Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 4/96
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Apr 4 10:49:16 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 0:10:25 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Religion, science, and religious liberalism
Dear Friends:
The current debate on Talisman shows why scientists doubt both those in the
humanities and those in the religions. Irrational, highly emotional, full of
sound and fury: it makes scientists appreciate their own reasoned, moderate
ways of discussing things. Certainly, when no experiment or observation can
resolve the problem, argument, fighting, and eventually violence must
invariably result. We look askance, go back to our mathematics and texts,
dismissive of the whole business.
Is my description of a scientist's perception of the futility of the
nonscientist's arguments too strongly drawn? We had better hope so. But it
highlights an aspect of the division between the culture of science and the
culture of humanities/arts/religion. Scientists view the nonscientific
disciplines as both lacking the means to arrive at shared truths and full of
people eager to hold sway by manipulative, irrational argumentation.
Is this too cool, all too common assessment correct? One might expect those
from the humanities to think not. Indeed, postmodernist attacks on once
firmly held scientific verities suggests an attempt to turn the tables.
Scientists too, postmodernists argue, are merely obeying convention, blinding
following rules, victims and perpetrators of institutional violence. However,
a stronger trend in the humanities, I would argue, is to adopt scientific
methods and usages, attempt to increase the use of arithmetical and
statistical techniques, and attempt to emulate the objective stance of
science. (A wag might argue that this is only means cloaking irrational,
emotional, manipulative argumentation in a veil of rationalism.)
What about religionists? How do they respond to the reasonableness of
science? One way, a way that Juan urges us to consider, is religious
liberalism. A good reference book, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern
Christian Thought, has this to say about religious liberalism:
" . . . a single principle may be said to underlie all liberal
theological effort: that the claims of truth are ultimately higher than those
of revelation." (From liberalism: Britain)
"Liberal Christian theologies in North America have generally
maintained that religious beliefs are fallible and are thus to be held
tentatively, that reason and experience in some combination provide the
fundamental tests of beliefs, that divine and human realities are continuous
rather than oppositional, and that central to Christianity is its ethical
dimension, social as well as personal. Perhaps their most consistent mark,
however, is a methodological one: the supposition that theology should always
interrelate the spirit of its own time and the Christian past in a manner
that allows each to make an essential and substantive difference to the
formulation of theological claims." (From liberalism:USA)
Liberal American theologies flourished from around 1890 to about 1930 or so.
One of the two major schools of thought was the "Chicago School."
Representative scholars of this school were not only some of the most erudite
of the day, but active in the church and among society:
" . . . they devoted the full range of their activities to
propagating a blend of political progressivism, confidence in reason, science
and democracy, and a reconstructed Christian Faith. The key to their
reconstruction was the socio-historical' method. (They) interpreted
Christianity as a socio-historical movement the beliefs of which were to be
understood and evaluated pragmatically.
" . . . theirs was a dual allegiance, to Christianity and to the
spirit of their time. They hoped beyond hope that the esence of each would
turn out to be the same. Hence, for a while, they acted on that hope,
constantly adjusting their view of what the one really' meant in the light of
what seemed at the time to be the best in the other. By the end of the
1920's, however, the strategy seemed futile . . .. In particular, the
scientific spirit that once promised support for a modernized Christianity
was now increasingly hostile to all religion. On their left, the humanists
championed loyalty to modernity alone. On their right fundamentalists
advocated Faithfulness to Christianity alone." (From liberalism: USA).
Does Christian religious liberalism offer hope for us? Let us delay judgment
for a while until better arguments can be advanced. Clearly, what we
learn from the above is interesting to us as an explanation of the
thunder and lightning on Talisman. But we have yet to learn what it
offers with regards to reconciling the two cultures.
Yours respectively,
Stephen R. Friberg
From nineteen@onramp.netThu Apr 4 12:08:56 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 10:56:44 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Joan Jensen
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: Thanks
> I personally have
>known several budding seekers who declined to continue in the exploration
>of the Baha'is Faith over this issue.
Are you certain that's the true reason? Does Baha'u'llah not say that
the "true seeker" must cleanse their heart of all love and hate, "lest
that love blindly icline him to error, or that hate repel him from the
truth."
Richard
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 jrcole@umich.eduThu Apr 4 17:56:04 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:08:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Religion, science, and religious liberalism
Stephen: Thanks for putting the time into that very useful and incisive
posting.
1) On the divide between the hard sciences and the humanities/social
sciences: Physicists lose their tempers too. One of the reasons adduced
for the lack of women in the hard sciences, in fact, is the rough and
tumble nature of discourse in those fields (this reasoning depends on an
image of women as having their feelings more easily hurt than men and
unable to give as good as they get in an argument, so I'm not sure it
holds water). Someone will give a paper, and a physicist in the audience
will stand up and say, "If you had half a brain you would have tried
this: . .!" Indeed, since the hard sciences are about relatively simple
things such that they can be relatively easily empirically verified,
mistakes in them are ridiculed much more forcefully than in a social
science such as anthropology, where both theory formation and
verification are often very difficult and sometimes virtually impossible,
because of the complexity of human beings and of human societies.
2) As for theological liberalism, I object to the characterization of it
as the proposition that reason outweighs revelation. That is the
Unitarian-Universalist formulation, but many Lutheran, Methodist, and
indeed Muslim liberal theologians would not assent to it.
For me, theological liberalism has as its premise that "revelation"
cannot come to imperfect beings perfectly; it has to be expressed in a
language, and with a set of cultural, scientific and other assumptions
that are *historically conditioned and bounded*. Baha'u'llah Himself
complains about being constrained to talk to humans in their own,
inadequate language. *Therefore*, one cannot immediately know what in
the scriptures is a pure revelation, and what is a side
effect of the medium in which the revelation is revealed.
One needs reason and empirical evidence as ways of checking
scriptural texts to distinguish in them between revelation and contingent
statements. Thus, historical documentation leads us to conclude that it is
highly unlikely that Socrates journeyed to the Middle East; that David and
Solomon were contemporaries of Pythagoras and Empedocles; or that Jesus was
believed by early Christians to have no father. A vast accumulation of
archeological, biological and genetic information has confirmed Darwin's
central insights about human descent from earlier primates and
relatedness to the apes. All this leads me to conclude that statements
to the contrary, found in Baha'i scripture, do not constitute revealed
truth, but are contingent flotsam in the sea of Revelation.
I think this theological liberalism helps make religion plausible
to thinking people, whereas fundamentalist insistence that everything in
scripture is revealed truth and trumps all other sorts of knowledge
drives thinking people out of religion. In short, I think the 40%
atheism rate in France was produced in some large part by the hidebound
rigidity of the Roman Catholic church. And I think France is humankind's
future to some large extent. Both Catholics and Baha'is take heart from
concentrating on teaching illiterate peasants in the global South. But
the peasants are all moving to the cities. Their children may be
factory workers and literate. Their grandchildren may be white collar,
educated persons not so different from the French atheists.
So the *long-term* problem is not in finding a way to make the
Baha'i faith plausible to illiterate peasants, though village teaching is
praiseworthy and I have done a good deal of it myself. The *long-term*
problem is finding a way to make the Baha'i faith plausible to 22 million
French atheists (the other 60% of the French are not exactly devout
believers; only something like 12% even attend Mass regularly). That
Baha'is have so far dismally failed to make any progress whatsoever on this
front is abundantly evident. Blaming the poor French for being "apathetic"
when all we have to offer them is a folk Baha'i theology consisting of one
part fundamentalist Protestantism, one part warmed-over Catholic
antimodernism, and one part Qum-style Shi`ite legalism, is somewhat
unfair, to say the least. The French atheists have heard all that stuff
from their bishops since 1789; they are not impressed. The Catholic
church is collapsing everywhere in the technologically advanced world,
including Quebec and the US and France. For Baha'is to take up the same
cudgels and try to refight the same battles, simply dooms them to
irrelevancy in the Western world. The key questions are how to have
religion without superstition; how to have revelation that does not
constantly produce cognitive dissonance with science. It won't work
simply to dismiss science and its claims (as people on Talisman have
constantly attempted to do); these claims are *very* powerful, and are
not going away. I don't think most scientists, or even most thinking
people, would be content to lead their lives with a split mind, one part
for science and another, contradictory part, for religion, as some
Talismanians apparently do. At some point the two have to be reconciled,
or one is being dishonest with oneself.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From asadighi@ptialaska.netThu Apr 4 17:59:19 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:22:06 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Now it turns out that all the Hands of the
Cause and the Universal House of Justice were somehow influenced by
misogyny. That the pioneers who forsook everything they had and went to
places some so called scholars would not even spit on were all misogynists.
That sure explains a lot of things. Thank you for the clarification.
Also, where is it documented that "several leading Persian pioneers"
advocated such a thing? Are we now getting into documenting what some
individuals might say at Conventions? I have heard much worse things from
delegates including the last International Convention. Does that somehow
make it a policy statement? Does that imply that somehow the outcome of a
Convention is tainted because some delegates said some stupid things?
Let me just say that I would take the words of the Hands of the Cause of God
over some of the opinions expressed by the self-appointed interpreters of
the Text anytime, and this is even not considering what the Guardian and the
Master said about the subject. As far as I am concerned, the service and
sacrifices the Hands provided during interregnum is beyond our ability to
appreciate. It was and is the understanding of those souls who were closest
to the Guardian and understood his mind better than anyone else that women
are not eligible to serve on the House of Justice. When one takes a careful
look at the statements made by the Master, the Guardian, the House of
Justice, and studies the historical record of what the Hands had to do to
prepare the Baha'i world for the election of the Supreme Institution of God,
it does not leave any doubt in my mind that the system has worked without
any flaws.
Jackson Wrote:
The basic idea behind this comment may not have been mentioned in the
current discussion, but it has certainly been discussed. I believe the
position to be simple: either women may _not_ serve on all houses of
justice, or women _may_ serve on all houses of justice. I do not see any
way to have a split decision that permits service on some only.
I think we might note that at the time the original ruling was made that
it was seem by many as needing some leaps of interpretation to go ahead
with any election of a UHJ at all. It is not surprising that the extent
of those leaps might be calculated to be as short as possible. We must
remember that whatever the teachings supposedly propounded by the faith
that misogynism was hardly absent from the community in the 1960s.
Indeed, it is documented that in one country's national convention
several leading Persian pioneers of prominent family personally
counselled all the delegates that although women were technically eligible
for election to the NSA they would of course bear in mind that it would
be most unsuitable and an affront to the dignity of the body if a woman
were actually elected.
Jackson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From asadighi@ptialaska.netThu Apr 4 17:59:51 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:29:15 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Why are we so worried?
Why is it that everybody is so concerned about the Faith of God? Do we
really believe that the progress of the Faith of God depends on how we
answer a few questions about the so called inconsistent issues such as women
serving on the Supreme Body, or infallibility of one Baha'i Institution?
Let me put forward a different way of looking at this situation. Last time I
checked, this was His Cause and His Cause alone. In a sense, we have no
right or pride of ownership in it. We are all His servants and we all abide
by His bidding. So why are we so worried whether a wayward humanity is going
to accept His Cause or not? I am sure He is well aware of the so called
'inconsistencies' and has allowed enough flexibility in His Divinely ordered
system to deal with all of them. I think it is pretty self-centered to think
that the Faith's progress depends merely on how we answer some questions
about infallibility and women's membership on the Universal House of Justice.
I don't know, call me simple minded, but I don't care at all if folks don't
like it when I tell them we don't know the reason why women are not members
of the House, or if they don't like the idea of an infallible Institution.
My role is of a servant and nothing more. I deliver a message the best way I
can and the rest of it is with whoever hears the message. They can embrace
it with heart an soul, they can deny it, they can ignore it, or they can
arise against it. Not my problem! It is His problem and I am very
comfortable in letting Him deal with it. I do what I have been told and
don't worry about the consequences. I am a servant, nothing more. If I am
asked my opinion I will give it but I make sure everybody knows that what I
think is of no value. The only opinion that matters is His and His
legitimate interpreters. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for the
intellectual elite, but so be it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From asadighi@ptialaska.netThu Apr 4 18:00:07 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:30:56 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:
Richard Wrote:
> If we cannot raise our
>threshold for pain then how do we really expect to have the religion we
>all want?
>
>
>Richard C. Logan nineteen@onramp.net
>Maintain HomePage "The Baha'is of Lubbock"
>http://rampages.onramp.net/~nineteen/
>
Maybe we should consider a differing view point. It is not so much the
religion we want, but the religion He has given us. After all, it is His
Cause and He will take it where ever He wills it to go. The Faith does not
need us, we need the Faith. In the long term, what we want--no matter how
noble that may be-- is going to be negligible compared to His will.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comThu Apr 4 18:07:25 1996
Date: 04 Apr 96 14:17:41 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Huston Smith in L.A.
Dear Talismanians,
A close friend who is also a thoughtful and incisive radio talk-show host
(yes, Virginia, such a person does exist) interviewed Huston (not Houston)
Smith here in Los Angeles yesterday.
I asked Warren to query Smith about his remarks on the Faith. (Warren
has a lifetime of search behind him, much of which has focused on the
teachings of Baha'u'llah, and often describes himself as an "irreligious
Baha'i") He felt that the question about the Faith was a tad narrow, so
instead he asked Smith what he thought the potential was for a unifying
force that could bring all religions together.
Smith replied in the cautious affirmative, and even suggested that "one
or two" such forces were now working in the world. Although he declined
to name those forces, I think we might want to read Smith's remarkably
scholarly and erudite works (read The Forgotten Truth -- a wonderful
treatise on progressive revelation and the perennial philosophy) in that
light rather than in the light of a single sentence he wrote many years
ago. I believe that Smith's views may have changed somewhat since then.
Love,
David
From Member1700@aol.comThu Apr 4 18:07:44 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:34:49 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bab's Martyrdom
Various accounts of the martyrdom of the Bab from non-Baha'i and non-Western
sources are included in the book MARTYRDOM OF THE BAB: A COMPILATION
published by (who else?) Kalimat Press.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comThu Apr 4 18:11:26 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:00:17 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: 1902 Tablet
(The computer ate my first attempt to send this. Sorry if you get it twice.)
Richard-Jan:
I must say that your posting on the question of Women on the House of
Justice saddened me very much. I have read Juan's reply to your post, and I
agree with it completely. But, beyond the legalistic question, which I think
is far from settled, there is a large issue at stake. You seem to be saying
that you feel that while at one time the Baha'i Faith had the flexibility and
spirit to transcend its internal legalisms and cultural limits and respond to
the needs of humanity on a universal level, it no longer has that ability and
has lost that flexibility. If this is true, it is fatal.
Your post seems to agree with the assessment of Houston Smith that, while
the Faith originally showed some potential to become a universal religion, it
has not does so, but has simply become another parochial religion with its
own narrow agenda. That is indeed a sad conclusion. If it is true, all is
lost. I do not think that the Bab and Baha'u'llah suffered and died just to
add another religion to all the rest. I believe that their intention was to
provide humanity with a faith that could organically expand to meet the needs
of the future. If we have lost the ability to do that, it is very sad
indeed.
Tony
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comThu Apr 4 18:13:34 1996
Date: 04 Apr 96 15:12:52 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: My Friend Tom Returns
Dear Talismanians,
I heard yesterday from an old friend who I haven't seen in five years.
I'll call him Tom.
Tom wanted to call and talk about he and his wife's "re-entry into the
Faith," as he put it, after a five-year period of inactivity. He had
some fairly strong opinions -- Tom was never one to mince words -- and
I thought they might have some value in sparking discussion, so I'll
pass a few along. These are not necessarily the views of the management.
Tom has been a Baha'i for more than thirty years, as has his wife. They
have a large family, and all of their children consider themselves
Baha'is. Tom also has one of the finest minds I've ever had the privilege
of knowing. He told me that he decided very consciously to step back from
the Baha'i community, although certainly not from the teachings or his
belief in Baha'u'llah, for two reasons: first, that he felt the Baha'is
were stuck in a stultifying downward spiral in their community life; and
second, he had a very difficult time with many of the individual Baha'is
after he made large amounts of money in a very successful business. I'll
concentrate on what Tom said about number one.
"I couldn't believe it -- we went to our first feast in five years, and
there was this little dysfunctional community, smaller than when we left
it, and it was like they had turned completely inward. For God's sake,
they speak in acronyms! It took me a while to separate them all out,
but the big one was EBT! Entry by troops! Are you kidding? Where?
We've been talking about entry by troops for years, and we keep getting
further and further away from it. Get a clue! Until we start looking
out, and not in, we won't have entry by troops.
"What we see is the rise of dogmatism in the Baha'i community. We don't
want to see that, heaven knows, but there it is. We've gotten smaller,
we've grown rigid, we've become almost like some little exclusive sect
with our meetings and our acronyms and our secret passwords, and all of
that inevitably breeds dogmatic thinking and exclusion.
"When I became a Baha'i in the fifties, I thought this Faith could save
the world. Today I despair, at least in the US, whether or not it can
even save itself. Is anything happening out there? Is there growth in
anyplace around the country? I wouldn't think so, because we have this
mindset that actively prevents growth.
"I cried at the feast, I just sat there and wept. We sit around in our
rigid little living rooms and pretend that we're there out of a sense of
joy, but we're really there only out of duty. And duty to what? An
unrealized ideal of unity. If we had any real unity, if there was any
dynamism or life in the community, then it'd be different, but we don't.
"(Tom's wife) and I reached a conclusion -- what we need is a good Baha'i
comedian, somebody professional who can make us laugh about all of this,
because in a way it's profoundly funny. Some of the stuff that goes on
is just hilarious. When we stopped going to feast five years ago, the
community was arguing about the way to arrange the chairs. Five years
later, fewer people, same argument!
"And you know, it isn't the Faith itself. I think if 'Abdu'l-Baha came
to an American feast today, he wouldn't even recognize his Father's
Faith. It's us, the community. We have no vision for what brings
people to us. We have forgotten the spirit. We want to do good, but
it's like we're little children, trying to build a treehouse
without a hammer or nails.
"Can't we figure out that we've become irrelevant, and change something?
"I took one good thing away from our recent re-entry, and that's this --
things have obviously gotten so bad that we will now have to change.
If we're going to survive as a community into the next generation.
"We always thought the catastrophe was physical, nuclear, some unspeakable
worldwide violence, but it isn't, it's right here now, it's psychological,
it's in the death of our communities and the apathy of our youth and the
complete isolation from the real world we have enforced upon ourselves.
"But maybe people will get so fed up with the lifelessness that they'll
have to make radical change. I hope so."
Tom's points interested me because he seemed to have no axe to grind, but
was simply calling them as he saw them. Although some of his opinions
might seem harsh, it could be helpful to consult on them.
Love,
David
From M@upanet.uleth.caThu Apr 4 18:14:34 1996
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 15:52:29 -0700
From: M
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "There is ne'er a one o' all your dead, so (foolishly) fell in fray"
Dear Friends:
I have been assiduously avoiding entering the fray re. Women on the House;
a) because I haven't felt I had any new insights to offer. b) I have taken
to heart the list owners admonition to not contribute to threads we believe
are "fruitless". c) I have read a letter from the Universal House of
Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, dated May 31,
1988 titled "Women and the Universal House of Justiced" which is sufficient
unto me (I Have entered that item on disk and can e-mail it to anyone who
wants it but I won't post it to the list. d) I am fearful of falling into
the same intellectual trap that I perceive others are falling into, ie. by
focussing on what appears to be one very conspicuous contradiction within
the Faith, avoiding or evading the broader issue.
Certain elements of the discussion call to my mind the following
exerpt from a pamphlet published in London, 1589 . . . "The desire that
every man hath to show his true vein in writing is unspeakable, and their
minds are so carried away with the manner as no care at all is had of the
matter. They run so into Rhetoric as often times they overrun the bounds of
their own wits and go they know not whither. If they have stretched their
invention so hard on a last as it is at a stand, there remains but one help,
which is to write of us women." (Jane Anger: her Protection for Women to
defend them againft the scandalovs reports of a late surfeiting lover and
all other like venerians that complaine so to be overcloyed with women's
kindness. 1589)
The focus of the thread on "Women & the House" has not been on what
positive actions Baha'i men might take to manifest, or bring about the
establishment of the principle of the equality of men and women and make it
a characteristic of Baha'i culture and community life. No! It has been
focussed on how those with "power" or "authority" over us are perceived to
be preventing the establishment of the principle as a characteristic of
Baha'i culture and community. The A.A. cliche states "God grant me the
serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the
things I can and the wisdom to know the difference"; by focussing on the
issue of U.H.J. membership, Baha'i men are abdicating their power to
affect change in areas where they do have influence by claiming to be
"disempowered" by a higher authority; shifting the burden of responsibility
from themselves to that higher authority and indulging in a form of Baha'i
chivalry which only accentuates the desparate need for attitudinal change
and a "searching reexamination of the (deeply ingrained) attitudes and
assumptions that currently underlie approaches to (social and spiritual
development)". It is those antiquated attitudes and assumptions on which
some individuals base their insistence that the principle of the equality of
men and women and the all male membership of the U.H.J. are incompatible and
irreconcilable.
