remarks
in this regard have been wholly within the guidelines given by the
Universal House of Justice.
I do hope that your parenthetical thought was not intended to intimidate
me into silence on this issue, but I have difficulty finding any other
intent. Would you, please, clarify what you meant to convey with that
thought?
Secondly, you have stated that I have accused people of
convenant-breaking for holding a belief. This is incorrect. I said
that I believe any attempt to replace Shoghi Effendi's interpretation in
this matter with another, unauthoritative, interpretation would
constitute covenant breaking, but I have not accused anyone of having
engaged in such an attempt.
While I have asked my very dear friends to reconsider their positions in
this regard, and I have asked, I might add, out of a very sincere
concern for the well-being of you who are my very dear friends, it is
only because I fear that holding such a belief may lead one to act upon
that belief. I fear for the difficulties that you all will face as you
walk this very thin line between holding a belief and acting upon it. I
believe it's far better to reconsider the belief than to cling in such a
way that puts one's spiritual well-being in such grave danger.
I see my friends walking near a cliff, and I know the footing to be
quite dangerous on that cliff. Am I allowed to express my very sincere
concern that people will consider their path before one misstep causes
them to fall into the abyss?
Perhaps a slightly different explanation will suffice. `Abdu'l-Baha
said that we should shun covenant breakers. Given this clear command of
the Center of the Covenant, do you honestly believe I would continue
this on-line discussion if I thought any of my dear friends were,
indeed, covenant-breakers?
That said, let's see if we can understand each other's position better
even if we are unable to reach any agreement.
>> The point of seeking to understand how 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets were
>>understood by Baha'is at the time they were written is not to determine
>>Corinne True's interpretation of them, but to determine 'Abdu'l-Baha's
>>intent.
I understand this fully. There are a number of places we can look in an
effort to determine `Abdu'l-Baha's intent. Indeed, we can ask my
four-year-old (soon to be five-year-old daughter) what `Abdu'l-Baha's
intent was if we think she might have any insights.
But the fact remains that only one source is infallible, and only one
source has the full authority to tell us what `Abdu'l-Baha's intent was.
We are not talking about `Abdu'l-Baha's statements in the field of
history, or the Universal House ot Justice expounding upon the laws of
physics. We are talking about Shoghi Effendi telling us what
`Abdu'l-Baha's intent was, and we all seem to agree that Shoghi
Effendi's statements (or statements written on his behalf) regarding
this issue constitute _interpretations_ of what `Abdu'l-Baha said.
These statements do not leave any room for doubt, nor do `Abdu'l-Baha's
own statements in His Will and Testament leave any room for doubt
regarding Shoghi Effendi's authority and infallibility where his
interpretations of the writings are concerned. So, why should we look
anywhere else?
The line of reasoning continues:
>> With regard to the interpretations of Shoghi Effendi on this point, I
>>have stated before that I believe the beloved Guardian's statements in
>>all of
>>his messages on this matter (all written through secretaries, so the exact
>>wording is not so important)--but in all these letters the point is to refer
>>back to 'Abdu'l-Baha's 1902 Tablet. (There is no mention of the 1909
>>Tablet,
>>by the way.) In fact, the Guardian specifically declines any statement
>>concerning membership of women on the House in favor of the 1902 ("as clear
>>as the sun at noonday") Tablet.
I'm not sure precisely what the claim, here, is. Tonly, could you
clarify? We agree that remarks written on Shoghi Effendi's behalf carry
the same authoritative weight as Shoghi Effendi's own writings. We
agree that the relevant statements in this area constitute
interpretations of `Abdu'l-Baha's writings on the matter. I can only
conclude that you believe Shoghi Effendi's statements, in this regard,
are errant interpretations. Is that correct, or have I failed to
understand your position? It just seems that the options are very
narrow, here.