Men are no longer needed to defend or champion the cause of the
"fairer/weaker sex"; women are quite capable of doing that for themselves.
What men need to be occupied with at this juncture in history, is changing
& spirtualizing men. Feminist woman may focuss attention (sometimes
employing masculinist methods) on the need for men to change - Only men can
bring about that change in themselves. Reflect upon why Abdu'l Baha
revealed a prayer for husbands, to be recited by wives, but not a prayer for
wives to be recited by husbands. This used to be a mystery to me. It was
never a mystery to Valerie who recites the prayer for her husband every
morning. (I made up my own for her: "God grant her patience!")
Last night I caught part of a documentary entitled "Woman who Kill".
It was disturbing, thought provoking and eye-opening. It examined a number
of case histories of woman who had killed their husbands as well as case
histories of husbands who had killed their wives. It was not "feminist
propaganda"; it was a professionally produced, meticulously researched,
sensitive and articulate presentation of facts. It presented several
perspectives. It pointed out, for example that while "self defence" has
always been a valid legal defence for men who kill men; when women kill men
in self defence, their legal defence most often hinges upon their state of
mind at the time. The temporary insanity, P.M.S. and battered wife syndrome
defenses can all backfire on the defendant whereas the straight "self
defense" defense is relatively safe. An example was given of a woman who
had lost custody of her children to her estranged and abusive husband. The
judge ruled that because the woman had "battered woman syndrome", her
behaviour was undpredictable and she could pose a threat to her children.
Custody was given the abusive partner rather than the abused - (damaged
goods) mother. The argument was made that judicial systems, by focussing
on the mental state of a woman at the time she kills an abusvive partner, is
avoiding the underlying issue of male violence against woman. In these
cases we see the miscommunication pattern of "observation/inference
confusion", exercised in the extreme by the courts.
Towards the end of this documentary 2 statements were made which I
have heard before and which have infuriated me and put me on the defensive.
However, here they were so well framed and supported that they put me in a
rather reflective mood.
1. Women who kill men are encouraged to invoke defenses which
minimize the seriousness of the underlying cause - male violence against women.
2. Even men who do not abuse women, benefit materially and
politically from the abuse of women just as (and here's a real raw nerve
tickler) white men who are not racist, benefit materially and politically
from racism.
Now, you may ask yourselves, "What in tarnation does this
flea-pickin', butt scratchin' feminist-lovin', crock-stompin'
wannabe-intellectual-lay-yay-who think this has to do with the issue of
woman on the house."
Well if your one of those people who says "Hey, there was no sexism
during the English Rennaisance - like, they had Elizabeth I," or "Attitudes
towards women were different in Victorian England - or in Indian under
Indira Ghandi, or in Israel under Golda Mier, or the Phillipines under
Corey Aquino, or Pakistan under Benazir Bhutto, or in Mississagau Ontario
'cause they've elected that wonderful spunky ol' gal Hazel McAllion (sp?) as
Mayor year after year and she even came to a Baha'i conference!! If
you're one of those people who believe that a House full of women would be
bound by a different covenant than a House full of men, or would be paid
more attention to by the distracted mass of humanity, or that a few token
women on the UHJ would be a better way to exemplify and manifest the
equality of men and women than striving to eliminate every vestige of
sexism, racism and violence from our own local communities, then I'm afraid
this posting is just another irrelevant contribution to a fruitless debate.
It is my honest and humble opinion, gentlemen, that this persistent
harping on the issue of U.H.J. membership is the result of an instinctive
tendency to avoid that knowledge which Baha'u'llah says is the highest
station conferred upon our innermost being - that of the knowlege of our own
selves.
Now I shall bind myself to a rock and invite the vultures to feed on
my entrails.
Sincerely
G.
P.S. L, this is masochism!
**************************************************************
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 Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comThu Apr 4 18:15:06 1996
Date: 04 Apr 1996 16:34:02 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: 72110.2126@compuserve.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: My Friend Tom Returns
David -
I think your friend makes some good points, and I wouldn't be surprised if
your post generates considerable discussion. The problem I see is that the
exact same thing is going on here on talisman. How many people on here have
had a *personal* fireside in the last 19 days? Heck, how many have even
*mentioned* the Faith to an acquaintance face-to-face in the last 19 days?
I'm willing to bet that most subscribers are so involved in the 'scholarly'
discussions going on here that they don't have time, or don't get around to,
doing any sustained personal teaching. I don't see the discussions here as
being any more important to the progress of the Faith than the argument you
cite over the arrangement of the chairs at a meeting. Until the Baha'is have
sufficient faith in the future of the Faith and make it an integral part of
their lives, resulting in thir spontaneous sharing of it on a regular basis
there will be no change. In other words I see it as a spiritual problem
resulting from our attachment to 'all things save God'.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From asadighi@ptialaska.netThu Apr 4 18:32:42 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:19:29 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: 1902 tablet, Question for Juan
Dear Juan,
I have a conflict here. It is clear that the universal House of Justice sees
the issue as clear and settled. You disagree and interpret the Text in a
very different manner than the Supreme Body does. You tell me, which
interpretation should I believe?
It is clear that both the Hands of the Cause of God and the Universal House
of Justice have interpreted 'rijal' to mean male members of the Universal
House of Justice. Do you think your personal interpretation of the Text
should override their considered opinion and decision?
>
>
>Richard: I had determined not to say anything on the subject on this
>round, but the suggestion you have made that the issue is clear and
>settled is so contrary to the evidence that we both have that I cannot
>understand what drives you to express this certainty. The following
>issues remain unresolved:
>
>1) `Abdu'l-Baha interpreted Baha'u'llah's texts largely within the
>intellectual framework of the Islamic tradition of legal thought. In
>that tradition a mujtahid or jurisprudent (which was one of
>`Abdu'l-Baha's functions) applied his reasoning to a Qur'an text or set
>of texts in order to derive a judgment with regard to a particular case.
>The jurisprudent looks for an underlying operative principle (`illah) in
>the text that might be applied analogously to the real-world case. E.g.,
>wine is forbidden because it fogs the mind; therefore hashish (not
>mentioned in the Qur'an) would also be forbidden, since the same
>principle (`illah) would come into play. The jurisprudent is recognized
>as having the authority to abrogate his own earlier judgements upon
>giving the matter further thought or in the face of further knowledge of
>the situation.
> The reason `Abdu'l-Baha gives for excluding women from all houses of
>justice ("the House of Justice," i.e., that in Chicago and all others) in
>1902 is that Baha'u'llah uses the diction, "ya rijal," "O men," to
>address them. As we know, Baha'u'llah refers to members of *all* houses
>of justice, including local ones, as "men"/rijal. Baha'u'llah's sexed
>diction with regard to elective institutions is the `illah, and it
>applies to both cases, local houses of justice and the Universal House of
>Justice.
> When `Abdu'l-Baha reversed himself on this ruling and allowed women
>on the Chicago local house of justice in 1912, he implicitly (but
>powerfully) abrogated the legal grounds upon which he had earlier
>excluded women from houses of justice. This abrogation is logically
>impossible to confine only to local houses of justice, given the wording
>of the earlier, 1902 Tablet. The abrogation removes legal justification
>for barring the Universal House of Justice from engaging in its own
>juridical reasoning (istinbat or elucidation) with regard to this issue,
>since it is empowered to resolve obscure legal points. Nothing is more
>obscure than the apparently contradictory and ever-changing Baha'i texts
>on the service of women on elective institutions. The current Universal
>House of Justice has declined to rule, wisely in my view since the whole
>issue deserves much more study. But future Houses of Justice may decide
>they have competence to rule on the matter. I know that the members of
>the current Universal House of Justice privately would very much like to
>be able to allow women to be elected, if only a rock-solid legal case
>for it could be demonstrated.
>
>2. It simply is not the case that the 1909 letter unambiguously allows
>women onto local houses of justice but excludes them from the Universal
>House of Justice. Far more study of the terminology of the original
>Persian would be needed before such a conclusion could be finalized.
>Even then, some sort of `illah or legal justification would be desirable,
>rather than arbitrary fiat. Why can Baha'u'llah's wording be
>circumvented at one level (local houses of justice) but not at another?
>
>3. `Abdu'l-Baha's diction in his 1913 letter, printed in *Paris Talks*,
>is most confusing, since he there reverts to speaking of women being
>excluded from "the house of justice" generically, implying both local and
>universal--even though he had only a year earlier allowed women onto the
>Chicago and New York local houses of justice! (Is it that he was writing
>to a woman in Europe, and that women there still were not serving on LSAs?)
>
>4. The permanent exclusion of women from the right of eligibility to
>serve on the Universal House of Justice is in contradiction with the
>Baha'i principle of equality of rights and equality under the law for all,
>principles insisted upon and adumbrated by `Abdu'l-Baha over and over again.
>Valuing a poorly understood, juridically inexplicit and
>possibly ad hoc letter of 1909 (after all, he abrogated the 1902 letter,
>and for all we know the 1913 letter abrogates the 1909 one)
>over this compelling legal principle is in my view poor Baha'i jurisprudence.
>It is also a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
>subsequent U.N. covenants on human rights, for which documents the Universal
>House of Justice has expressed support.
>
>Baha'is' valuing of tradition and arbitrary authority over
>other equally important principles within their faith (reason, equality
>of rights, fairness and justice) is among the
>factors leading outside observers such as Huston Smith to conclude that
>the Baha'i Faith has become just another religion, having lost the
>opportunity to become Universal Religion. It is not too late for us to
>prove him wrong.
>
>
>cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Apr 4 18:42:38 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:32:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: 1902 tablet, Question for Juan
Arsalan-jan:
"Blind imitation" (taqlid) is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith, unlike Shi`ite
Islam, where one is obliged to imitate the opinions of Ayatollahs.
You ask me what I would have you do. I would have you think for
yourself. There is no Authoritative interpreter now living, so anyone's
interpretation, if he or she is alive, can only be individual
interpretation. That goes for the Hands of the Cause, who to my
knowledge were never appointed to interpret the Writings. If you believe
otherwise, please provide some proof. The Universal House of Justice has
repeatedly stated that it does not have the authority to Interpret
authoritatively the divine Text, and this is consistent with what the
Guardian said in *World Order of Baha'u'llah.* Attributing to the House
unwarranted interpretational authority would for me raise issues of the
Covenant. :-)
What I offered was a study of the issues and texts involved from the
point of view of an individual historian. Take it or leave it. There is
no reward for conceding that I might be on to something, there is no
punishment for thinking I've gone completely dotty.
As for the Universal House of Justice, it considered the matter in 1988
and reached the conclusion that it could not legislate on the matter.
The Universal House of Justice is, however, empowered to reconsider such
rulings. Are you attempting to say that the Universal House of Justice
lacks the authority to at some point in the future resolve this obscure
issue? Do you wish to chain up the Hand of God?
In the meantime, I do not see what is wrong with the friends studying and
trying to understand, as individuals, the texts pertaining to this issue.
So, disagree with me all you like. But please do it because *you* have
come to other conclusions, not because some prominent Baha'i individual
has. Some prominent Baha'is have held truly loopy views at one point or
another.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Arsalan J. Sadighi wrote:
> Dear Juan,
>
> I have a conflict here. It is clear that the universal House of Justice sees
> the issue as clear and settled. You disagree and interpret the Text in a
> very different manner than the Supreme Body does. You tell me, which
> interpretation should I believe?
>
> It is clear that both the Hands of the Cause of God and the Universal House
> of Justice have interpreted 'rijal' to mean male members of the Universal
> House of Justice. Do you think your personal interpretation of the Text
> should override their considered opinion and decision?
>
> >
> >
> >Richard: I had determined not to say anything on the subject on this
> >round, but the suggestion you have made that the issue is clear and
> >settled is so contrary to the evidence that we both have that I cannot
> >understand what drives you to express this certainty. The following
> >issues remain unresolved:
> >
> >1) `Abdu'l-Baha interpreted Baha'u'llah's texts largely within the
> >intellectual framework of the Islamic tradition of legal thought. In
> >that tradition a mujtahid or jurisprudent (which was one of
> >`Abdu'l-Baha's functions) applied his reasoning to a Qur'an text or set
> >of texts in order to derive a judgment with regard to a particular case.
> >The jurisprudent looks for an underlying operative principle (`illah) in
> >the text that might be applied analogously to the real-world case. E.g.,
> >wine is forbidden because it fogs the mind; therefore hashish (not
> >mentioned in the Qur'an) would also be forbidden, since the same
> >principle (`illah) would come into play. The jurisprudent is recognized
> >as having the authority to abrogate his own earlier judgements upon
> >giving the matter further thought or in the face of further knowledge of
> >the situation.
> > The reason `Abdu'l-Baha gives for excluding women from all houses of
> >justice ("the House of Justice," i.e., that in Chicago and all others) in
> >1902 is that Baha'u'llah uses the diction, "ya rijal," "O men," to
> >address them. As we know, Baha'u'llah refers to members of *all* houses
> >of justice, including local ones, as "men"/rijal. Baha'u'llah's sexed
> >diction with regard to elective institutions is the `illah, and it
> >applies to both cases, local houses of justice and the Universal House of
> >Justice.
> > When `Abdu'l-Baha reversed himself on this ruling and allowed women
> >on the Chicago local house of justice in 1912, he implicitly (but
> >powerfully) abrogated the legal grounds upon which he had earlier
> >excluded women from houses of justice. This abrogation is logically
> >impossible to confine only to local houses of justice, given the wording
> >of the earlier, 1902 Tablet. The abrogation removes legal justification
> >for barring the Universal House of Justice from engaging in its own
> >juridical reasoning (istinbat or elucidation) with regard to this issue,
> >since it is empowered to resolve obscure legal points. Nothing is more
> >obscure than the apparently contradictory and ever-changing Baha'i texts
> >on the service of women on elective institutions. The current Universal
> >House of Justice has declined to rule, wisely in my view since the whole
> >issue deserves much more study. But future Houses of Justice may decide
> >they have competence to rule on the matter. I know that the members of
> >the current Universal House of Justice privately would very much like to
> >be able to allow women to be elected, if only a rock-solid legal case
> >for it could be demonstrated.
> >
> >2. It simply is not the case that the 1909 letter unambiguously allows
> >women onto local houses of justice but excludes them from the Universal
> >House of Justice. Far more study of the terminology of the original
> >Persian would be needed before such a conclusion could be finalized.
> >Even then, some sort of `illah or legal justification would be desirable,
> >rather than arbitrary fiat. Why can Baha'u'llah's wording be
> >circumvented at one level (local houses of justice) but not at another?
> >
> >3. `Abdu'l-Baha's diction in his 1913 letter, printed in *Paris Talks*,
> >is most confusing, since he there reverts to speaking of women being
> >excluded from "the house of justice" generically, implying both local and
> >universal--even though he had only a year earlier allowed women onto the
> >Chicago and New York local houses of justice! (Is it that he was writing
> >to a woman in Europe, and that women there still were not serving on LSAs?)
> >
> >4. The permanent exclusion of women from the right of eligibility to
> >serve on the Universal House of Justice is in contradiction with the
> >Baha'i principle of equality of rights and equality under the law for all,
> >principles insisted upon and adumbrated by `Abdu'l-Baha over and over again.
> >Valuing a poorly understood, juridically inexplicit and
> >possibly ad hoc letter of 1909 (after all, he abrogated the 1902 letter,
> >and for all we know the 1913 letter abrogates the 1909 one)
> >over this compelling legal principle is in my view poor Baha'i jurisprudence.
> >It is also a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
> >subsequent U.N. covenants on human rights, for which documents the Universal
> >House of Justice has expressed support.
> >
> >Baha'is' valuing of tradition and arbitrary authority over
> >other equally important principles within their faith (reason, equality
> >of rights, fairness and justice) is among the
> >factors leading outside observers such as Huston Smith to conclude that
> >the Baha'i Faith has become just another religion, having lost the
> >opportunity to become Universal Religion. It is not too late for us to
> >prove him wrong.
> >
> >
> >cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arsalan J. Sadighi
>
> "Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
>
> Calvin and Hobbes
>
>
From asadighi@ptialaska.netThu Apr 4 18:45:23 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:45:04 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: My Friend Tom Returns
I have one plea for all of you who are going to consider the issue of
stagnation and lack of spiritual maturity in our communities. Please,
please, do not ignore the legitimate role children and youth have to play
and their needs. I don't think we can afford not raising another generation
of Baha'is that not superior to us spiritually.
I would hate to see 10 years from now our youth participating on Talisman
Jr. discussing the same issues.
>David -
>I think your friend makes some good points, and I wouldn't be surprised if
>your post generates considerable discussion. The problem I see is that the
>exact same thing is going on here on talisman. How many people on here have
>had a *personal* fireside in the last 19 days? Heck, how many have even
>*mentioned* the Faith to an acquaintance face-to-face in the last 19 days?
>I'm willing to bet that most subscribers are so involved in the 'scholarly'
>discussions going on here that they don't have time, or don't get around to,
>doing any sustained personal teaching. I don't see the discussions here as
>being any more important to the progress of the Faith than the argument you
>cite over the arrangement of the chairs at a meeting. Until the Baha'is have
>sufficient faith in the future of the Faith and make it an integral part of
>their lives, resulting in thir spontaneous sharing of it on a regular basis
>there will be no change. In other words I see it as a spiritual problem
>resulting from our attachment to 'all things save God'.
>
>Don C
>
>
>
>He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From lora@creighton.eduThu Apr 4 19:18:21 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:54:54 CST
From: Lora McCall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Intellectual elitism?
Dear Arsalan,
I'm watching your multiple posts with interest. Now in one you said,
"Last time I checked, this was His Cause and His Cause alone."
And in another post you said, "Can someone tell me who this Huston
Smith character is and why I should care what he thinks about my
Faith?"
Is it His Cause or your Cause, His Faith or your Faith?
I think the answer is, it's both. You seem to be uncomfortable with
the discussion of inconsistencies in the Faith, and would like to
shut down further discussion by invoking *this is His Faith and He
will do whatever He wills* (i.e. save a wayward humanity -- how?
magically?) I realize it is uncomfortable, but we must have open
discussion if we are going to have real answers to give to real
questions asked by real people. The phrase *He said it, I
believe it, and that settles it* is a bumper sticker seen on cars
belonging to fundamentalist-types.
You say that you are comfortable in letting Baha'u'llah handle the
problem that the world doesn't accept the inconsistencies within the
Faith. Can you tell me, exactly, how Baha'u'llah is going to handle
*His* problem that a wayward humanity doesn't accept His message?
I don't buy the excuse "I am a servant, nothing more." That sounds
like a prescription for sitting back and doing nothing, and then
criticizing the "intellectual elite" as you say, for asking the tough
questions to begin with.
This is your Faith and His Faith and my Faith and our Faith. We have
to engage it *for real*. Nobody in the thinking world is going to
accept glaring inconsistencies just because you or I say "Well,
that's just the way it IS." That's blind acceptance without using
our sense of reason, which Baha'u'llah condemns.
No one is going to call you simple-minded, even though you gave
everyone permission to do so. Talisman has a rule against ad
hominems. And that means you don't get to spit venom at scholars by
calling them intellectual elitists either. Believe me, if they
considered themselves *elite* they surely wouldn't be here listening
to our literalist arguments and platitudes, patiently getting gray
hair while they try to shed light on the truths for us, desperately
trying to build bridges that we might cross in order to engage the
thinking world and people of capacity. Why do they do this? Only
one reason I can think of.
Love, Lora
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Apr 5 01:00:32 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:45:28 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: notes on Faith and Modernity
Dear Friends ,
What follows are some of my notes over the past 25 years on the subject
of the Bahai Faith and Modernity . It is with some fascination that I have
explred these in my time away from Talisman . You all didn't think I was
spending all my time looking for work . :)
I undserstand from my editor ( Lora ) that some of the same issues are
being played out again on Talisman and could not resist responding .
First a little background concerning intellectual origins and my years as
a Bahai .
I come from a conservative Catholic theological background with a long
strain of prairie populists in my family, otherwise known as Jeffersonian
democrats. I am one of those increasingly rare folks , catholics included ,
who actually read Thomas Aquinas's _Summa Theologica._ That makes me a
Thomist of sorts . I like to think more of a Thomistic purist than what the
church did with his thought.
Aquinas , in a nutshell , or at least my nutshell , was attempting a
synthesis of Augustins revelatory neo-platonism with the newly emerged
thought of Aristotle in Western Christendom which had arrived via Muslim
philosphers . The heavy hand of Augustin's dualism had focused so heavilly on
the transcendent and world denying dimensions of platonic thought that the
"world had become insignificant . Aquinas attempted to infuse Aristotle's
concern with the physical world and the importance of rational and empirical
thought with a more platonic transcendental view transmitterd through
Augustine. One of my Jesuit professors once said Aquinas baptized Aristotle
and made him a Christian. I find it intriguing that Aquinas infused the
Christian thoughts about "revelation" with Aristotle and what seems to me an
Islamic notion of all created things as "signs of God." The effect of this
synthesis was to divinize the physical world as partaking in the divine
nature and granting legitimacy to the rational study of the world as
partaking of the will of God .
Aquinas managed to draw the objections of two groups of people . First the
emerging rational secularists who were championing Aristotle without any
desire for reconciling him with Christian notions of revelation. Second form
the institutional representatives of the Catholic Church. The first wanted
intellectual autonomy , the second wanted control with strict observance of
the "law" and a view of the souls salvation as institutionally defined and
mediated . In other words salvation consisted of what the Church said it was.
This is still an important isue for Bahais . A good deal of my Bahai life was
spent in accepting - not without a struggle - just such a view of the Faith.
I have before called this the community = administration fallacy. This
argument frequently appears in discussions about the *Covenant * and firmness
therein and is remarkably similiar to the position taken by the medieval
Catholic church. It was this attempt by the Church that lead it to condemn
not only rational secularists , people outside the pale of the Covenant as
institutionally mediated and defined but also Aquinas .
I like to think Aquinas represents an historic opportunity to reunite
Platonic and Aristotelian elements of western thought with the concept of
revelation - and one which I would argue was significantly influenced by
Islamic philosophical treatments of Aristotle. Had the principle
institutional authority of western Christendom The Catholic Church) responded
differently the unprecedented dynamism of modern secular thought may have
been directed to more noble ends than has been the case. In short the rise
of modern science would have been different in that the institutional
authorities had a basis for justifying rational study of the world via
Aquinas as partaking in God;s grace.Instead they rejected the secularists and
only later adopted Aquinas's argument for the rational basis of revelation
and scripture as ameans of thought control and an attempt to stem the tide of
secularism . In other words Aquinas was used in my view to try and salvage
the wordly authority of the Church over life and thought , not to divinize
the study of the physical world or grant reason a status of acceptance as an
approach to apprehending the truth . The rest is history as they say . For
800 years now the realist - empirical aprroach to the world has continued to
triumph in the societies of the North Atlantic world and has spread to the
rest of the planet transforming it as well .
This , I believe, is significant because so many of the arguments put
forth by Bahai's have this strange reactionary medieval quality to them . We
have managed to continue Augustine's dualism about good and evil and the
Christian revelation as its resolution as mediated through the institutional
structure of the church . We know this argument as conducted along the lines
of "the new world order vs. the old world order" with the revelation of Baha
u lah as mediated by the administrative institutions as the justification of
invididual and collective salvation. I would find this more humorous if at
this late stage of history it were not so sad. I also think it constitutes a
serious misreading of Baha u llah and the pivot principle of the oneness of
humankind.
This same Augustinian and elaborated medieval notion identified the
Christian community not as a mystical communion of the believers but as a
hierarchical institution. The emphasis shifted from the Christ as the
embodied "logos" and salvation as mystical union with this "logos" as appears
to have been the case in the early church , to an emphasis on obediance to
the will of God, the law, as by extension to obediance to the acts of the
Church - whose acts were granted equivalent status with the revealed law
itself. It was this obediance , institutionally defined, which constituted
the basis of salvation and the reception of God's grace. The argument is one
Bahais make constantly with respect to the role of the administrative
institutions . It did not particularly work then and I have no reason to
believe it will now , especially when cast in the all too frequent tenor of
medievalism . The response has frequently been that Bahai institutions are
dinine in origin . It is no longer persuasive for me , perhaps because the
elaboration of this idea is almost always cast in the same vein as the
medieval church. In addition the mystic union with the Glory of God has been
relegated to such a distant position within the community and our
understanding and consciousness of the institution which symbolizes this
union - the Mashriqu l Adhkar -
is virtually non existent. I would be more persuaded if it did not appear we
were recapitualating the same mistakes as Christianity in the second Bahai
century instead of the fifth Christian one.
These issues are also important to me because the get at our self-
understanding as a religious community. There is in popular Bahai culture a
sense that Bahai institutions are governing bodies in a civil sense. I shared
this assumption for a good deal of my Bahai life .I no longer do . It is tied
to a pre- modern sense of "exceptionalism and triumphalism". This view simply
becomes one of a number of competing views in the world and replays an age
old religious dilemna magnified by the communications and transportation
revolutions of modernity. We are now aware that such exceptionalist cliams
are commonplace among human beings and their religious communities. I
understand the reluctance to let go of this notion. What it could it mean to
be human if "we" were not somehow special ? Where does al the meaning go if
"we" are not the leaven to raise the whole and destined to become the whole?
I believe the answer lies somewhere in the direction of shedding
exceptionalism for universalism.
As I have mentioned before I now understand Baha u llah's messianic
claims as validating the "revelatory status of all religions, truly
validating them, and removing the basis for conflict and hatred; not as
claiming some "exceptional" status for himself or those who come to accept
his vision. It seems to me the continued attempt to justify this
exceptionalism is a carryover of the same attitude which has crippled
religion in the past and inadvertantly contributed to the ascendency of
secularism.
What might it mean to say the Bahai administrative institutions are not
going to rule the world - now or ever -? What justification is there for
developing a sounder sense of jurisprudence? bills of rights ? If we are not
going to govern the world , who cares. I would like to suggest the answer in
Baha u llah's desire that a reigious community ought to be in the forfront of
an "ever advancing civilization". To be in the forefront a community must
embody the best of the world around them and point the way to that which is
beyond what already exists. In other words it must "model" it. Our seeming
reluctance to face up to modernity and rresort to pre-modern arguments -
quite medieval ones at that - hinders our capacity as a community to be taken
seriously and model anything which large numbers of people may give serious
consideration. We speak a language all to often that was on the defensive and
receeding in human history several hundred years ago . I suspect this
explains a good deal of why the Faith is at a numerical standstill .
If we would extract underlying principles and look for modern
applications rather than adopt the principle, its specific time bound
explanation, and forms, I believe we would be further along . For example - I
find little problamatic in Aquinas's formulation of the sanctity of reason
and revelation as examples of God's grace or the existent beings of the
physical world as real and "signs " of God . What is problamatic is his
limitation of this to Christian revelation . One can accept the principle
without limiting it to that specific formulation. In turn the principle can
have ethical and epistemological effect without being tied to a specific
institutional authority for its legitimacy, in this case what the Catholic
church did with Aquinas's ideas. The same applies it seems to me as Bahai's
. We can accept reason and revelation as examples of God's grace without
asuming some medieval form of authority and control must come with it tied to
notions of covenental purity in thought . Nor is it necessary that this
principle must be "brokered " through an institutional authority for its
justification. Institutions can speak to the ethical implications and
consideration of scientific or artistic or political or economic acts
without engaging the ultimate validity of the epistemology behind the acts.
One can accept reason without positioning revelation as a trump.
Reason can discover the truth, as Bahau llah notes in the Kalimat, and
what it will discover is the ethical truth embodied in revelation which in
turn will allow all to recognize the great Announcement of the Glory of God
in all things. There is no neccessity to disparage revelation when it does
not attempt to trump reason - both are aimed at the same *Reality*. What we
can have is a multi -valent path to Reality - a unity of conscoiusness if we
are willing to let go of the medieval worlds attempt to trump rational and
empirical thought . I believe our contribution as Bahais can be to contribute
to creating a world which rejects orthodoxy scientific or religious and
accepts the mulitple expresions of the human spirit. In my notes is this from
Robert Bellah 25 years ago .
" We may be seeing the beginnings of a new reintegration of our culture
. . Such
a new integration will be based on the rejection of all univocal
understandings of reality . .and the necesssity to translate
constantly betwen different scientific and imaginative vocabularies..
.It will recognize in both scientific and religious culture
all we have finally are symbols, but that there is a big
difference between the dead letter and the living word. "
If we can move beyond our all to frequent "medievalism " I believe
there is something powerful Bahau llah - through us - can say to the world.
warm regards,
Terry
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Apr 5 01:00:51 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:38:52 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:Religion,scienceand religious
Dear Stephen ,
Lora forwarded your thoughts to me . Do scientists really think what you
described? The exchanges between Bohr and Einstein were rather . . shall I
say less than cordial. Ok down right hostile. And about what? Oh just a small
matter regarding the nature of order in the universe. I wonder if one of
the problems in the "hard sciences" is they lack a good appreciation of their
own history .
Its good to know you are still out there . A toast to Taos!
warm regards,
Terry
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Apr 5 01:02:50 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:39:30 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re. Response to Derek C.
Message: 456
To: "BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST"
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
Subject: Response to Derek C.
Date: 04 Apr 96 05:39:41 EST
My dear John
...................................................................
Dear Derek,
You write,
>I always have problems with a person who attempts to denigrate the
views of
others by stating their opinion has no intellectual value. <
What I said was that impugning people's motive's for engaging in a
discussion is
inconsistent with consultation and is simply emotionally diversionary.
You may
think things like that in private, but when you go public with it, it
adds
nothing to the actual substance of the debate and diverts its into a
totally
different channel.
.......................................................................
..........................................................
Reply : As I was not involved in \lquote your\lquote debate I diverted nothing and
nobody, nor did I question anyone\rquote s intentions or motives that honor
rests solely with you my dear Sir.The fact remains you regard the only
opinion of value as your own and clearly showed that. It appears are
continuing to do so with the repeated inane remark \lquote emotionally
diversionary\rquote . In future when one wishes to post on any matter do we
have to obtain the Dale mark of approval before going public, I think
not. Intellectual discourse is based upon private thoughts coming into
the public domain for the development of them and the interchange
between differing and varying minds. To require all and every person to
agree with a solitary perspective is not consultation but dictatorship
and mind control.
.......................................................................
.............................................
> women serving on the House of Justice has absolutely nothing to with
the
Equality of
>Women and Men. <
Oh really? Not everyone would agree with you.
.......................................................................
...................................................
Reply: If that is your view it is,that is perfectly okay with me.
However placing one or more women on the House will not create a Baha\rquote i
community that reflects the spiritual principle of equality of the
genders. I see it more as a papering over of the problem. It could well
be that just as when we become worthy of the Laws they are given to us.
I quote the example of the Right of God being given to the whole Baha\rquote i
World when we had matured sufficiently. Does that mean when we have
matured women will serve on the House, maybe not , but it could be it
will not therefore be an issue in a matured society. The reason I
mentioned the aspect of personal power
and serving on an Institution. That an individual member serving on an
Institution has personal power and thereby a defacto \lquote cleric\rquote . Is once
we understand that service on such bodies gives no personal power and
prestige to the person. Then we can start building a world in which the
personal virtues are valued above all else. Then you will have a world
which will reflect all of the spiritual principles that Baha\rquote u\rquote llah
requires of us.
.......................................................................
.........................................................
>There is no gender of the soul therefore women not serving does not
mean they
are spiritually inferior to men.<
I'm glad we agree they are not inferior. In fact the genderless nature
of the
soul is not the issue here.
.......................................................................
................................................
Reply:This is the first Religion that has been revealed with this
precise information as part of its Holy Text For women to know that the
theology of various religious systems that they were spiritually
inferior was the machinations of biased male minds and nothing to do
with the Divine Source is not to be undervalued. Especially in due of
how spiritual inferiority was used as a justification to subjugate
women amongst other things.
.......................................................................
............................................
>.The Bahai Faith is the only religion in recorded history that had a
woman as
its Head. Women serve in the highest personal appointed positions.<
Yes! Wonderful! So why aren't they on the House of Justice? Who
better could
help bring justice than they, these herioc wonderful rijal women?
.......................................................................
................................................
Reply: Might not the freedom to go out and work directly humanity with
the backing, honor and respect of the men in their Baha\rquote i community
enable them to be the bringers of peace on this troubled world.
.......................................................................
>. There is no moral dilemma except in your own mind.<
It is obvious that you are not focused outward in this statement toward
the
world that looks at this Community from the point of view of its
appearance of
moral inconsistency. That world sees a problem. I see the world
seeing a
problem. Therefore I see a problem. The world of other thoughtful
people is
not as blinded as some of us are by like or by dislike. If it saw no
problem,
if many of us saw no problem, there would be no debate, and you would
not have
to engage in impuning people's motives in debating it.
.......................................................................
................................................
Reply: I do look at the World spiritually because that is where the
ultimate solution must be.The 20th century is the century of failed
political theories. You are approaching this matter it seems from a
political stance ,that representation is required. However the most
important aspect of the Baha\rquote i Administration is the voting of the
individual, if this is done as required it really is a prayer. If the
Baha\rquote i Faith stands firm collectively and individually and puts into
the practice all of Baha\rquote u\rquote llah\rquote s teachings how can we be morally
inconsistent. There is no immorality that women do not serve on the
House. If the Baha\rquote i community told the world at large that women could
serve on the Institution and secretly precluded women from
consideration. That would be immoral and I would agree with you we
would be acting morally inconsistent.
The question of motives was never part of anything I posted. It is
obvious you see this as a major problem for yourself greater than
anyone looking into the Faith.Sometime ago on Talisman the query was
raised regarding this matter and how was it received by women in
general. I never have not informed a woman seeker of the situation. It
is of interest that women want to know how are women treated in the
Faith, do they receive respect and proper consideration, are they
treated as fully functioning human beings,. Yes questions are raised on
the matter of women on the House but I have always found that honesty
is the solution and has never caused one women in
my experience not to enter the Cause.< I am not saying people have not
been turned away but not in my personal experience on two continents
and in three countries>
.......................................................................
................................................
As for the rest of your comments, they reflect an intellectual
hysteria. Nobody
is attacking the House of Justice per se or saying to disobey it. It
is
precisely the appearance of this unexplained moral inconsistency that
attacks it
and weakens its ability to command respect in the eyes of a skeptical
world.
Until it resolves the issue by either voting to allow women to serve on
it or
can in some way clarify why they should not be on the House of Justice,
the
appearance of moral inconsistency will inherently remain and this issue
will
continue to cause only problems. I am pointing to an objective
phenomenon that
should be obvious to anybody. If people cannot acknowledge a simple
basic
appearance of a problem and discuss it without running off into
hysterics,
impugning people's motives, impugning people's loyalty, etc., then
indeed this
Community has a real problem, and we should not at all be surprised
that we are
not prepared for entry by troops
.......................................................................
................................................
Reply: The hysteria rests with you and emotional at that. Your various
statements have been and are an attack on the Universal House of
Justice. To question the integrity of the Institution by accusing it of
human selfhood and moral inconsistency, to name but two, is nothing
else. Whether you like it or not it is inexcusable. The
non-clarification indicates there is no underlying agenda not to have
women on this Institution. The Baha\rquote i Faith does not have to conform to
any of the dictates of present day society just those laid down by
Baha\rquote u\rquote llah, Abdu\rquote l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the House of Justice.
.......................................................................
...............................................
Do you think the questions I ask, that we have all asked, will not be
asked by
every new soul who attempts to enter the Baha'i Community? If not,
think again.
They will be asked a million times, until the appearance of a problem
is
resolved.
.......................................................................
...............................................
Reply: I spend most of my life these days answering questions. You will
find it hard to accept but this one you care so much about is of little
consequence. The great mass of humanity care about how to bring up
their children, relate to each other and have a world fit to live in,
devoid of hate, bitterness, prejudice and conflict. Will they be able
to look after those they love and how do they nurture their spiritual
life. What is the Baha\rquote i answers to those matters of today and
tomorrow. How to talk to a mother whose child has just seen her best
friend murdered before her eyes for some gang initiation. To learn to
have empathy with a parent whose child has committed suicide. What can
you do when a child is devastated by its parents divorce or been the
subject of abuse. These are the problems and more we need to have the
answers for and be doing something about. If we don\rquote t then millions of
questions will be asked.
Equality of the genders will only be one of those questions.
.......................................................................
................................................
Respectfully,
John Dale
PS: I am finished with this issue, which is one which affected me and
my family
very deeply.
.......................................................................
................................................
Reply: Well I am happy that you intend to finish with this subject. I
have no problem with you posting on any subjects. However please note:
if you post at me in general posting on this list or attack the House
of Justice I will respond.
I noticed on another list today the explanation of your family
situation. I have as much as another person can have empathy with your
hurt.But it only showed to me that you see this matter in an subjective
light rather than an objective one.The Faith was and is not to blame
for that situation however deeply you have been hurt. The anger you
demonstrate is not good for you or anyone else for that matter. Whether
you can place it behind you and move forward only you can decided. I
hope and pray for your sake you can find balance relating to this
subject. It does not mean you have to change your mind just acquire
acquiescence and patience.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS The custom on the List is not to personalize postings although I
take no offence at you doing so.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpFri Apr 5 01:03:25 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 10:46:02 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: lora@creighton.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Intellectual elitism?
Lora, Lora, Lora!
What are you saying?
> And that means you don't get to spit venom at scholars by
> calling them intellectual elitists either.
Are you saying that you don't think that my dear friend should
be allowed to say what he wants to? Is our conversation really
supposed to be only a one way street . . .
> Believe me, if they
> considered themselves *elite* they surely wouldn't be here listening
> to our literalist arguments and platitudes, patiently getting gray
> hair while they try to shed light on the truths for us, desperately
> trying to build bridges that we might cross in order to engage the
> thinking world and people of capacity.
I'm getting gray hairs not because our elitists are listening to us,
but because many times they aren't listening to us, and because they
don't seem to have any respect for views other than their own, and
because they seem so often to be so dogmatic and irrational.
I long for reasoned, rational argument, not ones where people call
other people snakes or put them down as being not thinking or people
of capacity.
Sorry for being confrontational here, but I feel I must defend the
rights of *all* my dear friends to speak freely.
Yours sincerely,
S. Friberg
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduFri Apr 5 01:05:45 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 18:11:36 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: (***THANKS***) Re: notes on Faith and Modernity
Howdy Terry!
Your wonderful message gives me hope that so much of the
current talisman discussion and the respresentative
elements of the general community may eventually rise
from the mire they are sunk in.
Your message reminded me of how interesting it was to hear
the depth of emotional expression and sentiment of the
Catalans when we were visiting the ruins (some restored) of
the primitive early romanesque mountain church-sanctuaries
in the Pyrenees 2 years ago. The vivid sense of suffering
and oppression of spirit during what they described as the
collapse of civilization in the "dark ages" was sobering.
re: Augustin's dualism, not having been Catholic, I am
interested in what this was about, especially in social-
historical terms, and what time period. Was Augustine
a major political/religious player in the late roman empire,
etc.? Maybe a few others on talisman would also benefit
from a quick explanation.
As usual, whatever rack you hang your coat on, I always like
it.
Best wishes to you in your job search and to your family
and the Omaha friends!
EP
> From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
> Date sent: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:45:28 -0500
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> Copies to: TLCULHANE@aol.com
> Subject: notes on Faith and Modernity
> Dear Friends ,
>
> What follows are some of my notes over the past 25 years on the subject
> of the Bahai Faith and Modernity . It is with some fascination that I have
> explred these in my time away from Talisman . You all didn't think I was
> spending all my time looking for work . :)
...
From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hkFri Apr 5 15:57:57 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:20:15 +0800 (HKT)
From: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram ,
talisman
Subject: Re: 1902 tablet
Juan and Tony,
You have both inferred from my posting some implications that I did not
intend, which suggests that I did not communicate my ideas effectively.
The main point I was trying to make was that the Baha'i Faith emerged in
specific historical contexts that shaped it in significant ways.
Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha were constrained in what they wrote and said by
their audiences (as any effective communicator is). A number of elements
of the Baha'i teachings, including some Baha'i laws, reflect the
conditions of the nineteenth century Middle-East. How could they not?
My concern was that Baha'i principles not be extrapolated from such
elements. For example, I would not like to
see a "separate but equal" approach to gender equality in the civil
sphere develop either because of the exclusion of women from the
Universal House of Justice or because `Abdu'l-Baha validated in his
writings the practice of having gender-segregated meetings and institutions.