>> In light of this guidance, it seems to me that our duty is to go back to
>>that Tablet and find out what it means, who it was sent to, what the context
>>of its revelation was, and so forth. Having discovered that it refers
>>to the
>>local Chicago House of Justice--which it very clearly does (and as I have
>>said, even the House of Justice is willing to conceded this)--it seems to me
>>that the way is open to reconsider our current understanding of this matter.
>
>
Under what _authority_? How do we accomplish this without, at the same
time, putting one interpretation of `Abdu'l-Baha's intent in the place
of another? Even if our interpretation of His intent appears to be more
historically accurate, and even if the Universal House of Justice
appears to agree that our interpretation is more historically accurate,
none of us has the authority to replace Shoghi Effendi's interpretation
with ours. Not even the Universal House of Justice, itself, has this
authority.
Thus, I will reiterate my earlier statement (a statement which appears
to have been very misunderstood), any attempt to replace Shoghi
Effendi's interpretation in this matter with some other interpretation
would constitute a violation of the Covenant. Whether that attempt be
carried out by the Universal House of Justice or by some rogue scholars
makes no difference. Hence, the Universal House of Justice will never
change this restriction. It hasn't the authority to do so.
>
From asadighi@ptialaska.netTue Apr 2 11:40:15 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:22:30 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: The Covenant
Dear Mark,
Thank you for introducing this thread.
For me the Covenant means that when I profess my belief in Baha'u'llah, I
accept Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian as His sole interpreters. In a sense
they translate His Writings for us. This implies that I will have to accept
the Guardian's statements as having the full legitimacy of Holy Text and I
must extend the same view to the Writings of the Universal House of Justice
as well.
I even would go as far as to say that if there was a glaring contradiction
between the Writings of say the Master and Baha'u'llah Himself, I must
accept the Master's statement. For example if Abdu'l-Baha states that it is
night, and the Guardian says what He really meant was that it is day, then
it must be day. His interpretation of the Text stands in all cases.
Having read some of the opinions on Talisman I think this might cause
heartburn for some of the friends. That is OK, you'll survive. It is good
medicine and God knows we need it!
Arsalan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From richs@microsoft.comTue Apr 2 11:42:11 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 15:54:58 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'" ,
"'Mark A. Foster'"
Subject: RE: The Covenant
Dear Talizens,
Before I dive into this subject, I'l like to state that my remarks are
only on individual's understnaing of the issues. But that, I mean that
my remarks carry no more authority than do the remarks of any other
individual in the Faith.
I do not have references handy. but if there is a point about which the
friends want clarification, I'd be happy to search for specific
statements in the Writings.
>From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:mfoster@qni.com]
>>A while back, I remember a posting in which it was stated that the Baha'i
>>Covenant was an acceptance of the Central Figures and the administration. I
>>believe that this message was in response to another posting which said that
>>there had been some Covenantally suspect messages on the list.
I think I might state this differently. In substance, the Covenant is
stated in the opening paragraphs of the Kitab-i-Aqdas where Baha'u'llah
lays out the twin, and inseparable, duties of acceptance of the
Manifestation and obedience to His laws. The "Laws" in this case
consist of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the eighth Ishraq (or is that Ishraqat),
and the Kitab-i-Ahd. There may be others among the Writings of
Baha'u'llah, but, of the Writings of Baha'u'llah, I know these documents
to be among those whose provisions we must obey in our adherence to
these twin duties.
The Kitab-i-Ahd appoints `Abdu'l-Baha as the Center of Baha'u'llah's
Covenant, and appoints Him as Baha'u'llah's successor and the infallible
interpreter of Baha'u'llah's Writings. By extension, then, our
obedience to `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretations is as necessary as our
obedience to the Laws revealed by Baha'u'llah Himself.
Among `Abdu'l-Baha's writings, the one which has the most Covenantal
significance is His Will and Testament, a document Shoghi Effendi says,
since `Abdu'l-Baha is the Center of Baha'u'llah's Covenant, should be
regarded as part of the Kitab-i-Aqdas itself. This document clarifies
the functions and duties of the Universal House of Justice, of the Hands
of the Cause of God and creates the institution of the Guardianship.