To what extent can we separate those historically and
culturally-conditioned elements from the rest of the revelation as the
community transcends the historical and cultural contexts out of which it
emerged? I think that the Faith has incredible flexibility to adapt to
new cultures and new historical periods; indeed I think it is the only world
religion that has a scriptural basis for this in the twin
principles of the relativity of relgious truth and the unity of science
and religion. But there are still limits. I do not think, for example,
that at some point in the future the dowry (bride-price) could be
discarded on the basis that the law was rooted in social conditions in
which women had not acheived financial equity with men, and that those
social conditions no longer exist. I am not entirely
sure where the parameters of these limits lie, and think that this broader
question might make a very interesting thread.
I did not intend to present the matter of `Abdu'l-Baha's intentions in
his writings about the house/houses of justice as being
certain--historical questions can never be resolved with certainty.
Indeed, it is not even entirely certain that `Abdu'l-Baha ever did prohibit
women from serving on the House of Spirituality (despite the fact that
everyone thought he did) since his 1902 tablet would be entirely consistent
with his other writings in its terminology and its policies if he had intended
to refer to the International House of Justice in it--that is to say, it
is quite possible to read `Abdu'l-Baha's writings on this a being
internally consistent. As Juan
and Tony know, I personally think that the weight of the evidence that we
have seen thus far more strongly supports the proposition that
`Abdu'l-Baha intended in his writings to exclude women from membership on
the Universal House of Justice than contrary propisitions.
>From my perspective, this is the only proposition that can explain all the
evidence. But this is a narrow question, and there are important
questions that have been raised about terminology and other matters.
Juan has raised even more critical issues about the principles that underly
Baha'i jurisprudence. This is such an underdeveloped area of Baha'i
Studies--and I am so unquallified to make forays into this field--that I
am reluctant to say anything about this. I think, however, the most
important issue is one of authority (ie. who has authority to engage in
jurisprudence that would change the rulings of `Abdu'l-Baha and/or Shoghi
Effendi, and under what conditions can these changes be introduced). There
is a lot of spade work to be done before we can say much about Baha'i
jurisprudence, and a scripture-based study on this question would seem to
be a high priority at this stage in the development of the field.
Richard
From gladius@portal.caFri Apr 5 16:27:48 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:23:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Linda de Gonzalez
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Religion, science, and religious liberalism
>At some point the two have to be reconciled,
>or one is being dishonest with oneself.
Absolutely. Thank you. Yours is the first post on this subject that was
actually worth reading all the way through -- and not just because I agree
with you!!!
(former convent girl).
Linda de Gonzalez
Gladius Productions
From asadighi@ptialaska.netFri Apr 5 16:50:43 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 09:05:40 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: WARNING: This is a Flame War
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
WARNING WARNING
****************************************************************************
***********
This is a flame and unsuitable for the fainthearted, and pure and
sensitive souls!
ENTER THIS AREA AT YOUR OWN RISK
****************************************************************************
***********
Dear Ms. McCall,
Let me quote for you from a letter written by the House of Justice.
"Service to the Cause of God requires absolute fidelity and integrity and
unwavering faith in Him. No good but only evil can come from taking the
responsibility for the future of God's Cause into our own hands and trying
to force it into ways that we wish it to go regardless of the clear texts
and our own limitations. It is His Cause. He has promised that its light
will not fail. Our part is to cling tenaciously to the revealed Word and to
the institutions that He has created to preserve His Covenant.
"It is precisely in this connection that the believers must recognize the
importance of intellectual honesty and humility..."
It is His Cause and we can not assume responsibility for the future of God's
Cause. I draw your attention to the term 'evil' the Supreme Body chose to use.
You say,"The phrase *He said it, I believe it, and that settles it* is a
bumper sticker seen on cars belonging to fundamentalist-types." I am afraid
I can not take credit for this as it is the House of Justice that said it.
Dear lady, I doubt anyone can shut down any discussions on Talisman. I have
no interest in doing so. Yet, I do stand by my right as a participant to
freely express my views and if I am called a simpleton who is injecting my
venom in this group, so be it. I wear that badge with honor.
Dear lady, let me clarify something for you. I love attention and I thrive
on attention. Negative attention is much better than none. That is why I am
so thrilled that you have chosen me as a target of your attacks and that at
least, as you say, "I'm watching your multiple posts with interest." I am
indeed honored.
TO BE CONTINUED,
Arsalan
Ms. McCall Wrote:
>Dear Arsalan,
>
>I'm watching your multiple posts with interest. Now in one you said,
>"Last time I checked, this was His Cause and His Cause alone."
>And in another post you said, "Can someone tell me who this Huston
>Smith character is and why I should care what he thinks about my
>Faith?"
>
>Is it His Cause or your Cause, His Faith or your Faith?
>
>I think the answer is, it's both. You seem to be uncomfortable with
>the discussion of inconsistencies in the Faith, and would like to
>shut down further discussion by invoking *this is His Faith and He
>will do whatever He wills* (i.e. save a wayward humanity -- how?
>magically?) I realize it is uncomfortable, but we must have open
>discussion if we are going to have real answers to give to real
>questions asked by real people. The phrase *He said it, I
>believe it, and that settles it* is a bumper sticker seen on cars
>belonging to fundamentalist-types.
>
>You say that you are comfortable in letting Baha'u'llah handle the
>problem that the world doesn't accept the inconsistencies within the
>Faith. Can you tell me, exactly, how Baha'u'llah is going to handle
>*His* problem that a wayward humanity doesn't accept His message?
>
>I don't buy the excuse "I am a servant, nothing more." That sounds
>like a prescription for sitting back and doing nothing, and then
>criticizing the "intellectual elite" as you say, for asking the tough
>questions to begin with.
>
>This is your Faith and His Faith and my Faith and our Faith. We have
>to engage it *for real*. Nobody in the thinking world is going to
>accept glaring inconsistencies just because you or I say "Well,
>that's just the way it IS." That's blind acceptance without using
>our sense of reason, which Baha'u'llah condemns.
>
>No one is going to call you simple-minded, even though you gave
>everyone permission to do so. Talisman has a rule against ad
>hominems. And that means you don't get to spit venom at scholars by
>calling them intellectual elitists either. Believe me, if they
>considered themselves *elite* they surely wouldn't be here listening
>to our literalist arguments and platitudes, patiently getting gray
>hair while they try to shed light on the truths for us, desperately
>trying to build bridges that we might cross in order to engage the
>thinking world and people of capacity. Why do they do this? Only
>one reason I can think of.
>
>Love, Lora
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From Member1700@aol.comFri Apr 5 16:51:10 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:10:58 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WARNING: This is a Flame War
Arsalan-Jan:
I am astonished that you would wrap yourself in a letter from the House of
Justice and then start a flame war! Do you really think that such a letter
can justify your behavior? You know, this is the kind of stuff that gives
religion a bad name.
Tony
From asadighi@ptialaska.netFri Apr 5 16:51:19 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 09:46:08 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WARNING: This is a Flame War
Tony, Get off the soap box, will you?
Arsalan
>Arsalan-Jan:
> I am astonished that you would wrap yourself in a letter from the House of
>Justice and then start a flame war! Do you really think that such a letter
>can justify your behavior? You know, this is the kind of stuff that gives
>religion a bad name.
>
>Tony
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From gec@geoenv.comFri Apr 5 16:51:47 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:54:29 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WARNING: This is a Flame War
Actually, if Arsalan had not called it a FLAME, I would have thought of it
as another emotional exchange, rated "medium" in pepper quotient as compared
to some of the other scholarly exchanges I have seen on Talisman.
Be that as it may, the nature of this discourse reminded me of a routine
engineering practice of including by design, a safety valve in any
pressurized system just for the occasions when excess steam must be blown
off if we are to avoid significant damage to the entire system. If I saw
high pressure steam bellowing from a pressure vessel (strong tank) I would
not attempt to block the safety valve. I would though look into altering
the operating conditions in order to prevent excess heat/pressure build ups
in the future.
Confusing enough?!
ABT
From asadighi@ptialaska.netFri Apr 5 16:52:18 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:10:25 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: WARNING: This is a Flame War
Now that I have more time....
I do use the statements from the House anytime and I find it amazing that
some folks are 'astonished' by that. Of course it is acceptable to wrap
ourselves in any and all detractors of this Faith (Huston, an example) but
when one, with the best of intentions, uses quotes from the Writings, oh no,
it is cause for astonishment.
I did not start a flame war, mind you. If folks don't have a sense of
humour--in case of some, anger and resentment has clouded all senses--it is
not my problem. Do bear in mind that I have never accused any one person of
any wrong doing or wrong thinking.
Oh, I see, using the statements of the Universal House of Justice gives
religion a bad name. Goodness gracious. I was not aware there was a
prohibition against using relevant quotes in our discussions. Ain't that sweet?
Dear Tony, I stand on what I said. You don't like it, fine. But do not
attempt to silence voices you do not agree with using these kinds of
useless, and senseless attacks. It is not becoming of you.
Arsalan
>Arsalan-Jan:
> I am astonished that you would wrap yourself in a letter from the House of
>Justice and then start a flame war! Do you really think that such a letter
>can justify your behavior? You know, this is the kind of stuff that gives
>religion a bad name.
>
>Tony
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Apr 5 16:52:35 1996
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 16:26:54 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ, power
Tony:
>We can't just pretend that we are talking about spiritual
> constructs. We claim that he \{we\} have institutions which
> will eventually rule the world.
God forbid!
fortunately, God did
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Apr 5 16:53:56 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:31:43 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Religion,scienceand relig...
Dear Stephen ,
I look forward to your ideas on the science /religion interface. it is
a shame as Bahais we have not paid the attention appropriate to what
scientists nd mystic theologians have ben discussing in this area the past 20
years. The thought of david Bohm is , I believe , quite congenial to a non
dogmatic , sectarian understanding of true religion and science.
As for Bohr and Einstein . there conversations early on in their careers
were cordial and as you say intense . However I must disagree with the idea
that they were not quarrelsome . SOme of the accounts by Bohm , a student of
Einsteins , would bely that fact . By the end of their lives they were not on
speaking terms and avoided being present at the same events. Bohr thought
Einstein had betrayed the implications of his own relativity theory and in
turn Einstein accused Bohr of avoidung the "tough" questions and clinging to
what he called a "tranquilizer philosophy." The problem - well in
contemporary terms I would say it was one of Wittgenstein language games .
The conceptual language they used , grounded in different assumptions about
the *order*of *nature * lead to an impasse in their conversations and
frienships . In other words , in myview, their respective epistemological,
and whether they acknowledged it or not ontological, assumptions led to a
form of divisive ethical behavior i.e. they would not speak to one another.
Scientists bring assumptions to their work which influence , not the
*reality* of *nature* but rather the knowledge that can be elicited from
*nature*. I guess that makes me an objectivist of sorts.
Precisely why i believe Bahau llah is relevent to this issue is in His
"standpoint epistemology " or differing stations and capacities of
individuals. it is not *reality* which is limited or relative but the
respective stations of individuals which influence the knowledge obtainable
from reality . If Bohr and Einstein could disagree and not speak- a breakdown
of consultation , and this is an ethical issue , about atomic structure and
order in the physical universe what might this imply for deeper levels of
reality. After all they were quarrleing about the most fundamental but least
significant component of existence. Once one moves from fundamental to
significant the level of ethical engagemewnt increases accordingly .By the
time we are speaking of ultimate meaning , God and the purpose of life the
ethical issues become more profound and their consequences more significant.
The role of the Prohpets , in my view, is to elaborate upon and guide
our ethical actions with respect to the most significant dimension of
*reality* for human beings that of our relationships to one another as human
beings and by extension , as imagio dei , to our relationship to God . In the
case of Bahau llah I believe His ethical presecriptions and proscriptions are
well suited to a the world in which live and its particular ethical issues
, starting with religious fundamentalism and dogmatism. Sort of a clean up
your own house :) first Prophet with regard to religius communities. Powerful
arguments can be made for those ethics if we get past the mere assertion of
prophetic truth and demonstrate it , intelectually and spiritually. Then
religion may have something to say to science by meeting science on its own
ground and raising the level a notch by expecting ethical action and
reflection from scientists. I do not find the role of the prophets in
dictating the *nature* of physical *reality.*
As a result I do not look to Bahau llah to tell me whether light is a
wave or a particle or whether socrates went to Israel or how many stare have
intelligent life. I look to HIm for ethical guidance and for a way to
understand the purpose of life and my relationship to *reality*. He could not
explain *reality * to me if he wanted to. Its a whole lot bigger than my mind
or anyone elses.
I think Bahau llah's contribution in religious thought,
epistemologically and ethically, is ananogous to the shift in science fron a
bound and closed universe to one which is open and infinite. I see Bahau
llah saying the same thing with respect to views of *reality* , they are
infinite and none will exhaust our understanding of *reality*. SO consult and
study and learn and you will discover a richness within *reality* which has
thus far ecaped you.This same ethical injunction applies to scientists , who
are after all human beings, which means as a human being you must remain
open to new manifestations of that which prior to this has remained hidden.
Now that would be a good description of the true ethic of science as well .
It seems to me a key piece of Bahau llah;s ethics and applies to scientists
or non scientists whatever our perspective or field of *human * endeavor.
Bahau llah grants the pursiut of knowlegde legitimate status in my view. He
sacralizes the such pursuit of knowledge- and actually commands it - and like
a good prophet warns and guides us about the ethical ends to which that
knowledge will and ought to be directed. I do not find Bahau llah dicatating
any particular view of *reality* either as Prophet or by grant to an
institution as capable of mediating that *reality*. The Tablet of Wisdom has
that remarkable passage about cosmology affirming both eternal creation and
creatin ex nihilo. Now that is my kind of Prophet. I see no reason why he
could not be the "prophet "of choice :) to ever larger numbers of scientists
, artists and thinkers in general . We just have to present Him as such .
A current counterpoint to this view would be Richard Rorty. Who I
consider merely the latest in a long line. Rorty for instance, is in my view,
simplistic and one dimensional. he represents a philosophical and scientific
orthodoxy which by a wave of the hand dismisses deeper levels of *reality* as
unworthy of consideration . While it may pass itself off as a kind of avante
garde postmodernism it is an orthodxy ever bit is flatland as religious
orthodoxy. I consider this kind of work the philosophical equivalent of the
earth is flat theory. Folks like Rorty can get away with it and be taken
serious;y because they have the immense "cultural "authority of science to
draw upon as an unstated *legitimation * for their work. And inthis instance
it is realy scientism.
Look forward to more of your thoughts on all this and "gentle "critique.
:)
warm regards ,
Terry
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgFri Apr 5 17:04:07 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:36:06 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Huston Smith
Dear Friends,
One more thought on Huston Smith. Recently I have struck up a pen pal
relationship with Prof. Smith as he serves as an advisor on White Cloud
Press' SAGA anthology volumes. This has been a real pleasure as I have had
the opportunity to see in a personal way the openness and generous nature
of this man. Smith, for me, is both a fine scholar of comparative religion
and a living example of a truly religious human being. He has taken much
more seriously than I or most Baha'is I know to "consort with the followers
of all religions with joy." In this sense he is a shining light and a
living example of the Baha'i teachings (and Christian, Buddhist, Hindu,
Quranic, Jewish teachings as well).
Some Baha'is seem scornful of Smith since he does not spend much time on
Baha'i. As Megha noted, Smith did mention only the positive in his Jesus
Seminar comments on Baha'i. But Smith for good reasons has focused his
attention as a scholar on the major traditions. I am constantly amazed that
Baha'is think religious studies scholars should devote their time to our
faith when we have no distinguishing forms of worship and ritual, when we
have not developed any kind of systematic theological viewpoint, when we
are still, in world terms, statistically a minor new religious movement. I
think Smith's early views on the faith that were noted may have stemmed
from the fact that the Baha'is were at that time even more insular, even
less involved with world affairs, had no worship or devotional content to
their communities, yet claimed to be the last and only true hope for
mankind. This combined with many Baha'is arrogance toward other faiths as
being superceded by Baha'i or that other faiths are good but infantile
compared to Baha'i as the latest revelation does tend to turn off folks who
study religions academically, scholars who know that the great traditions
are great partly due to their ability to adapt and change and renew
themselves to meet the challenges of every time.
As David Langness intimated, perhaps Smith's more recent postive feelings
toward Baha'i should be seen as signs of our community's evolving from
concern only with ourselves to greater concerns for the needs of our age.
Some have fumed that it matters not what Smith or other religous scholars
think about Baha'i. That is true to some extent in that no man's faith
should be conditioned by another's. But it does matter what people of
capacity such as Smith think about us because they are keen observers of
faith communities. If sympathetic souls such as Smith have trouble with the
way the Baha'i world presents itself as a faith community, then I think we
should listen carefully so that we might learn something helpful.
And, please, if you can get to a television of Tuesday nights, tune in to
Smith and Moyers. This is a wonderful opportunity to see a man who lives in
multiple worlds in a way that reminds me of E. G. Browne's description of
Abdu'l-Baha, where he writes how the Master was at home with Christians,
Jews and Muslims, conversant in their teachings and ways, so that each felt
him to be their friend along their path to God.
Steve
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgFri Apr 5 17:05:34 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:36:19 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Moral consistency
Dear Friends,
I share John Dale's concerns regarding moral consistency in terms of the
denial on the part of the current Baha'i administration to women to serve
on all Baha'i elected bodies. I think it is a real problem and as Joan
Jensen noted one that many of us have felt personally or seen as a cause of
rejection by those investigating the faith. It is no different from taking
another fundamental Baha'i principle, say, the oneness of mankind, and then
asking how we would react if there was but one mysterious test: Baha'is
believe in the oneness of mankind and are for the elimination of racial
prejudices. However, Caucasians are not allowed to serve on the Universal
House of Justice. Now some Baha'is would develop intricate theories as to
why (no doubt due to their genocidal history, Caucasians are less developed
socially, but of course since the soul is genderless we are still all equal
in the sight of God.)
This is not just a small matter but goes back to the issue of moral
consistency. And it seems to me (and obviously growing numbers of Baha'is)
that there is a solution that is grounded in the sacred texts and Baha'i
history for moving the faith toward wholeness on this issue. The trajectory
of Abdul-Baha's ministry is for expanding opportunities for women to the
point that "in the future" they will serve at the highest levels in EVERY
SPHERE OF HUMAN ENTERPRISE. It seems to me that in these discussions
those who see no hope for change fail to place this mysterious ban of women
from service in the context of all of the Baha'i writings on the equality
of the sexes and Abdu'l-Baha's vision of the future role of women in
society, including the future Baha'i society.
Yes, having women on the House will not suddenly change the situation of
women who are living under oppression. But the continuance of this moral
inconsistency within the Baha'i community is a significant impediment to
the development of the Baha'i community as it demonstrates that the Baha'i
community, for all its good words and good intentions, has not advanced
beyond other religious theologies on the matter of equality of the sexes.
In fact, one could argue that at least the Catholics are consistent in
their ban and have at least some historical and scriptural ground to stand
on (though even that case has been persuasively agrued against in recent
years by Christian scholars of primitive Christianity!). Also, never
underestimate the power of symbols and role models. Yes, Rosa Parks refusal
to give up her seat did not change the conditions of African Americans, but
it raised all of our awareness and changed the consciousness of millions of
Americans. Yes, when the first woman minister was ordained, the position of
women in the Methodist communion did not suddenly change, but it was a
clarion call to Christian women to serve as equals with men. And when the
first woman is elected to the House, neither the world or the Baha'i
community will change in a flash, but we will have made a significant step
toward fulfilling the promise of world peace enshrined in the teachings of
Baha'u'llah.
With love,
Steve Scholl
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Apr 5 17:06:56 1996
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 16:27:57 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women & UHJ: Paris talks
Juan:
you say that the letter re Women's exlcusion which is printed in
*Paris Talks*, is addressed to a woman in Europe. Could you give
some background - especially, whether the original of this letter
is available anywhere?
Richard, you asked:
> the universal House of Justice sees
> the issue as clear and settled. You disagree and interpret the Text in a
> very different manner than the Supreme Body does. You tell me, which
> interpretation should I believe?
Your own, of course. Until a better one comes along.
It's one of the Baha'i principles I think, "independent something-or-other"
Probably absorbs far too much of our valuable energy when we could
be concentrating on social problems etc, but there it is
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 derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Apr 5 17:07:10 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:23:35 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Moral consistency
---- Begin Forwarded Message
Return-Path:
Received: from roatan.ucs.indiana.edu by ix12.ix.netcom.com
(8.6.13/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
id LAA16950; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:43:30 -0800
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu
(8.7.3/8.7.3/1.10IUPO) id OAA31882 for talisman-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr
1996 14:37:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jeffnet.jeffnet.org (root@jeffnet.org [204.203.90.2]) by
roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id OAA32144 for
; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:37:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [204.203.90.205] (ip12.jeffnet.org [204.203.90.205]) by
jeffnet.jeffnet.org (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA01571 for
; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:36:19 -0800
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:36:19 -0800
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: sscholl@jeffnet.org (White Cloud Press)
Subject: Moral consistency
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
Precedence: bulk
My dear Steve
Are you saying, as well,the Universal House of Justice lacks moral
consistency and therefore under certain circumstances is acting
immorally?