Our obedience to the provisions of the Will and Testament of
`Abdu'l-Baha is also considered part and parcel of our obedience to the
Laws which Baha'u'llah has revealed directly.
It should be noted that this Covenant is unique in the annals of
religious history, and that it's strength has withstood the onslaughts
of some of the most severe tests, tests which, in past dispensations,
had caused immediate schisms which have persisted to this very day.
>
>>The question I am asking is the following: Is that all there is to the
>>Covenant? IOW (In other words), if I accept the above am I being faithful to
>>the Covenant? Or, to put it another way, what does it mean to accept the
>>Central Figures and the Administration? Have I fulfilled the Covenant if I
>>*believe*, or does it go beyond that? Does it mean that I need to recognize
>>the voice of God in the words of the Guardian and the House? How might that
>>recognition reflect in my words and actions?
I don't think I can give any better answer than to say that these
questions are formed badly. Our obedience to the Covenant is not some
binary thing which is either on or off. Our response to the Covenant
can vary, even within particular circumstances, from outright violation
to the kind of obedience exhibited by those dear souls who have, over
the course of the history of our Faith, cast asside all their posessions
and given their very lives for this Cause.
Note that obedience to the Law is part of our obligation under the
Covenant, even though disobedience to the laws can result in no more
than our administrative expulsion from the Faith. The point is that
there are varying degrees in our response to the Covenant, and, while
there may be distinct categories of violation, that one's response can
be measured on a continuum.
The gravest violation of the Covenant is either an attempt to usurp an
authority one does not possess (i.e. Charles Mason Remey's claim to be a
Guardian) or to recognize an authority contrary to those specified in
the Writings I mentioned above (i.e. one of those who accepted Charles
Mason Remey's claim). I don't think holding any _belief_ is sufficient
to be considered such a violation of the Covenant. I think such a
violation requires a specific action, though this includes acting upon a
belief which is contrary to the provisions of the Covenant. (Those who
followed Mason Remey, no matter how sincere in their belief, acted in a
manner contrary to the Covenant.)
This, I think it is possible to believe that Charles Mason Remey should
have been the Guardian of the Cause, but of one never acted on this
belief, one would not be subject to expulsion from the community.
On the other hand, I think it's possible to draw a parallel in this
regard. There are some laws which are of a personal nature (i.e. daily
prayer). One is not subject to sanctions if one doesn't perform
obligatory prayer, but one is still being disobedient. Likewise, there
may be violations of the Covenant for which one would not be open to
specific sanctions, but, in terms of one's nearness to God, might have
just as significant effect.
To summarize, our response to the Covenant can vary, and that there are
some "positions" along this continuum of responses which have manifest
consequences and there are other "positions" which may have dire
consequences even if those consequences are not manifest.
The last point to make relative to this continuum is that our task as
Baha'is is to constantly refine our response to this Covenant.
Steadfastness in the Covenant, I believe, requires constant vigilance,
and that it would by quite dangerous if any of us were to think that we
are, for some reason, "safe". We should ever seek to raisel the leve of
our response to the Covenant--to increase the degree to which we are
obedient to the commands of Baha'u'llah, and that we should do so
regardless of the manifest consequences of our behavior. What matters
most is not whether our deeds are acceptable in the eyes of the
institutions of the Faith. What matters most is whether our deeds are
acceptable in the eyes of God.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comTue Apr 2 11:42:33 1996
Date: 01 Apr 1996 16:37:53 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
One possibility that has been totally ignored is that once Houses of Justice
are formed at the national and local levels, women will not be allowed to
serve on them. That is, that Abdu'l-Baha permitted the service of women at
this time only because we have local and national *Assemblies*.
It seems to me, that given the selections that have been posted so far, that
this is as good a possibility as that the House will eventually permit
service on the Universal House of Justice by women.
8-)
I smile in anticipation of the horrified looks on the faces of a few, not
because I have posted the above as a joke.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From mfoster@qni.comTue Apr 2 11:43:53 1996
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 19:48:25 -0600
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Talisman
Subject: RE: The Covenant
At 03:54 PM 4/1/96 -0800, Rick Schaut wrote:
>I think I might state this differently. In substance, the Covenant is
>stated in the opening paragraphs of the Kitab-i-Aqdas where Baha'u'llah
>lays out the twin, and inseparable, duties of acceptance of the
>Manifestation and obedience to His laws. The "Laws" in this case
>consist of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the eighth Ishraq (or is that Ishraqat),
>and the Kitab-i-Ahd. There may be others among the Writings of
>Baha'u'llah, but, of the Writings of Baha'u'llah, I know these documents
>to be among those whose provisions we must obey in our adherence to
>these twin duties.
Hi, Rick -
I would agree that recognition (irfan/knowledge) and obedience are the twin
duties of all believers, and that, from one angle, these constitute our
human response to the Covenant. However, I don't personally see the Covenant
as a set of laws. I would prefer to say that laws are one of the emanations
of the Covenant. Following divine laws are one way, but not the only one, in
which we can experience at-one-ment with Baha'u'llah's Covenant.
For instance, Baha'u'llah tells us that did not merely bring us a code of
laws. Rather, He says, He has "unsealed the choice wine with the fingers of
might and power." As I see it, the Covenant is the Will of God, the love of
God, and the divine ordering principle of existence. Regarded as the love of
God, the Covenant, like fine wine, can spiritually intoxicate us and draw us
ever-nearer the Presence (Will) of God.
I wrote:
>The question I am asking is the following: Is that all there is to the
>Covenant? IOW (In other words), if I accept the above am I being faithful
>to the Covenant? Or, to put it another way, what does it mean to accept the
>Central Figures and the Administration? Have I fulfilled the Covenant if I
>*believe*, or does it go beyond that? Does it mean that I need to recognize
>the voice of God in the words of the Guardian and the House? How might that
>recognition reflect in my words and actions?
You replied:
>I don't think I can give any better answer than to say that these
>questions are formed badly. Our obedience to the Covenant is not some
>binary thing which is either on or off. Our response to the Covenant
>can vary, even within particular circumstances, from outright violation
>to the kind of obedience exhibited by those dear souls who have, over
>the course of the history of our Faith, cast asside all their posessions
>and given their very lives for this Cause.
Perhaps we are viewing the Covenant differently from one another or looking
at it from different angles? I agree with you that the Covenant is not an
on-off switch. (I don't think I said it was, and I am, therefore, unsure why
you felt that my questions were poorly formed.)
The spiritual Kingdom, IMHO, is the source of all attributes. By linking
with (*loving*) Baha'u'llah, the magnet of faith and service, which is, to
my understanding, one of the manifestations of the spirit of faith,
progressively draws the soul to the Blessed Beauty's revealed Kingdom. To
me, it is spirit (the Holy Spirit and its stepped-down degrees, including
the spirit of faith) which constitutes the power of the Covenant (the Will
of God).
By immersing myself in the ocean of the written Word, by meditating on its
implications for my life, by continually praying for spiritual guidance, and
by living a life *full* of service for my Lord, I am being firm in the
Covenant. I once heard a dear Baha'i say that the Teachings were like an
instruction manual. While I may have misunderstood what he meant, I would
rather see "the words He hath revealed" as sustenance for my soul. I am firm
in the Covenant to the degree that I express the love of God within me in my
thoughts and actions.