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
..................................................................
Dear Friends,
I share John Dale's concerns regarding moral consistency in terms of
the
denial on the part of the current Baha'i administration to women to
serve
on all Baha'i elected bodies.
From nineteen@onramp.netFri Apr 5 17:07:52 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 14:21:28 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, Talisman
Subject: Re: notes on Faith and Modernity
Terry writes:
> These issues are also important to me because the get at our self-
>understanding as a religious community. There is in popular Bahai culture a
>sense that Bahai institutions are governing bodies in a civil sense. I shared
>this assumption for a good deal of my Bahai life .I no longer do . It is tied
>to a pre- modern sense of "exceptionalism and triumphalism". This view simply
>becomes one of a number of competing views in the world and replays an age
>old religious dilemna magnified by the communications and transportation
>revolutions of modernity. We are now aware that such exceptionalist cliams
>are commonplace among human beings and their religious communities. I
>understand the reluctance to let go of this notion. What it could it mean to
>be human if "we" were not somehow special ? Where does al the meaning go if
>"we" are not the leaven to raise the whole and destined to become the whole?
> I believe the answer lies somewhere in the direction of shedding
>exceptionalism for universalism.
>
> As I have mentioned before I now understand Baha u llah's messianic
>claims as validating the "revelatory status of all religions, truly
>validating them, and removing the basis for conflict and hatred; not as
>claiming some "exceptional" status for himself or those who come to accept
>his vision. It seems to me the continued attempt to justify this
>exceptionalism is a carryover of the same attitude which has crippled
>religion in the past and inadvertantly contributed to the ascendency of
>secularism.
I too, like Terry, was educated a Catholic; and the karmic imprint of
that environment and culture along with such an education can be very
strong upon an individual. It is the parent culture of post-ancient
western civilization. For many of us the experience was something akin
to child abuse. Although I only have warm feelings for those dedicated
folks.
Many Baha'is I know are ex-catholics. Several students from my Parochial
Grammar School became Baha'is and dear Terry is very much reminicient of
the young gentlemen I went to school with. All my closest friends
including myself were finally ejected from Salesian High School (the
administering order founded by Saint Don Bosco) for radicalism.
Although I agree with some of the formulation; and any deep thinking
Baha'i must come to grips with the fallacy of competetiveness amongst
beliefs--as the only actual religion is that of being human. Thus
ascertaining the true meaning of that; THE MANNER IN WHICH ONE
ESTABLISHES A BALANCE OF PARADOXICAL ELEMENTS AS ASPECTS OF THE
PERCEPTIVE PRISM OF THE RATIONAL SOUL is a lifetime of refinement and
adjustment.
Other portions of the argument seem to depend on the idea that we can
identify or draw a parallels between some teaching or binding statements
of the Faith with a bygone and darksome period of the Catholic church
(medieval); and with ridicule, dismiss such things as unfortunate
superstition. As was said:
> The argument is one
>Bahais make constantly with respect to the role of the administrative
>institutions . It did not particularly work then and I have no reason to
>believe it will now , especially when cast in the all too frequent tenor of
>medievalism . The response has frequently been that Bahai institutions are
>dinine in origin . It is no longer persuasive for me , perhaps because the
>elaboration of this idea is almost always cast in the same vein as the
>medieval church.
But this, in my view, is part of an intellectual and cultural cycle of
contention that is grounded (perhaps hopelessly) in the limits of our
current language--a semantical battle that can't be resolved by victors
and the vanquished--because everyone is talking about the same thing.
But like the blind people holding on to different parts of the elephant
we claim the whole to be a particular part. The insistence on the
correctness of one's view is at the root of intellectual cycles of
contention that create destructive polarization, reactionary
misperception, and finally a culture of hardened partisanship.
The arguments is being made that we are neccesarily participants in the
struggle for a dominant view. The Baha'i mileui has always been one of
the mere relative viewpoint of the individual relying on the Writngs or
sactioned responses of the UHJ. This I do not believe not can be
appreciated for what it can be by reference to what things have been.
Yet, the formation of hostile and repressive constructs as a hereditary
cycle that characterizes a culture through individual and social
sydromes, will persist inevitably, unless these cycles are disipated and
replaced with a healing attitude.
Historical *projection* could be analytically revealing in the case of
the development of Baha'i Administration, but the difference between
administration and government is well-known. The realization of Baha'i
adminsitration will be IMV to go beyond the norms of human behavior that
we tolerate within ourselves, either through denial and finger pointing
at the other person, or simple deadness of conscience.
The "NEW RACE OF HUMANS" will have to play out the karmic hand it has
been dealt by ages past--if something else had happened is water under
the bridge at this point.
Self-destructive anxiety and anger over the resolution of these cycles of
inhumanity can be transformed into *radiant acquiessence* which is the
cessation of participation in these cycles and the edifying influence on
others, to also stop their participation--from my perspective, this is
the healing path prescribed by Baha'u'llah as the solution to the ills of
humanity and individual Baha'is for that matter. I know this statement
does nothing towards the relieving of the existential dilema set up by
the conflicting claims of reason and revelation and the trauma of
existence in the modern world, but in my humble view, neither shelter by
reason nor conviction can ultimately protect us from the convulsions of
self that afflict and disable us. Theoretical doses of reason, in my
view, will not break karmic or cultural cycles of violence, hatred, and
the host of other ills of self and passion that we see cursing this
globe. Only dedicated selfless and elightened loving people can
accomplish this in terms of raising consciousness in the world about the
message of Baha'u'llah.
Richard
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 gec@geoenv.comFri Apr 5 17:08:20 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:57:26 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Huston Smith
Steve Scholl wrote:
>This combined with many Baha'is arrogance toward other faiths as
>being superceded by Baha'i or that other faiths are good but infantile
>compared to Baha'i as the latest revelation does tend to turn off folks who
>study religions academically, scholars who know that the great traditions
>are great partly due to their ability to adapt and change and renew
>themselves to meet the challenges of every time.
Thanks for a very thoughtful post. A perhaps complementary thought that
came to my mind while reflecting on your post was the importance of a
healthy level of the mental/psychological states of positive self-esteem and
pride for the success of any endeavor both individually and collectively. I
would not (as I know you certainly did not intend to) fault the Baha'is for
having a very positive view of their religion. Rather, a deeper
understanding of the proper boundaries of such feelings would be helpful for
all of us. Perhaps a topic for a Baha'i school session could be: balancing
the appreciation for our Baha'i identity with an appreciation of the other
drops of the same ocean.
Regards,
ABT
From nineteen@onramp.netFri Apr 5 17:08:41 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 15:09:23 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Arsalan Sadighi ,
Talisman , Doug_Moore@admin.state.ak.us
Subject: Re: WARNING: This is a Flame War
Dear Brother,
Let me express my love and admiration for you as a devoted Baha'i.
It is very hard to be taken seriously by some the friends on Talisman if
you approach Baha'u'llah's message and his institutions in a
non-judgmental way. I believe there is a difference between questions
and judging. Baha'u'llah tells us not to weigh His book by our
standards. The friends ask not to be judged. They ask not to be hurt by
others with charges of uncovenental views. They ask to be allowed to
discuss difficult issues.
I apologize to you my brother for any hurt you may have felt for these
extreme criticisms for only doing what others have been asking to do.
Richard
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 DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduFri Apr 5 17:09:11 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:15:33 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: sooner or later....
My dearest loveliest fellow travellers,
Part of me is in deep state of questioning religion as a tool for
bringing unity. Other part of me sees the life in anarchy without it.
How can something bring unity and division simultaneously?
Well, now there is question about resurrection? Later virgin birth??
Is religion a tool which the unskilled hands of little carpenters
fail to use properly for milleniums? I don't know!! Wish I could.
I remember one of saddest moments in my life eleven years ago. A
fellow ...... who escaped persecution said to me "if the Highest
Authority said today that it was okay to start a Holy War against the
persecutors, I'll be the first one to enlist...". Wow! that's all it
takes huh, was my thoughts. I told him "I hope you're joking...".
Perhaps, it is time for another letter to God at His Address!
Do you remember it? It is "closer than your life vein", but, as far
as the Universe? Another paradox, dichotomomy, irony, confusion etc.
etc. etc. I am an eternal seeker, lost in the Valley of Search!!
Gotta get that heart purified, make it more kind and radiant, huh???
love,
q.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Apr 5 17:09:45 1996
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 16:30:19 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: looking outwards
David,
You might like to pass this on to Tom.
The first mention of Entry by Troops that I have found is from `Abdu'l-Baha:
... a Mashrak-el-Azcar will soon be established in
America. The cries of supplication and invocation will
be raised to the Highest Kingdom therefrom and, verily,
the people will enter into the religion of God by troops
with great enthusiasm and attraction. (Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha
Abbas pages 680-68)
the meaning here may be clarified by the following:
In reality, the radiant, pure hearts are the Mashrak-el-Azcar
and from them the voice of supplication and
invocation continually reacheth the Supreme Concourse.
I ask God to make the heart of every one of you a
temple of the Divine Temples and to let the lamp of
the great guidance be lighted therein; and when the
hearts find such an attainment, they will certainly exert
the utmost endeavor and energy in the building of the
Mashrak-el-Azcar; thus may the outward express the
inward, and the form (or letter) indicate the meaning
(or reality). (Tablets of `Abdu'l-Baha Abbas p 678)
In India the Faith has grown rapidly because it offered things that
the people really needed: a way for diverse religious communities
to work together, an impetus to overcoming the caste system, a
system of community organization which enables communities to
address their problems effectively themselves. The societies in
the west are not holding their breaths until a better form of
administration comes along, but they are spiritually
malnournished. So perhaps, in America and also Europe I think,
`Abdu'l-Baha may have a point (mind you, it's only a suggestion
:-)).
Forget the Feast, and forget the Assembly. Neither will be able
to go very far in development until the Mashriq, which is
intended to be the centre of every Baha'i community, is being
built. Start with daily prayer & meditation & reading the writings
('the radiant heart'), and the meetings for worship (the place from
which praises go on high): the dependencies for social
development and a building to express the inward meaning will
develop in good time.
The Mashriq (in every sense) being an orientation/
meeting/building with doors wide open, a community centred on
the Mashriq will be a less inward-looking community. It will
also be a community with a place for gays, scholars, non-Baha'is,
assorted kinds of wounded, maimed and marginalized people, and
people who just don't find administrative matters absolutely
fascinating.
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.nlFri Apr 5 22:00:07 1996
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 16:29:21 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mashriq dependencies
Don,
Just before your father's death you posted something regarding
the practicalities of institutionalizing the dependencies of the
Mashriq in small communities. Could I pick that up again now,
and say that I agree with you entirely. Participation is at least as
important as professionalism in the areas served by the Mashriq
dependencies (exception to some extent regarding health
services). An example of how this may work is Omaha, where
the Mashriq dependency of a home for orphans has been
understood in terms of the role of the Mashriq gathering in
having a special concern for the situation of children in one-
parent families. I don't know the details, and have no idea how
the 'decisions' if any are made in the Mashriq (actually, making
motivation is probably more important than making decisions in
such matters, since they call primarily for one-to-one caring
relationships). But it does seem that the relationship of the
dependencies to the Mashriq may mean a very direct hands-on
participation of the worshipping community in the actual tasks of
the 'dependencies'.
I also have a rather different take on what is meant by
'institutionalization'. We have had intermittent morning prayers
for years in our community, chiefly during the Fast. During the
regional convention I spoke about the importance of the Mashriq
in the development of Baha'i institutions, how the Mashriq was
not an expensive building but, in the first place, the radiant heart
and the meeting for worship, etc. Someone said, full of happy
surprise, "but we have a Mashriq!" Morning prayers are now
going forward, fortnightly through the whole year, and they are
known and thought of as the Mashriq'ul-Adhkar, an institution of
the Baha'i community: "one of the most vital *institutions* in the
world" and "one of the outstanding *institutions* conceived by
Baha'u'llah." Institutionalization does not in the first instance
mean formal organization, let alone special buildings and
professionals. Institutionalization is in the first place conceptual:
one comes to an understanding of the Mashriq or the Assembly
or the Fund as a thing-in-itself and not just as the sum of the
activities of that kind that we happen to be doing, and this is
placed as an organ within the wider body, so there has to be
some concept of its relationship with other institutions. Both of
these conceptualizations are provisional, to be worked out in
practice, but there is a qualitative leap when the community takes
the step of seeing the Mashriq as an institution, or the step when
the community at worship in the Mashriq sees, for instance, care
for the elderly, lonely and otherwise 'orphaned' members as an
integral organ in *its* (the Mashriq's) body and starts to explore
what that should mean. In other words, institutionalization starts
with re-visioning.
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 sscholl@jeffnet.orgFri Apr 5 22:00:53 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:18:58 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Our collective self-esteem
Alex,
I could not agree more with your suggestion. You are correct that we need
to have a strong self-esteem and see our faith in all its splendor and
glory. But, as you say, balance is required. The difficulty is with all
faiths and we Baha'is are not unique in the arrogance we hold in our hearts
as we cherish the priceless pearl of Baha'u'llah's teachings. Most
religious people have this corner of their heart that says "mine is the
best." This is natural since their faith IS the best for them, otherwise
they will seek another path. My feeling is that the best tool for
maintaining balance is to be actively involved in interfaith dialogue,
personally as individuals and as a community. As individuals this can mean
as little as being open to all people and meet them to learn and exchange
views and not simply as "potential converts". One can go further and
actively seek out people of different faiths and cultures and study their
traditions from the inside as best as one can. And I know of many, many,
many Baha'is who do this and are fine examples of moderation and balance.
But far too often we get smug with our New World Order, especially when we
are among ourselves or in our internal publications such as The American
Baha'i.
Steve Scholl
PS: One of the best short introductions to interfaith dialogue is by Paul
Knitter which just happens to be the lead essay in my book Common Era: Best
New Writings on Religion, which I believe everyone on Talisman keeps by
their bedside next to Man Overboard. Knitter discusses the balance in
interfaith dialogue between openness to the other tradition and the
responsible act of "dialogue toward conversion". Dialogue toward conversion
is not an evil thing. It does become detrimental to dialogue, however, when
it is the only mode of dialogue a person adopts.
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgFri Apr 5 22:02:18 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:19:08 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Is the House Moral?
Dear Derek,
Gee, thanks for posing the question so, uh, delicately!
You ask if I believe that 1. the House of Justice lacks moral consistency,
and 2. if that means I believe they are acting immorally under certain
circumstances.
I think it helpful to separate the two questions. In answer to #1, yes I
think that at times there is a moral inconsistency in some of the House's
pronouncements. For example, the House of Justice has gone on record as
supporting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but does not abide by
the Declaration in that it refuses to allow freedom of expression among
Baha'is via the use of censoring boards. Another example is the
inconsistency between our stated principle in equality of between the sexes
and the exclusion of women from serving on one of the elected bodies within
the Baha'i faith.
I don't believe that this means that the House of Justice is immoral. I
believe that they have reached their current views in an honest and
faithful way and that they are acting in good faith. I would liken it to
acknowledging that to some degree we are all immoral if we take a
legalistic approach. For example, I try to overcome my lower self and
cultural brainwashing by living a moral life. Yet at times I am painfully
aware of my sexist and racist reactions to persons and situations.
Intention does come into play in the discussion. So, I believe that it was
a moral inconsistency to keep woman off any Baha'i institution, including
the early US assemblies, but I do not see Abdu'l-Baha as being immoral for
temporarily letting the status quo hold sway over certain communties. Also,
I think that those early Baha'is who petitioned Abdu'l-Baha to reconsider
his position, despite what the explicit text stated, were acting morally by
faithfully questioning and petitioning the Head of the faith to reconsider
his position, again, despite what the explict text stated. Now, 80 some
years later historical and textual research calls into question the
explicit text and raises issues of moral consistency (not to mention
scriptural consistency). This does not mean that suddenly we need to hurl
slurs at the House of Justice for not adopting change at this moment.
I would prefer to see Baha'is adopt a process similiar to that of some
Christian communions by setting up a team of experts (both scholars of the
history of the faith and its texts, those with mature experience in the
faith, eg some Counsellors, Baha'is with experience in administration, eg
former NSA members, and some, dare I say it, lay Baha'is) to work on the
topic. In Christian churchs such consultative and policy advising ad hoc
bodies may spend years researching, debating, discussing, developing policy
papers that are floated to the community at large for discussion and
feedback, then they go back and do some more work and eventually they
develop a policy statement that will be presented as the current binding
and authoritative position of the community. I would like to see such a
process implemented on this topic and others within the Baha'i communty.
For example, as beautiful as many of the recent statements from the World
Centre have been, I think there were times when they could have been
improved by a more public process of consultation between the World Centre
and Baha'is at all levels. One of the key components to this process is the
willingness of the community to openly discuss the issues in a more public
way. But this takes me back to moral inconsistency #1, the lack of an open
community due to restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of
publication that is now in place. Which is one of the reasons why I think
ending review is an even more pressing moral issue than opening up service
on all elected Baha'i bodies to all persons regardless or race or gender.
Steve Scholl
From banani@ucla.eduFri Apr 5 22:04:33 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:37:12 -0800
From: Amin Banani
To: White Cloud Press
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Huston Smith
Dear Steve,
I forgot to mention in my last response to you how much I enjoyed reading
all those selections in White Cloud's SAGA anthology. I think it's a
wonderful publishing idea.
By the way, I was seriously considering inviting Huston Smith to present at
our ABS conference in San Francisco (a Berkeley Baha'i had suggested it)
but, for various reasons and lacking a really excellent Baha'i go-between
to extend the invitation, we decided against it. Instead, as you know, we
had 3 other non-Baha'i presenters (Professor Crow from Stanford, Justice
Frank Newman and Professor Betty Reardon from Columbia). There'll be
another time for Huston Smith, I'm sure--when we and he are more "ready"
for it!
love,
Sheila
Sheila Banani
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comFri Apr 5 22:04:42 1996
Date: 04 Apr 1996 23:53:47 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: asadighi@ptialaska.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: My Friend Tom Returns
> do not ignore the legitimate role children and youth have to play
Arsalan -
Absolutely.
First off, Both Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l-Baha commended teaching friends and
family first, and our own children are the core of our family.
Secondly, these kids (everybody under 30 8-) ) have incredible energy.
With a minimum of direction they can get an incredible amount done.
Thirdly, in my experience, most children and youth are very interested in
spiritual things.
Unfortunately, it appears that most children and youth are either being taken
for granted or otherwise ignored.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From brburl@mailbag.comFri Apr 5 22:05:07 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:34:33 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: Donald Zhang Osborn
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Huston Smith and Baha'i
Don Osborn,
Philip. > "Looked in one of his [Huston Smith] earlier book and found
this comment: Bahai had promises to be a universal religion and to rise
above sectarianism with regards to other faiths, but it turned out to be
just like any other religion.
Me: "Smith has made a cogent and obvious observation."
Don: > "Bruce, Greetings! Begging your pardon, but my impression
of Dr. Smith's remark (perhaps the only mention of the Faith i any of
his publications??) is that he has 1) fundamentally misunderstood the
Baha'i Faith and 2) confused his opinion of the practice of (some of) the
community as the essence of the Faith....." <
Whether or not Smith has made a careful study of Baha'i or not is for
me beside the point. I simply agree with the statement as made above.
Having observed Baha'i for close to 30 years, particularly with regards
to other religions, what is attributed to Smith is, in my opinion, a fair
statement.
Bruce
From M@upanet.uleth.caFri Apr 5 22:05:46 1996
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 18:07:21 -0700
From: M
To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca
Subject: Re: FIRE EXTINGUISHER
Dear Michael:
A very important quote; I heard in 1965 and it set in motion a
sequence of events that eventually led me to the Faith in 1979. If you
were on Talisman in December and Jan, you might remember the items I posted
. . "Probably Some Cult in the Bahamas" etc. about a recurrent nightmare I
began having the night I heard this.
Its from Tablets of Divine Plan page 21
"In brief, O ye believers in God! The text of the Divine Book is
this: If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the Divine
Questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong. The wisdom of this
incontrovertible law of God is this: That between two souls from amongst
the believers of God, no contention and dispute may arise; that they may
speak with each other with infinite amity and love. Should there appear the
least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must
continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question
from the Interpreter. This is the irefutable command!
Upon you be Baha El Abha!! "
Sadly, there ain't no interpreter to ask these days so I'm certain
some individuals will claim this admonition is no longer applicable.