To the Light, Mark (Foster)
***************************************************************************
"The Prophets of God have been the Servants of reality; Their Teachings
constitute the science of reality." - `Abdu'l-Baha
"The sciences of today are bridges to reality; if they lead not to reality,
naught remains but fruitless illusion." - `Abdu'l-Baha
***************************************************************************
From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkTue Apr 2 11:53:36 1996
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:20:08 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Cc: talisman
Subject: Re: Women and the House
On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Jackson Armstrong-Ingram wrote:
> My feeling is that this is another issue in which Baha'is then and now
> are looking for a mere code of laws. I don't think 'Abdu'l-Baha gave a
> flying travel teacher about the picky details of organising
> administration or building the M-ul-A, he just wanted the Baha'is to quit
> arguing and do it.
I could not agree more. `Abdu'l-Baha just did not think the details of
how the community was organized and administered were that important, so
long as there was some form of organization that could get things done.
His concerns about administration were pragmatic. If the organization was
working (as in Kenosha) there was no compelling reason to change it.
When it could not mantain unity in the community (New York) or could not
maintain the boundaries of the community (Chicago) he intervened to
change it. The gender composition of the elected bodies does not seem to
have been a significant issue for `Abdu'l-Baha; the effective
functioning of those bodies was the important issue.
Richard
From jcdhender@loop.comTue Apr 2 11:54:01 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:43:22 -0800
From: The Hendershots
To: 'Talisman'
Subject: Amnesty International
In a recent post, M mentioned that the House of Justice had discouraged membership in Amnesty International. Does anyone have the letter? I had never heard this, have been a member of AI for many years, and send out monthly letters on behalf of prisoners around the world who they are trying to help. It seems to me that AI does a lot of good work that no one else is doing. If no one has the letter, I'll write to the House and see what the current policy is.
Thanks,
Chris Hendershot
From dann.may@sandbox.telepath.comTue Apr 2 11:54:55 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 96 12:52:26 -0600 (CST)
From: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Lay/expert-Bonhoeffer
In light of the lay/expert debate, I ran across this passage from the
writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) in the class on Christian
ethics that I am teaching this semester:
"All that we mean by human nature, individuality, and talent is part of the
other person's freedom -- as are the other's weaknesses and peculiarities
which so sorely try our patience, and everything that produces the plethora
of clashes, differences, and arguments between me and the other. Here,
bearing the burden of the other means tolerating the reality of the other's
creation by God, affirming it, and in bearing it, breaking through to
delight in it."
"This will be especially difficult where both the strong and the weak in
faith are bound together in one community. The weak must not judge the
strong; the strong must not despise the weak. The weak must guard against
pride, the strong against indifference. Neither must seek their own rights.
If the strong person falls, the weak one's must keep their hearts from
gloating over the misfortune. If the weak fall, the strong must help them
up again in a friendly manner. The one needs as much patience as the
other..." ("Service," _Life Together_, in _Dietrich Bonhoeffer, A Testament
to Freedom_, eds. G. Kelly, and F.B. Nelson, [HarperSanFrancisco, 1995],
pp. 339-40)
As some of you may know, Bonhoeffer was the most prominent of the handful
of German theologians who opposed the Nazis during WWII. He was eventually
imprisoned for his activities and hanged only a few weeks before the end of
the war in Europe.
Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * A teacher always is the prophet of the true God. Dewey
From Alethinos@aol.comTue Apr 2 11:59:39 1996
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 01:43:26 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 1st thing we do, kill all the lawyers (except Brent of course old roomie)
"WE all know here that the law is the most powerful of schools for the
imagination. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets
the truth." (Jean Giraudoux, 1882-1944)
Truly amazing how this topic will not die a quick death. Like a prima donna
it just does not want to give up the stage. The fat guy in drag will not stop
SINGING! Why?
Well not for the lack of a definitive answer. We have recieved that from the
Master, the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. But,
ppppphhhhhaaawwwppp! (Bill the Cat standing indignantly {as if he ever stood
any other way}) Who are those *guys* anyway?!