Nevertheless I try to abide by it to the best of my ability; It aint always
easy.
Thanks for requesting it.
G.
>Greetings.
> Could one of the Baha'i scholars here kindly give
>me the exact quote which I believe Abdu'l Baha said
>and which goes something like:
>
> "If people argue about the Sacred Writings each of
>them is wrong."
>
> I'd also be happy to have the source of that quote.
>
> Very Best Wishes,
> Michael
>
>
>
>--
>"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>
>
**************************************************************
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 friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpFri Apr 5 22:06:31 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 17:32:29 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:Religion,scienceand religious
> Lora forwarded your thoughts to me . Do scientists really think what you
> described? The exchanges between Bohr and Einstein were rather . . shall I
> say less than cordial. Ok down right hostile. And about what? Oh just a small
> matter regarding the nature of order in the universe. I wonder if one of
> the problems in the "hard sciences" is they lack a good appreciation of their
> own history .
Dear Terry:
About the discussions between Bohr and Einstein, nobody I know or have
read have suggested that they were anything but cordial. These two
people loved, respected, and absolutely adored each other! No question
about it. That's what made their conversations so intense. And
Einstein's tough questioning was responsible for Bohr's tightening
of the concepts of quantum mechanics to the point where it was
rock-solid. A discussion/consultation of the highest calibre.
An important point was that both knew that the problem was a question
that would be answered by nature: it would not be based on opinion or
force of personality. This makes a tremendous difference, and I think
is a point poorly understood by nonscientists.
Your postings lately have been quite great! I hope to be able to reply
to them, but I am off to Osaka for the weekend, so won't be able to
until next week.
I feel the direction is right on this topic (science and religion),
and that it can be used in a fruitful way to go over some of the
ground that folks in the argument about women on the House are using
incendiary devices about.
Stephen R. Friberg
P.S. I critized Lora a bit about her posting to Arsalan. I hope she
will see it in her heart to forgive me.
From cenglish@aztec.asu.eduFri Apr 5 22:06:40 1996
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 00:45:36 -0700 (MST)
From: "THOMAS C. ENGLISH"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Did The Shadow really know what lurked in the heart?
If The Shadow thread is going to continue, some words from
the 20th century person defining it are in order. Several posts
of the recent past have contained terms coined by Carl Jung.
His work, out of favor by the mainstream, has heavily
influenced Western psychology, literary criticism, and many
approaches progressive (U.S.) Christianity takes toward
integrating body, mind, and spirit.
These words are not posted as a 'psycho-pop' substitution for
being a member of the Baha'i Faith. They are offered as a bit
of wild rice to mix with the bounty of the banquet, a tasty
supplement for the soul's nutrition. Some of us may crave the
dance of the Sufi, others heal themselves in the pow-wow's
circle. The Tao of Physics exhilarate as do the grammarian's
delights or the clean solace of aloneness among the trees,
wind, rocks and waters. We are all at the table together,
The Master at its head. He arose at dawn, prepared the main
courses with his own hands, poured the drink, and invited us
because he loved and obeyed his father. He smiles, winks and
laughs with delight because all humanity has come to join him.
THE SHADOW *
Whereas the contents of the personal unconscious are acquired
during the individual's lifetime, the contents of the collective
unconscious are archetypes that were present from the beginning.
Their relation to the instincts has been discussed elsewhere F1.
The archetypes most clearly characterized from the empirical
point of view are those having the most disturbing influence on
the ego. These are the *shadow*, the *anima* and the *animus*.F2
The most accessible of these, and the easiest to experience is
the shadow, for its nature can in large measure be inferred from
the contents of the personal unconscious....
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole
ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow
without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it
involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as
present and real. This act is essential for any kind of
self-knowledge, and it therefore as a rule meets with
considerable resistance....
Closer examination of the dark characteristics-that is, the
inferiorities constituting the shadow-reveals that they have
an *emotional* nature, a kind of autonomy and accordingly an
obsessive or, better, possessive quality. Emotion,
incidentally, is not an activity of the individual but
something that happens to him. Affects occur usually where
the adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal
the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of
inferiority and existence of a lower level of personality.
On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely
controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive,
who is not only the passive victim of his affects but
also singularly incapable of moral judgement....
F1 "Instinct and the Unconscious" and "On the Nature of the
Psyche," pars 397 ff.
F2 The contents of this and the following chapter are taken
from a lecture to the Swiss Society for Practical Psychology,
in Zurich, 1948.
* Collected Works of C.G. Jung Volume 9, Part II
'AION' Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.
Bollingen Series XX, Princeton University Press.
Princeton, N.J. 1959
From jcdhender@loop.comFri Apr 5 22:06:47 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:49:43 -0800
From: The Hendershots
To: 'Linda de Gonzalez' ,
"talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: RE: Shadow thread
Dear Linda,
You wrote:
Erhm..."widening the loop of discussion"??? There are some Writings that I
believe support Jung's view, the only one I can think of off the top of my
head is that famous one from Abdu'l-Baha about concentrating only on
people's good qualities (even if there's only one) rather than their bad.
My own interpretation of this statement is that concentrating on "good
qualities" (strengths) isn't just as a means to be "pleasant" to each other,
except superficially; this is because we can only grow from our strengths
(back to that wonderful "Mathematics of Encouragement" piece). We cannot
grow from our weaknesses (our shadow). I am interpreting this liberally, I
know, however, it's based on my observation and my experience. We can,
however, use our Shadow to grow.
This reminded me of a posting that Donald Zhang Osborn forwarded to Talisman from another list on March 26. It had to do with how our thinking and behavior effect our biochemistry. Well, actually, it had to do with how our environment effects our chemistry and our thinking. But I think it can go in more than one direction. Perhaps by consciously changing our actions and modifying our thinking, we could even change our biochemistry. And then, if our chemistry affects our moods and our thinking, it will reinforce the action we started with so that it becomes part of our nature/personality rather than needing conscious effort. (If that makes any sense at all.) Anyway, the posting made me think of the same quote of 'Abdu'l-Baha that you refer to as well as: not backbiting, treating our enemies as friends, considering those who wish us evil as the wishers of good, consorting with followers of all religions with joy and fragrance, not offending any heart, forgiving others, daily prayers, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps by recognizing our own Shadow and making conscious efforts to live the kind of life exemplified by 'Abdu'l-Baha, we can achieve spiritual growth and, who knows, perhaps even change our biochemistry as well. (I'm sure this is linked to physical healing too, and that would be another interesting topic.)
Anyway, here's the posting.
Best regards,
Chris Hendershot
Forwarded message:
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:08:13 -0500
> From: Peter Pflaum
> Subject: For a real change -
> To: Multiple recipients of list INTDEV-L
>
> SYNERGY-NET on http://metro.turnpike.net/~pflaump
>
> RE: Bio-politics, education and the Chemical-behavioral paradigm:
> Domination and Liberation.
>
> It is good practice to design organizational, political,
> educational, training, and commercial activity with knowledge of
> the "newest" findings of social psychology, and the most
> "ancient" methods of character development. In times of change,
> it become necessary to think of ways to promote "reprogrammed"
> individuals and systems. We are in the area of great change as we
> move from industrial models of domination to information systems
> and cooperation. Fundamental change is not so simple and the
> evolution of culture has never been so fast. We need new
> techniques to deal we this kind of challenge. There is no
> solution "inside the box", we have to look beyond our culturally
> defined ruts.
>
> Candace Pert, interviewed in Bill Moyers' "Healing and the Mind"
> (Doubleday 1995 based on the PBS series) was Chief of Brain Bio-
> chemistry at the NIH. She discovered new types of psychoactive
> drugs that are produced by the brain, endorphins, which means
> "morphines from within", that are similar to opiates taken as
> drugs.
>
> The physical matter changes with personality. It goes both ways.
> " the mind is not just in the brain but is part of a
> communications network throughout the brain and body. You can
> start to see how physiology can effect functioning on a moment-
> to-moment, hour-by-hour, day-today basis, much more that we give
> it credit for." If people live in an industrial, factory system,
> where domination, power, and control are the commanding social
> conditions, they become physically different from people who work
> and live in an information, learning organization. The workers of
> Detroit have different bio-chemical systems than those of San
> Jose and the silicon valley. Different groups of voters have
> different chemical reactions to the symbols, sights and sounds of
> political messages.
>
> As a neuroscientist Dr. Pert was `secretly' interested in
> consciousness and became aware that the immune system produces a
> number psychosomatic (psyche = mind, soma = body ) chemical
> transmitters. The internal information system is a biochemical,
> electrical network. The messenger peptides inform and stimulate
> cells to produce or not produce proteins, divide or not divide,
> and the direct the roles of different sub-systems in complex
> strategies of growth, protection, and mood. The fight-flight
> (stress response) is only one of many sub-systems. (Herbert
> Benson)
>
> Consciousness involves every cell of the body.
>
> Try to get your "mind" around this concept. Thinking and
> awareness is NOT a computer chip but a chemical soup, dynamic
> interactions on bio-chemical networks, not programmed but
> conditioned by genes and the physical, social environment.
> Genetic context is interactive with `ecological' emotional and
> social states. Neuro-peptides and their receptors are emotions.
>
> This new science opens doors to "body knowledge", intuition, and
> the deep programming of socialization. Television and diet impact
> who we are. Commercials, sex and violence, effect mood by way of
> organic chemistry. Bio-politics speaks to the production of
> Neuro-transmitters.
>
> The peptides are the material manifestation of the psyche and the
> "soul". Anger, love, fear, awe, depression, joy, are physical and
> material body reactions. Actors that play happy people have
> different blood chemistry from actors that play angry people.
> Thinking makes it happen, body chemistry effects our thinking.
> Psychol-therapy, or traditional education maybe able to change
> our patterns of thought to produce new chemical balances, but its
> very difficult and unlikely. But if drugs can change the
> chemistry - bingo our own attitude changes.
>
> "People with multiple personalities sometimes have extremely
> clear physical symptoms that vary with each personality. One
> personality can be allergic to cats while another is not. One
> personality can be diabetic and another is not."
>
> Neuro-peptides are the biochemical units of emotion. Emotions
> almost always set the context for behavior. Perhaps, industrial
> and social training need to take place with sets of conditions
> that produce the responses needed. Construction, decoration and
> graphics, sights and sounds, diet, motion, all can contribute.
> Maybe also "soma", drugs that produce a sense of security, well-
> being and hope. This is the base of our Sufi program.
>
> The old systems of power and top-down authority (Male domination
> systems) have become more and more dysfunctional. Public schools
> are the great hold-outs of "communist", state bureaucracies that
> ignore market forces. IBM, GM, and the other industrial giants
> are making way for smaller, faster, more flexible cooperative
> systems of enterprise. The US congress with it's domination by
> old men, committee chairmen, no longer works. Big
> "communications" mega-media is coming apart at the edges.
>
> SYNERGY-NET on http://metro.turnpike.net/~pflaump
> ** Peter E. Pflaum Ph.D. , Headmaster GLOBAL_VILLAGE_SCHOOLHOUSE
> 225 Robinson Road, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169-2176 (904) 428-9609
> pflaump@MSN.com pflaump@interserv.com
> *****************************************************************
>
> SYNERGY-NET on http://emporium.turnpike.net/~pflaump or
> http://metro.turnpike.net/~pflaum pflaume@n-jcenter.com
> ** Peter E. Pflaum Ph.D. , Headmaster GLOBAL_VILLAGE_SCHOOLHOUSE
> 225 Robinson Road, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169-2176 (904) 428-9609
> pflaump@interserv.com
> *****************************************************************
>
--
From l.droege@genie.comFri Apr 5 22:07:21 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 01:53:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women & UHJ
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Ummm, has everybody calmed down now? Can I post something on this
subject?
Just wanted to say that Juan's analysis was really helpful to me; that
the UHJ consists of men (rijal) and that "in this day women are
accounted as men (rijal)" is something that, to me, does open the door
to a new decision by the UHJ, possibly, if/when the time is right.
I think, however, that the UHJ\'ff\'fb is absolutely right in not doing anything
at this time. Am not saying this just out of loyalty-- I think the
world is not ready for women on the "Supreme Institution," not due
to any failing or inferiority\'fb\'df of women but because _men_ can't handle
the idea.
Revelation, we are told, is progressive. We want it all, and we want it
now, but in a world where it's still being debated whether women have
souls (Islam), and where "man is the glory of God, and woman the glory
of man (Christianity)"-- and where beating, killing, & ritual
mutilation of women (see other threads) is to most observers merely a
cultural trait -- who's gonna listen to a bunch of wimmin?
Lest I be accused of man-bashing, here's some man-bashing (ask why
women laugh & men get defensive about this):
How many men does it take t\'f1\'85o screw in a lightbulb?
a) none; he gets a woman to do it.
or
b) none; he holds it up and waits for the world to revolve
around him.
\'ff\'fb
(don't worry, I'm egalitarian-- I have a dumb blonde joke too)
Leigh (ex-blonde crying in the wilderness, unheard)
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comFri Apr 5 22:14:06 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 18:20:15 -0800
From: "Marguerite K.Gipson"
To: lora@creighton.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Intellectual elitism?
Pray tell what inconsistencies are you talking about. I have studyied the
Faith for years, and come up empty on that one.... The only thing I see
inconsistant is our understanding of the Writings, our true-gut-level-to-die
for love for Baha'u'llah, Abdul'Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Blessed
Universal House of Justice. God love them all. What the real problem
is... and this is not a Rocket Scienctist configuration, is just plain
neglect. WE Neglected to do what Shoghi Effendi wanted us to accomplish.
WE Neglected to do what the Universal House of Justice wanted us to
accomplish.... It is like pulling teeth... without Novacaine, OK... But
with love, mercy, understanding, patience, and tons of other adjectives from
the Universal House of Justice, we, ourselves put us in the Boat we are in
now in our Bahai Communities and we are truely paying the price for those
past years of Neglect... Baha'u'llah has said something to the effect of
"raising up a new race of men".
Which I know in this context-- he means females too.
Back in May of 1985 while on Pilgrimmage-- off the record a member of the
Universal House of Justice caught me in back of the Pilgrim House smoking...
I asked him some questions about the Funds, as I was just a working gal,
barely making ends meet... and constantly broke.... All they (UHJ) wanted
from the World Community was 3 Million dollars a year to run the Bahai World
Community... Did we do it? Nope! And each year there is one big push to
establish some way to get the Believers to come up with the Cash...
There is a Baptist church in my mom's community of 7,000 people (1,000 in
the Church) whose annual budget is/was 2 million.. and they built another
church and gave the pastor a new car that year. And paid Cash for a nice
car to boot.
One more thang about the Women on the House, and that is that a women has
the talent( skills, knowlegde) to serve on the House, but we will reach
true equality when a man can have babies.... :)
Let's start discussing the role and station of Women, and maybe then
everything ( our understanding) will fall into place, and become more
aware of this wonderful age in which we live regarding the station of
Woman-kind.
TTFN
Margreet--
At 05:54 PM 4/4/96 CST, Lora McCall wrote:
>I think the answer is, it's both. You seem to be uncomfortable with
>the discussion of inconsistencies in the Faith, and would like to
>shut down further discussion by invoking *this is His Faith and He
>will do whatever He wills* (i.e. save a wayward humanity -- how?
>magically?) I realize it is uncomfortable, but we must have open
>discussion if we are going to have real answers to give to real
>questions asked by real people. The phrase *He said it, I
>believe it, and that settles it* is a bumper sticker seen on cars
>belonging to fundamentalist-types.
>
>You say that you are comfortable in letting Baha'u'llah handle the
>problem that the world doesn't accept the inconsistencies within the
>Faith. Can you tell me, exactly, how Baha'u'llah is going to handle
>*His* problem that a wayward humanity doesn't accept His message?
>
>I don't buy the excuse "I am a servant, nothing more." That sounds
>like a prescription for sitting back and doing nothing, and then
>criticizing the "intellectual elite" as you say, for asking the tough
>questions to begin with.
>
>This is your Faith and His Faith and my Faith and our Faith. We have
>to engage it *for real*. Nobody in the thinking world is going to
>accept glaring inconsistencies just because you or I say "Well,
>that's just the way it IS." That's blind acceptance without using
>our sense of reason, which Baha'u'llah condemns.
>
>No one is going to call you simple-minded, even though you gave
>everyone permission to do so. Talisman has a rule against ad
>hominems. And that means you don't get to spit venom at scholars by
>calling them intellectual elitists either. Believe me, if they
>considered themselves *elite* they surely wouldn't be here listening
>to our literalist arguments and platitudes, patiently getting gray
>hair while they try to shed light on the truths for us, desperately
>trying to build bridges that we might cross in order to engage the
>thinking world and people of capacity. Why do they do this? Only
>one reason I can think of.
>
>Love, Lora
>
From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Apr 5 22:14:32 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 02:52:15 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: (***THANKS***) Re: notes ...
Dear Eric,
Thanks ! your encouragement is much appreciated .
On Augustine : I think it is safe to say he was a major player in the
Cathgolic Church . His influence was we might say in todays language "
hedgemonic" in Christiam theology until the time of Aquinas.
Augustine lived from 354 C.E. until 430 C.E. His two most famous works
are the _Confessions _ a form of spiritual biography and _City of God _. He
has two big concerns 1) preseving the doctrinal unity or iniformity of the
Church in the face of heretical movements and 2) he was living through the
challengeof the end of the Roman empire under the "barbarian" assaults.
He was the ofspring of a pagan father and a Christian mother . Today we
might say he was a rich playboy.
His dualism manifests itself in an extreme elaboration of neo-platonism ,
that is acpmlete absorption in its trancendent dimensions to the exclusion of
the immanent dimension.IN short he focused on the ascent phase of existence
and ignored the value of the descent phase of the neo-platonicorigin and
return to the One. he did not share the notion of many gnostics that matter
was evil but that it was of a "fallen "nature by virtue of free will . Free
will was synonomous in Augustine with the fact of sin. Free will equals sin
and exlains the appearance of evil .
He had a profound conversion experience - not unlike Paul - and felt the
focus of faith was the love of God . This love however was only capable of
manifesting itself in complete subjegation of the self and the body. I
suppose I would say he was the great elaborator of the notion of original
sin. Human sexuality and its temptations were to be avoided at all cost .
This of course meant that women as the embodiment of such things were - shall
I say , covenentally suspect. While marriage would serve a useful purpose in
limiting the tendency towards spiritual corruption the celibate life was the
paragon of true spirituality . Remember this fellow was a weebit promiscuious
in his youth. He developes a distinct dualism betwen spirit and matter,body
and soul , men and women. If Weber could argue that the calvinists developed
a sense of " inner worldly asceticism" which gave rise to capitalism ,
Augustine refined "other worldly asceticism " to a fine art. His devaluation
of the world, secular history and knowledge of it probably contributed a
great deal to the collapse of learning in western Christendom.
His elaboration of this is in the _City of God_ where he posits the
enduring conflict between the things of the spirit and the things of this
world . Hence the city of God and the city of man. Not unlike some Bahai
formualtions of "old order/new order", nothing much of any good or enduring
value comes from the city of man (old order) and therefore ones attention
ought to be focused solely on the city of God (new order).
Free will was for Augustine a strange situation in which its excercise
inexorable resulted in sin and depravity. How then could one attain salvation
in a world of spiritual pollution and where free will resulted in sin?His
answer lay in strict obediance to the prounouncements and dogmas of the
Church which was the only reality capable of mediating God's grace and
preventing damnation. While he recognized the reality of "grace' he also
linked it to the presence of the church and outside of this one was left with
the dilemna of free will , which by definition meant a lapse into
sinfullness. Sounds kind of familiar at times. In the end he deprecates all
efforts at human individual or collective improvement , any value to reason
as a means of discovering truth or moral bearing. We have in Augustine a
dual view of an all powerful and knowing God in opposition to a sin drenched
race of humans . It was only within the doctrinal purity of the law and a
morally authoritative , and absolute religious institution could "man " have
any hope for minimizing the effects of our depraved sinfulness and hope for
any modicum of eternal salvation .
His was a view , I think , that started out ok and went to excess in a
rigid formalism . His spiritual outlook is probably quite similar to his
earlier licentious behavoir as a youth . he went over board in both cases.
In fairness he lived in a time of great uncertainty in a world in which the
familiar was fast disappearing and the barbarians were at the gates.
I am probably not doing justice to the "richness " of his thought . I
dont share his overly pessimistic view of humanity though I do recognize the
great capacity human beings have for "sin" . I also recognize the great
capacity human beings have for spiritual growth , something which eluded
Augustine. His is ,and was , in my view, a perspective appealing to various
forms of religious fundamentalism ; it explains the reason for evil in the
world -the human clinging to the illusion of free will and prescribes the
complete antidote , unabashed obediance to the institutional authority of the
Church as the soucre of moral guidance, corect thought and action and
sacramental grace.
Hope this helps a little . Others may have more or aditional perspectives
on Augustine .
Aquinas BTW lived from 1225 to 1274 C.E.
warm regards ,
Terry
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSat Apr 6 11:42:34 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:43:28 +1200
From: **Golden Eagle**
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: WARNING: This is a Flame War
Tony wrote:
You know, this is the kind of stuff that gives
>religion a bad name.
Bad name? Arsalan is -- then -- to be congratulated. A good name in a
corrupt society is something I might really worry about...;-\}
R
From nineteen@onramp.netSat Apr 6 11:42:50 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 22:53:01 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: White Cloud Press , Talisman
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
>I share John Dale's concerns regarding moral consistency in terms of the
>denial on the part of the current Baha'i administration to women to serve
>on all Baha'i elected bodies.
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 nineteen@onramp.netSat Apr 6 11:43:19 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 96 22:52:54 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: White Cloud Press , Talisman
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
>I share John Dale's concerns regarding moral consistency in terms of the
>denial on the part of the current Baha'i administration to women to serve
>on all Baha'i elected bodies.
Steve I see your point here as I believe any Baha'i would as a matter of
general principle, and anything that would give the appearance of
detracting from the status of women is a matter for serious concern.
What I must most courteously differ on is the is idea of moral
consistency which I find to be misleading, and a very limited framework
for this discussion, aside from having an underlying sense of
judgmentalness. The idea that morality is somehow axiological (moral
consistency) is on numerous occasions definitely rejected by Baha'u'llah.
Morality is not absolute it is relative or contingent. "He does
whatsoever He willeth." He goes so far as to say that if He were to
declare all that was permissible to be forbidden and all that was
forbidden to be permissible all must unhestitatingly accept. How can one
seriously talk about consistency given such a level of moral contigency
as stated by Baha'u'llah. Naturally, one could pass this off as rhetoric
but the core of Baha'u'llah's message I believe is contained in those
statements. We are here to learn selflessness towards God and each
other. We are all lowly servants.
Take the example of Abraham and Isaac. God told Abraham to kill
Isaac--if Abraham had argued this is morally inconsistent and refused he
would have failed God's test. The idea that we can tell God what the
right thing to do is--is the real root of the problem. I noted when
reading "A Year Amongst the Persians" that Browne kept harking back to
the question of must one kill if the Manifestation orders it? The
Baha'is he asked this question of readily admitted that they must, but
Browne found this totally indigestible. I imagine he found this morally
inconsistent with his notions of Christian pacifism. The Bab asked his
companions, it is recounted in Nabil's Narrative to kill HIM the night
before His scheduled execution because he preferred to be killed by his
loved ones. Krishna explained on the battle field to one of his
disciples, in the Gita, that killing under the particular circumstances
the disciple was being asked was permissible because it was being done
for the sake of Krishna and was not a personal act.
Acts of Faith seem to take presidence over consistent acts. Consistent
acts find favor with reason but not with God. This is not a polemic
against reason but expatiation on the depth of commitment required of the
believers and the lesson of acceptance of His will as true morality. The
believers are bound to be uncomfortable at times with those things they
are unable to rationalize i.e. women not at this time being allowed on
the UHJ, but we at least can be thankful are not being asked to kill some
one.
Richard
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 abtavangar@geoenv.comSat Apr 6 11:43:42 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 00:00:52 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: FIRE EXTINGUISHER
At 06:07 PM 4/5/96 -0700, wrote:
>" If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the Divine
>Questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong... Should there appear the
>least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must
>continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question
>from the Interpreter. This is the irefutable command!
> Upon you be Baha El Abha!! "
>
> Sadly, there ain't no interpreter to ask these days so I'm certain
>some individuals will claim this admonition is no longer applicable.
>Nevertheless I try to abide by it to the best of my ability; It aint always
>easy.
>
Here's a quote from Baha'u'llah without a reference to an Interpreter:
" O SON OF DUST! Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is
he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother.
Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning. "
(Persian Hidden Words, page 5)
IMV, the Beloved Guardian has been very kind/generous in translating this
Hidden Word. The Persian word that he has translated as "negligent"
[past-ta'rin] is closer to "scum of the earth;" literally, that
beneath/lower than which there is none.
In the above quote from Abd'u'l-Baha, the part about ending the argument and
remaining silent does not require the Interpreter. Only the asking of the
reality of the question needs the Interpreter.
Regards,
ABT
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgSat Apr 6 11:43:54 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:16:08 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Huston Smith Books
Stephen has asked about Smith's books. My 3 suggestions in order of
personal preference are:
1. Forgotten Truth
2. World Religions (the new HarperCollins edition with all the pretty pictures)
3. Beyond the Post-Modern Mind (with the very important essay "Perennial
Philosophy, Primordial Tradition
Steve Scholl
From Alethinos@aol.comSat Apr 6 11:44:31 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 01:24:33 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ, Women, 1902 and stuff . . .
In a message dated 96-04-05 21:13:56 EST it was written:
>Juan has raised even more critical issues about the principles that underly
>Baha'i jurisprudence. This is such an underdeveloped area of Baha'i
>Studies--and I am so unquallified to make forays into this field--that I
>am reluctant to say anything about this. I think, however, the most
>important issue is one of authority (ie. who has authority to engage in
>jurisprudence that would change the rulings of `Abdu'l-Baha and/or Shoghi
>Effendi, and under what conditions can these changes be introduced). There
>is a lot of spade work to be done before we can say much about Baha'i
>jurisprudence, and a scripture-based study on this question would seem to
>be a high priority at this stage in the development of the field.
INDEED this is an area where we do not see much development. Probably
because it is not something that is as critical as other issues. I have been
quiet for a few days, watching the eruptions continue. It is truly amazing to
see terms such as *moral inconsistancy* used in an issue that is supposedly
based (from the complainers perspective) as a human and political right. I
say it is odd because with the continued assumption on their part that
somehow the UHJ is part of a legislative process then they should certainly
be following the well established road of legal positivism where *morals* has
absolutely no meaning.
But I am sure, if we were a bit more consistant we would see a huge amount
of moral inconsistancies from the Pen of Baha'u'llah Himself. Many of the
laws of the Aqdas will be shocking to the highly polished sensitivites of
late twentieth century White upper-middle class burbclave-ites. So far we are
not measuring up on the issues of homosexuality, women's rights, freedom of
speech. But hey wait until that death sentence makes the rounds! Will we
burning some midnight oil to explain away that one! And of course that law
hasn't been enacted yet, so we will of course be petitioning the Universal
House of Justice to *read* it for what Baha'u'llah _really_ meant; that we
just give the murderer a swift kick in the backside, a merciless tongue
lashing and five years of chanting positive affirmations in front of a
roomful of blank-eyed permenantly-smiling folk.Will do this of course because
there will be at least three people in the southeast corner of Iowa who will
be terribly offended that their feelings about capital punishment are not
given inordinately undue weight as guaranteed by the Universal Political
Correctness Deconstruction Code of 1997.
Also we might want to consider using the internet to poll all 5.8 billion of
us now to get everyone's personal order on what they want for their own
personalized religion. Hey, we aim to please!
Moral inconsistancy. Consistant by what standard? The world's? I don't think
so, not a good track record there. Inconsistant via our own standards? By
what measure? The Center, to which, as Baha'is we all bear allegiance to, has
clearly given the answer to this issue. But it is not an answer we wish to
hear. So we find every conceivable way to punch a hole in it; lingusitically,
socio-historically, ethically, legally, socio-politically, and on and on. It
is embarrassing, stupid, illogical, a turn-off to seekers, etc. We are
presented with a mountian range of speculation strongly supported by an ant
hill of circumstancial evidence. And still it goes on.
Personally I would love it if women were allowed to serve on the UHJ. It does
pose difficulties, at least in some European countires and America. I don't
know the answer to why they are not. And amazingly enough _neither does any
other person living_. Sure I have my own pet theory, which is really quite
good I think and I will only share it with a few, because it actually doesn't
make a damn bit of difference _what I think on this issue: I do not know and
I have no problem with that_. I am willing to wait to find out, and until
then press on with things _I can do something about; things I do know
something about_.
Perhaps we should stop trying to bend the Cause to the quite warped
perceptions of reality of this late date in the millennium and instead begin
introducing, (keeping the spirit of the Master ever in mind,) the people of
the world with the crystal view of Reality given us by Baha'u'llah?
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlSat Apr 6 11:49:29 1996
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 12:39:29 +0000 (EZT)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: His problem, our problems
Arsalan,
Shoghi Effendi said that "The Cause needs more Baha'i scholars, people
who not only are devoted to it and believe in it and are anxious to tell
others about it, but also who have a deep grasp of the Teachings
and their significance, and who can correlate its beliefs with
the current thoughts and problems of the people of the world."
(21 October 1943 to an individual believer,
in the compilation on scholarship put out
by the Universal House of Justice, extract 13)
He didn't say that every Baha'i ought to do this, just that there is
a need for some to do so. And for those who take up this task, a take-
it-or-leave-it approach is not going to work. They must, by definition
be concerned about how the Faith *as it is now presented* comes across
in the world *as it now is*. Neither, of course, is perfect, and both
are changing all the time, and very weird things happen when understandings
built up in the Baha'i community 50 or so years ago are used as a basis
for the presentation of the Faith to the world of today.
This is not to say that IT is not in the end HIS problem, but IT in
this case is us, if you follow me. The world, after all, is presumably
pretty close to the world that one would expect - pretty close to the world
that Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi saw and foresaw. Perhaps
a little deafer and blinder than they expected, but not radically different.
So, unless you believe that the task He set the world was impossible
from the beginning, the problem must lie with us: not faith-ful enough, not
active enough, not sufficiently willing to change, too fixated on
administration, not brave enough to face the most burning issue,
not smart enough, too smart not wise enough ... take
your pick of the reasons why, but this cannot just be a problem between the
world and Baha'u'llah. The patient is suffering from suboptimal
administration of the healing medicine: it would be well to review the
training of the nurses, check whether there is any contamination getting
into what is being administered, and maybe even go back to the original
prescription to see if it was read correctly in the first place. Just in
case
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 CaryER_ms@msn.comSat Apr 6 11:49:42 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 14:27:40 UT
From: Hannah Reinstein
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Talisman theme song?
In the spirit of Talisman List Songs, I'd like to share two more candidates
for official song. Note that it is only extreme self-restraint that keeps me
from suggesting the Stones' "19th Nervous Breakdown."
So we'll argue and we'll compromise,
And realize that nothing's ever changed.
For all our mutual experience,
Our separate conclusions are the same.
Now we are forced to recognize our inhumanity;
Our reason coexists with our insanity.
And though we choose between reality and madness,
It's either sadness or euphoria.
-- "Summer, Highland Falls" by Billy Joel
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord! Please don't let me be misunderstood!"
--Nina Simone
Hannah
===============
"The function of the expert is not to be more right than other people,
but to be wrong for more sophisticated reasons."
-- Dr. David Butler
----------
From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of Alison & Steve Marshall
Sent: Friday, 05 April, 1996 12:30 PM
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talisman theme song?
Talisman List Song
==================
(to the tune of "Banana Boat Song" by Harry Belafonte)
From Wilgar123@aol.comSat Apr 6 11:50:15 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:08:03 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Moral consistency
Dear Richard,
I appreciate and respect the commitment to faith in Baha'u'llah that your
posting of April 5 reveals, but I also feel that the literalist
interpretation of scriptural matters related to questions of God's
omnipotence vis a vis moral principal that it suggests is a precarious one.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the pages of religious history reveal no dearth
of true believers who were willing to act upon commitments that went, so to
speak, "beyond good and evil."
Regarding your non-Baha'i examples I would like to make several comments. In
the Bhagavad Gita the individual concerned is not a "disciple" but the prince
Arjuna who (along with his four other brothers) has been unrighteously
deprived of his throne. Krishna as a fellow prince is helping them retain
what has been unjustly taken from them. Thus the battle scene opens in the
context of moral principal - all Hindus whom I have known assume this. Later
in the story when Krishna finally reveals Himself as Avatar (Manifestation)
He does so within a moral framework, namely that when there is
unrighteousness on earth, He Himself returns, as He Himself is Righteousness.
Arjuna's final decision to fight, therefore, is not generally understood as
sudden obedience to powerful and arbitrary Authority but to an understanding
based on moral principal as manifest in Krishna. Indeed, when combined with
other theological notions common in Hinduism, such as the oneness of Arjuna's
soul (atman) with Krishna, the idea of God as "other" is greatly devalued.
Even then, the text is rich enough to allow for a diversity of
interpretations. Gandhi, for example, who referred to the Gita as his Bible,
believed that the text taught non-violence. He interpreted the battle scene
not literally but as a metaphor for the battlefield of the soul in its fight
for righteousness. The real "fight" was the one "not to fight." Interestingly
enough, a number of right wing conservative Hindu terrorists during the same
period of nationalist struggle used a more literal interpretation to justify
blowing up British trains, and Godse, Gandhi's assassin, quoted from the Gita
as to why he took the "Mahatma's" life.
Concerning the Abraham-Isaac example, I think it is important to realize
that here we are talking about a relationship between God and a
Manifestation, not between a Manifestation and man. This is a completely
different category. Even then I think that Walter Kaufmann's insights into
this story (which he discusses in the context of Kierkegaard's Fear and
Trembling) are significant. As he points out, over the centuries the most
significant lesson that Jews have taken from this story is that if God calls
upon you to sacrifice your own son, you know that it is not God calling you.
Sincerely, Bill G
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSat Apr 6 11:50:28 1996
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:23:07 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: advise to beater/beaten
Dearest....
a true story about a woman's dealing with the first strike.
There was an argument as usual, this time he shoved her to the
couch and attempted to hit her only to be greeted with a
kick in his face. Wow! this made him made and he slapped her.
Before things went too far he left the house. He later called and
said it was over and he was coming to get his belongings and to
have them ready within an hour. "Sure!" she replied. Then, she
gathered everything and piled them up in the backyard and
poured cigarette lighter fluid on it to make a nice bonfire.
Even the shaver was burned. Plastic had a terrible stench.
Then, she carefully placed the ashes into a small clear plastic bag
and put it in a shoe box and left the box on the stairs in
front of the house.
A half an hour later he showed up and ringed the door bell.
She said from behind the door
"your belongings are in front of you, good luck!"
"what you mean, I don't see a damn thing!"
"open the box, I just compacted them to make it easy to carry"
She was peaking through the window to see his face.
He opened up the box and the color of his face matched the color
of his belongings, the ashes. "Are you crazy?" "No, not yet!" she
said.
He picked up the box and got into his car slammed the door and drove
away. She was pregnant. But, she wasn't gonna be kicked around by
anyone. He called again. She said "You better stay away, or next time
it will not be your clothing! No one hits me and gets away with,
no one, do you understand no one!!!".
love,
q.
From belove@sover.netSat Apr 6 11:59:20 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 09:53:17 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Religion, science, and religious liberalism
Juan, your leadership on this theme keeps me hanging on.
Were it not for voice like yours and a few others I would have been long gone.
Probably there is a need for a book : Bahai for a certain kind of educated, thoughtful non-believer, a Bahai "Guide to the Perplexed."
I stumble for words to categorize this kind of non-believer. "Educated" and "Thoughtful" do not discriminate for me. I'm tempted to say "mature," but every adjective which discriminates is a sword which will cut someone.
I know that those who left Catholicism or Judaism or Islam because of an impatience with literalism, intellectual authoritariansim will not find things any different among the Bahais.
Within Judaism or Catholocism, there are wonderful oases of sensibility. One only has to think if Thomas Merton. And he belongs to the same religion as the Bishop of Nebraska who will excommunicate members of his flock who belong to planned parenthood.
So if, for intellectual content, there is probably no difference among the religions -- and may not ever be --, why Bahai?
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Alan Belove
Anagram: Plain Livable Hope
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 04/06/96
Time: 09:53:17
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein
From brburl@mailbag.comSat Apr 6 12:01:32 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:17:50 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
Bill G,
> 'Regarding your non-Baha'i examples I would like to make several
comments. In the Bhagavad Gita the individual concerned is not a
"disciple" but the prince Arjuna who (along with his four other brothers)
has been unrighteously deprived of his throne. Krishna as a fellow
prince is helping them retain what has been unjustly taken from them.
Thus the battle scene opens in the context of moral principal - all Hindus
whom I have known assume this. Later in the story when Krishna finally
reveals Himself as Avatar (Manifestation) He does so within a moral
framework, namely that when there is unrighteousness on earth, He
Himself returns, as He Himself is Righteousness. Arjuna's final decision
to fight, therefore, is not generally understood as sudden obedience to
powerful and arbitrary Authority but to an understanding based on moral
principal as manifest in Krishna. Indeed, when combined with other
theological notions common in Hinduism, such as the oneness of
Arjuna's soul (atman) with Krishna, the idea of God as "other" is
greatly devalued. Even then, the text is rich enough to allow for a
diversity of interpretations. Gandhi, for example, who referred to the
Gita as his Bible, believed that the text taught non-violence. He
interpreted the battle scene not literally but as a metaphor for the
battlefield of the soul in its fight for righteousness. The real "fight" was
the one "not to fight." Interestingly enough, a number of right wing
conservative Hindu terrorists during the same period of nationalist
struggle used a more literal interpretation to justify blowing up British
trains, and Godse, Gandhi's assassin, quoted from the Gita as to why he
took the "Mahatma's" life.' <
A couple of things are worth mentioning here. Firstly, Krishna was not
a prince, but Arjuna's chariot driver. It is interesting to note that
Arjuna's argument against fighting is very much the Buddhist argument
against war. The Gita is very much a Brahmanical response and
reassertion of Brahmanical values such as caste in response to the
muscular rise of the non-Vedic, anti-caste, Buddhist and Jain traditions.
> "Krishna finally reveals Himself as Avatar (Manifestation)" <
I rather doubt that the Baha'i notion of manifestation of god is quite
equivalent to the notion of how Krishna is presented in the Gita. Krishna
in the Gita _is_ Vishnu, the supreme lord of the universe, god. And
lastly Gandhi struggled over question of how literally to understand the
Gita's injunction to fight. The problem with the Gita is that as a defense
of the caste system and _dharma_ (duty), which it very much presents,
it is very difficult to not take it as it is written. Also, this is so
particularly in its context of its being part of the Mahabhatara.
Bruce
From nineteen@onramp.netSat Apr 6 12:02:12 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 10:41:33 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, Talisman
Subject: Re: His problem, our problems
>He didn't say that every Baha'i ought to do this, just that there is
>a need for some to do so. And for those who take up this task, a take-
>it-or-leave-it approach is not going to work. They must, by definition
>be concerned about how the Faith *as it is now presented* comes across
>in the world *as it now is*. Neither, of course, is perfect, and both
>are changing all the time, and very weird things happen when understandings
>built up in the Baha'i community 50 or so years ago are used as a basis
>for the presentation of the Faith to the world of today.
Sen
I couldn't agree with you more! That was a superior exposition of the
problem IMV. To some extent though, it seems that we can have an
attachment to our explanations/world view and NOT expound these
propositions as pragmatic (adapted to current conditions) but imply that
they have a normative quality to them, IOW that one SHOULD look at things
from the perspective of "Religious liberalism". One's take on the
structure of things--their intellectualization or rationalizing of the
meaning of things need not neccesarily have a particular cast to it.
Additionally, if one were to meet a Christian Baptist interested in the
Baha'i Teachings it would not be wise in the sense of "the world *as it
now is* " to offer an explanation that adhere's to "Liberal Purity".
Fundamentalists, Conservatives, Atheists, Agnostics, and a whole panoply
of views, may wish to enlist in the Cause of Baha'u'llah--an atmosphere
of socio-political acceptance can make that possible. Everyone has a
starting point as a seeker and a believer. Somewhere down the road there
will be a time when this type of mix will characterize the Faith and I
believe we should be humble enough not to drive believers coming from
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other fundamnetalist backgrounds out of
the Faith, or be the source of bitter conflicts, anymore than one would
want to see those who see the Faith as most importantly upholding
progressive principles disillusioned and withdrawing from the Cause.
In terms of the *Politics of Belief* winning (obtaining the allegance
of humanity to Baha'u'llah) is very important but not to the point where
the Teachings may be compromised. This is where the debate is taking
place and I believe the teachings can be adapted within limits to current
conditions. We are to some extent (as you have mentioned in other posts)
handicapped by not having a Gaurdian to authorize these limit and
reassure the friends, who understandably find change to be unsettling (
future shock) as it has been for all humanity ever since the "equilibrium
of the world" was upset and altered by the dizzying rapidity of growth
and change engendered by the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
I have heard Baha'u'llah described as a "Cosmic Politician" and certainly
the believers are involved in building a coalition of human beings based
on His priniciples that also must be able to serve an array of
constituents from varying backgrounds, and I don't think this should be
under-estimated. As Saint Paul said he was "all things to all people"
(if memory serves). This is politics.