Having read the monumental tomes so finally crafted by Dale; and the
re-re-re-re-re-re-re qualifications by Mr. Lee it would seem that we have two
(if not many more) aspiring lawyer/legislators on our hands.
How else could we explain this nearly inexhuastable desire to worry this
(non) issue to death. On the one hand the question of women on the House and
the other of infallibity. Why I haven't seen this much glee in twisting every
term, regardless of its natural meaning since the Dred Scott case came before
the Supreme Court.
Why is there this strange belief that the Universal House of Justice is some
mystical Supreme Court? I don't remember there being a legislature set up by
Baha'u'llah to which the UHJ would *respond*. Nor do I ever remember a
passage stating that there would arise a populist body that would put forth
petitions. Nor can I recall a single sentence where Baha'u'llah, the Master
or the Guardian ever stated that one of the primary functions of the UHJ was
to take polls, at regular intervals, in order to gain a good *temperature
check* of the People. I don't ever remember seeing a paragraph stating that
anyone would be giving the UHJ the actual framework from which they would
create the warp and woof of a world civilization.
But what I see is a number of folk doing a fair job at mimicking Andy
Griffith in his MATLOCK series. A genteel country lawyer who is real sly and
standing up for the downtrodden against the evils of that brutal yet well
meaning judicial system.
I have a wonderful idea. Why don't we all do this. If and when the Universal
House of Justice ever asks us to investigate the possibility of women on the
House we can start with Tony's speculations and proceed from there. And when
Dale becomes omniscient, which could be any day now at the rate he is pumping
out his pordigious prognostications and explanations of all known phenomena
in Existence we can continue these lines of oh-so-fruity specualtions.
Until then why don't we accept the answers we have been given, if just for
the moment and move on to the far less (i do realize) significant concerns
like bringing the healing message of Baha'u'llah to the bleeding limbs of
humankind?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Alethinos@aol.comTue Apr 2 12:00:09 1996
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:00:37 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: science and religion
good post there.
jim
From gladius@portal.caTue Apr 2 12:00:49 1996
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 23:25:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: science and religion
Me too I wanna talk about the apparent split between science and religion.
However, to borrow Quanta's style for a sec, I ain't got no edjy-cay-shun
like youse guys, eh, so, like, tell me: what the heck is Thomism?
I have only been here a short while, and I have to tell you that as a fairly
bright person, with a very wide range of interests and a concomitantly wide
range of reading, I have *never* heard of "degenerate monism" (or maybe it
was "determinate monism", I can't remember and I think I trashed the
original...erhm...) and there have been others that I just laughed out loud
when I read because they were too hysterically funny.
Well, my point is...when you use such terms as those , you exclude anyone
who hasn't the same jargon. And it is jargon in the most positive of the
dictionary's definitions: (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) "the
technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or
group". It can also mean "obscure and often pretentious language marked by
circumlocutions and long words".
Just because I don't share the jargon does not mean that I don't have the
intellectual capacity to discuss these abstract ideas at a meaningful level.
Can these concepts not be put into clear language? What is the point of
using this jargon, for those of us who are not divinity grads? It serves as
a barrier, in my not-so-humble opinion, because it makes sure that I (and
people like me) won't participate if I'm too embarrassed to admit I don't
know what the heck you're talking about.
Fortunately for me, however, I'm old and I'm a bag, and I've lost whatever
embarrassment at stupid-question-asking I may have had. After all, one of
the reasons I'm reading Talisman is so I can learn from some pretty dynamic
scholars. I just wish I understood more of what they were saying....
Raul Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlTue Apr 2 12:02:15 1996
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:48:19 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: women & UHJ
re: `Abdu'l-Baha's Tablet to True
Rick said that "There is, in fact, only one person in history
[Shoghi Effendi] whose opinion in this matter is binding"
1. This implies at least that `Abdu'l-Baha's opinion is as
irrelevant as the reading