Aside from the rational end of things (that I also have dedicated myself
to, in terms of Modern Philosophy and translating the Faith into the
terms of contempory philosophic discourse) The methodology of
exemplifation of the teachings is most urgent, in order to brings things
out of the mere realm of words.
Richard
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 StrayMutt@aol.comSat Apr 6 12:04:03 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:52:27 -0500
From: StrayMutt@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Killing those #~*>%! lawyers
Recently, Jim Harrison weighed in on the contentious issue of women serving
on the Universal House of Justice, saying those who advocate this position
are at least presumptuous and are making "an attempt to undermine the
authority of the House of Justice by having it suggested that the decisions
made by it are subject to the revision/interpretation by the Baha'is
themselves."
I very much wish we could discuss topics without impugning the motives of
those whose views differ from our own. I know many of those who have here
advocated allowing women to serve as members of the House and I have some
first-hand knowledge of their service to the Faith, much of it for the better
part of three decades. Perhaps that information will help reassure Mr.
Harrison that these Baha'is are not part of some sinister cabal bent on
usurping authority from Haifa.
I was particularly intrigued to read Mr. Harrison's assertions that the
Supreme Institution is under no obligation to consider the views of any
Baha'is when it makes its decisions. He stated he could not recall any
passage in the writings where there would be a populist body that would issue
petitions to the House.
Further, he added, "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 `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 the world civilization."
Well, I think it's hyperbole to ascribe such lofty ambitions to a handful of
writers on Talisman, a loosely knit group that has no pretentions of forming
some kind of rump populist legislature.
But, just for the record, since Mr. Harrison appears to believe that Baha'i
administrative institutions, particularly the House of Justice, can operate
without regard to the opinions and views of those whom they represent, let me
offer this as evidence:
Shoghi Effendi wrote: "Let us also bear in min that the keynote of the Cause
of God is not dictatorial authority, but humble fellowship, not arbitrary
power, but the spirit of frank and loving consultation." (Baha'i
Administration, p. 63)
The Guardian also outlined some of the duties of assembly members in this
passage: "Their function is not to dictate, but to consult, and consult not
only among themselves, but as much as possible with the Friends whom they
represent. They must regard themselves in no other light but that of chosen
instruments for a more efficient and dignified presentation of the Cause of
God.
"They should never be led to suppose that they are the central ornaments of
the body of the Cause, intrinsically superior to others in capacity or merit,
and sole promoters of its teachings and principles. They should approach
their task with extreme humility, and endedavor, by their open-mindedness,
their high sense of justice and duty, their candor, their modesty, their
entire devotion to the welfare and interests of the Friends, the Cause, and
humanity, to win, not only the confidence and genuine support of those whom
they serve, but also their esteem and real affection.
"They must, at all times, avoid the spirit of exclusiveness, the atmosphere
of secrecy, free themselves from a domineering attitude and banish all forms
of prejudice and passion from their deliberations. They should, within the
limits of wise discretion, take the Friends into their confidence, acquaint
them with their plans, share with them their problems and anxieties, and seek
their advice and counsel." (Principles of Baha'i Administration, pp. 43-44)
Granted, these two passages are aimed at local spiritual asemblies and not
directly to the House of Justice, which did not exist when these words were
penned. And, I suppose, if one were to adopt the legalistic wriggling that
Mr. Harrison took such pains to excoriate in his recent postings, one could
argue that none of what the Guardian wrote applies to the members of the
House.
However, if a particular standard of behavior applies to members of every
local spiritual assembly on this planet, how much more so must the members of
the national assemblies and the House of Justice exemplify this same spirit.
On the other hand, we could all agree that Mr. Harrison is right. And those
of us who would put forth opinions that do not march lock-step with what is
in place have no business spouting off and ought to shut up or get out. If
it is the case that individual Baha'is have no right to say anything that
does not faithfully parrot current administrative practice, then we really
have no need to hear anything anyone has to say. After all, Baha'u'llah,
`Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi or the House itself would have said it sooner
and better.
That also means there is no real need for a consultative portion of feast
(hey, wait a minute, we could be on to something here) because no one in
administration needs to hear anything any individual Baha'i has to say.
And, while we're at it, why bother with elections anyway? Why not just have
the House of Justice appoint the members of every assembly, local and
national? Since the House is infallible, its choices, per se, are better
than ours could ever be. That way, we could have a Baha'i Faith that's all
administration without having to bother with the opinionated fussing from all
those pesky believers.
Bob Ballenger
From jrcole@umich.eduSat Apr 6 15:38:15 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 12:10:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Religion, science, and religious liberalism (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:59:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: belove@sover.net
Subject: Re: Religion, science, and religious liberalism
Philip:
I think the conclusion must be that you can't entirely get away from human
beings acting like human beings just by joining, and having them join, a
new religion. They can be selfish, triumphalist, intolerant, prone to
simplistic and sloppy thinking, etc, etc. I don't mean everybody all the
time, but there is a certain tendency, a certain statistical likelihood.
Why, then, Baha'i? Because the important measures of change are at the
margins. You don't get 100% change; you get 1% change. But the 1% is
absolutely central. Baha'u'llah abolished holy war/jihad/crusades. Even
the most conservative Baha'i has not suggested Baha'i violence against
anyone for thinking in a different way or for being of a different and
competing faith. Contrast this with Iran during the past 17 years. Or
with Northern Ireland.
The Christian Right in the US has gathered millions of petitions against
US involvement in the United Nations. Even the most conservative Baha'i
has not spoken against world government.
And so on and so forth. What Baha'u'llah did was raise the underlying
*platform* by 1%, lifting all up by that much. So, we cannot focus on
the 99% that remains the same. Because the 1% is like a fulcrum. And as
Archimedes said, give me a fulcrum and I can move the world.
Keep the Faith, baby - Juan
From banani@ucla.eduSat Apr 6 15:43:46 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 09:26:42 -0800
From: Amin Banani
To: cenglish@aztec.asu.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Did The Shadow really know what lurked in the heart?
A poem I wrote many years ago, without knowing about Jung's "shadow," which
I called CHIAROSCURO (the artist's light and dark). Are you willing to
venture an interpretation?
Sheila
CHIAROSCURO
The figure, dark and sure
The shadow, light and insecure
He reached out his hand
She cried and vanished
Life, in all its colors, was gone
Only black remained.
The Sun appeared
scattering the darkness
He held out his hand
She laughed and returned
Blinded, Love sees its reflection
By night and by day.
Sheila Banani
>If The Shadow thread is going to continue, some words from
>the 20th century person defining it are in order. Several posts
>of the recent past have contained terms coined by Carl Jung.
>His work, out of favor by the mainstream, has heavily
>influenced Western psychology, literary criticism, and many
>approaches progressive (U.S.) Christianity takes toward
>integrating body, mind, and spirit.
>
>These words are not posted as a 'psycho-pop' substitution for
>being a member of the Baha'i Faith. They are offered as a bit
>of wild rice to mix with the bounty of the banquet, a tasty
>supplement for the soul's nutrition. Some of us may crave the
>dance of the Sufi, others heal themselves in the pow-wow's
>circle. The Tao of Physics exhilarate as do the grammarian's
>delights or the clean solace of aloneness among the trees,
>wind, rocks and waters. We are all at the table together,
>The Master at its head. He arose at dawn, prepared the main
>courses with his own hands, poured the drink, and invited us
>because he loved and obeyed his father. He smiles, winks and
>laughs with delight because all humanity has come to join him.
>
>THE SHADOW *
>
>Whereas the contents of the personal unconscious are acquired
>during the individual's lifetime, the contents of the collective
>unconscious are archetypes that were present from the beginning.
>Their relation to the instincts has been discussed elsewhere F1.
>The archetypes most clearly characterized from the empirical
>point of view are those having the most disturbing influence on
>the ego. These are the *shadow*, the *anima* and the *animus*.F2
>The most accessible of these, and the easiest to experience is
>the shadow, for its nature can in large measure be inferred from
>the contents of the personal unconscious....
>
>The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole
>ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow
>without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it
>involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as
>present and real. This act is essential for any kind of
>self-knowledge, and it therefore as a rule meets with
>considerable resistance....
>
>Closer examination of the dark characteristics-that is, the
>inferiorities constituting the shadow-reveals that they have
>an *emotional* nature, a kind of autonomy and accordingly an
>obsessive or, better, possessive quality. Emotion,
>incidentally, is not an activity of the individual but
>something that happens to him. Affects occur usually where
>the adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal
>the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of
>inferiority and existence of a lower level of personality.
>On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely
>controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive,
>who is not only the passive victim of his affects but
>also singularly incapable of moral judgement....
>
>F1 "Instinct and the Unconscious" and "On the Nature of the
>Psyche," pars 397 ff.
>
>F2 The contents of this and the following chapter are taken
>from a lecture to the Swiss Society for Practical Psychology,
>in Zurich, 1948.
>
>* Collected Works of C.G. Jung Volume 9, Part II
>'AION' Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.
>Bollingen Series XX, Princeton University Press.
>Princeton, N.J. 1959
Sheila Banani
From nineteen@onramp.netSat Apr 6 15:44:30 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 12:13:38 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Wilgar123@aol.com, Talisman
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
> I appreciate and respect the commitment to faith in Baha'u'llah that your
>posting of April 5 reveals, but I also feel that the literalist
>interpretation of scriptural matters related to questions of God's
>omnipotence vis a vis moral principal that it suggests is a precarious one.
>Unfortunately, in my opinion, the pages of religious history reveal no dearth
>of true believers who were willing to act upon commitments that went, so to
>speak, "beyond good and evil."
Dear Friend one can use history to demonstrate many things, but my
argument was not to show distinctions between "God's omnipotence vis a
vis moral principle." Without restating my discourse let me just say
again that Baha'u'llah has NOT taught morality is *Axiological*. But my
major concern is NOT what people believe but how they believe. Although
I cannot say to what degree rationalization improves one's character I
would never suggest it doesn't play an important role. On the other hand
I feel it important to attempt to seriously understand those things that
Baha'u'llah has said that self-styled liberals classify as
"authoritarian" "Conservative" or "Fundamentalist" in character. I am
only trying to find some type of balance operating here. One, in my
estimate, cannot dismiss those attitutdes and approaches of the past that
were misused by their advocates, but rather may need to reivigorate the
intent of such approaches.
I tend to see myself as Socratic in the sense that I am well aware of how
little I actually know. I do not consider myself an "ideological Baha'i"
I attempt to ascertain through the "Heart" which Baha'u'llah calls "the
seat of divine mysteries" the spirit or intent of His writings. Some
think they know better than others. Some argue that we must take a
particular approach or all sorts of terrible things will happen. The
only thing I can do is better myself as I have very little control over
anything else; and attempt to conform my behavior to His desire and not
my own. Perhaps some of the statements of Baha'u'llah ARE frightening
because of their implications for abuse, all the more reason as I see it
for people to adorn themselves with the qualities of God. The
non-liberal aspects of Baha'u'llah's teaching should be approached with
care, wisdom, and balance as should any of His teachings and presented
whether classically defined as liberal or conservative in a
non-ideological manner. I go into this in much greater detail see my
response to a post by Sen " Re: His problem, our problems".
Richard
.
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 nineteen@onramp.netSat Apr 6 15:44:43 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 96 12:13:44 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Bruce Burrill , Talisman
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
>I rather doubt that the Baha'i notion of manifestation of god is quite
>equivalent to the notion of how Krishna is presented in the Gita. Krishna
>in the Gita _is_ Vishnu, the supreme lord of the universe, god. And
>lastly Gandhi struggled over question of how literally to understand the
>Gita's injunction to fight. The problem with the Gita is that as a defense
>of the caste system and _dharma_ (duty), which it very much presents,
>it is very difficult to not take it as it is written. Also, this is so
>particularly in its context of its being part of the Mahabhatara.
I suggest you read the Kitab-i-Iqan before coming to such a conclusion.
All of have admired you insightful explanations, but, Baha'u'llah
elucidates a variety of stations that the Manifestations of God can
rightly claim for themselves. The purpose of Avatars, Buddha's, or
Prophets to a large degree, as I believe Baha'u'llah has argued, Is to
give an ever-widening context for the message of God. That only makes
sense that the human race develope a standard of Oness and Unity that
conforms to their best interests. We are no longer living in the time of
The Buddha and we need a linguistic technology that can serve all
humanity, not simply those who prefer Buddhist culture. We are living
in a one world milieu now and we need a basis for establishing its
organic center. No one is being asked to give anything up. And that is
how it must be. But the comparisons of the differences in language need
not lead us to acceptance or rejection of Baha'u'llah.
Baha'u'llah recommends in the strongest terms that we examine his claims
free from "Acruired Knowledge" and all prejudices which He calls "Love
and Hate" lest some prejudicial factor deprive us of spritually
recogizing Him. It is done with the inner eye--with cleared vision. He
asks us to examine his message fairly--not merely to treat with its
linguistic and rational features though they be most interesting, but to
also taste of its spirit--not through worthless vessels such as ourselves
(the Baha'is) but from His cup.
Richard
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 gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSat Apr 6 15:45:37 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 12:29:24 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: tribunal election
Sen, do I understand you to be saying that the tribunal election
procedure mentioned by the Master should be understood to be a reference
to future election of the House? If so, the Guardian wrote in a letter
included in the Compilation on Peace that the tribunal is not the House,
and the world executive is not the Guardian.
Is that responsive to your question?
Brent
From Wilgar123@aol.comSat Apr 6 15:45:49 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:35:26 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Bhagavad Gita
Dear Bruce,
Regarding your points relating to the Bhagavad Gita
1) Although in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna is acting as Arjuna's charioteer,
according to Hindu tradition he was indeed a prince (raja), or , if you
prefer, king. After he slew Kamsa he founded a capital at Dvaraka in
Saurashtra where he made Rukhmini his queen. In his role he was very active
in helping to destroy wicked kings and demons all over India, and this is one
reason he helps the Pandavas.
2) There is a school of thought that sees the Gita as a type of Brahmanical
response to Buddhism and Jainism and that Arjuna represents this position,
but there are other interpretations such as the one that focuses on the more
universal problem of conflicting values (Goods). Arjuna is paralyzed because
he realizes that in going to battle he will likely be involved in the killing
of many of his own kinsmen.
3) I understand the technical differences between the Hindu concept of
Avatar and the Baha'i concept of Manifestation. It is interesting to note,
however, that during my research on the Baha'i Faith in Central India I found
that Baha'i village teachers freely used the term avatar in reference to
Baha'u'llah. Indeed there are numerous bhajans (religious songs) that refer
to him as the Kalkin Avatar. Thus my use of the term was not technical but
rather in the sense of a cross-cultural symbol.
4) I am sure Gandhi struggled with the text, as he did with most issues, but
there is little doubt in my mind that his reading was fundamentally different
from those right wing Hindus centered at Poona who used it as a
justification to call for the violent overthrow of the the unjust British
Raj.
With love and laughter, Bill G
From TLCULHANE@aol.comSat Apr 6 15:46:13 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:11:41 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: nineteen@onramp.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: notes on Faith and Modern...
Dear Richard,
A couple of quick points in response to yourthoughtful post. I will be
commenting more on al this over the next few weeks as i organize my notes .
That i do not accept the view that the administrative institutions are
the means of "sacramental grace" does not mean I hold that view to ridicule
. I think you miss read me if that is the conclusion you reached . The
statement these institutions are divine in origin has no special meaning to
me . It is a claim that has been made repeatedly throughout history . What I
hear you saying is that "this time it will be different." I would like to
believe that and in some sense do or would not be a Bahai . However the mere
assertion that it is so I dont find persuasive not is it very satisfying to
the world in which we live . One of the most difficult things I have had to
do in my life was accept that the "church was not going to rule the world. "
I have reached a point where I would not want it to and that included Bahai
institutions . There are very powerful benefits to not ruling .
That I do not think we can go back to the future of medievalism does
not mean I think the period has nothing to say . I am a Thomist, Richard anf
the 13th century C.E. was the high middle ages and the pinnacle of Church
authority. It was a time when the church condemned both Aquinas, who argued
for the complemeantarity of reason and revelation and the secular
rationalists who argued for an reason completely independent of revelation
and church authority . That i recognize similar condemnations among Bahais
and similar claims made for the Universal House of Justice ought to give
us pause to think about what we are doing. It is not the existence of such
things which concerns me , what concerns me is the denial that they exist or
the exceptionalist view that because we are Bahais it will aoutmatically be
different .
The comments you make are though similiar in nature to those made by
Augustine with respect to the Catholic Church . I no longer consider it a
tenable position nor do I think it is intelectually honest with a wave ofthe
hand to dismiss such comparisons . They are there and must be addressed in a
reasoned manner.
As for reason . I do not now not have I claimed that reason is or was a
sufficient condition for human understanding. So your attribution that I
assume reason alone will somehow over come the ills of the world is mistaken
. My position which will be elaborated later is that both reason and
revelation are necessary but not sufficient conditions for human undrstanding
of the *Truth *. They are not in conflict with one another. They are mutually
suportive and in combination disclose a greater measure of *truth* than will
either seperately. I really am a Thomist in this regard . it is also how I
understand Bahau llah's argument about reason and revelation.
Revelation by itself is necessary to a complete understanding of reality
, by itself it is not sufficient it is completed by the exercise of resaon.
How is it that the revelation of Bahau llah is to be taught ? Through the
force of utterance - reasoned discourse - not via the sword. Reason by itself
is neccesary to a complete understanding of reality , by itself it is not
sufficient and is completed by revealtion . neither one is "better" than the
other. It is that which distinguishes what I am saying from what most
Bahais would argue . I dont mind if people want to argue that one is better I
just hope they will think through the imlications . And for better or worse
most of the arguments made are weak versions of Augustines view of the
"Church as the source of guidance ,saalvation and grace. WHether we like it
or not it is an argument whch is made frequently by Bahais . That argument
may be right . it may be wrong but we should not pretend it is an argument
"ex nihilo" like manna from heaven. If it is the corect view and I hope not
we had better come to grips with its implications. If these "medieval "
sounding arguments . in my view , are what we are about then we had better
distinguish why and how the working out of these arguments will be different
in a Bahai context from al the other attempts in human history . It is after
all humans who must actualize the revelation ; not gods.
In the context of our current discussion I do not accept that the admin
.institutions are the means of santiity or sacramental grace . Reason can
independently discover the ethical truths which Bahau llah proclaims. " The
scrolls which depict the shape and pattern of the universe are indeed a most
great book. Therein every man of of insight can precieve that which will lead
to the Straight path and would enable him to attain the Great Announcement."
The catch is without the additional depths of *reality* disclosed by
revelation humand tend to lack the motivatiuon to act on those truths. Reason
can get us to the gate but not walk us through the door. Neither can the
House of Justice. It is a legislative body not a sacramental one . Guess
which institution is the sacramental one? The desire to turn the House of
Justice into the channel of truth goodness and beauty is, in myview, simply
mistaken and contributes to the spiritual impoverishment of the Bahai
community and as a result what the Bahai community could offer the world.
From brburl@mailbag.comSat Apr 6 15:46:31 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:15:26 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bhagavad Gita
Bill G,
> "1) Although in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna is acting as Arjuna's
charioteer, according to Hindu tradition he was indeed a prince (raja),
or , if you prefer, king. After he slew Kamsa he founded a capital at
Dvaraka in Saurashtra where he made Rukhmini his queen. In his role
he was very active in helping to destroy wicked kings and demons all
over India, and this is one reason he helps the Pandavas." <
You are correct. The Krishna tradition is rich and interesting. In the
Gita he is only identified as Arjuna's charioteer. The prince tradition,
I suspect, is later.
> "2) There is a school of thought that sees the Gita as a type of
Brahmanical response to Buddhism and Jainism and that Arjuna
represents this position, but there are other interpretations such as the
one that focuses on the more universal problem of conflicting values
(Goods). Arjuna is paralyzed because he realizes that in going to battle
he will likely be involved in the killing of many of his own kinsmen."
<
That latter does not negate the former, particularly given the fact of the
Brahmanical reworking of the Mahabhatra. Certainly what we see in the
Gita is the Brahmanical take on these universal problems, which is at
odds with how Buddhism and Jainism would respond to them.
> "3) I understand the technical differences between the Hindu concept
of Avatar and the Baha'i concept of Manifestation." <
You might want to explain that to Richard C. Logan.
> "It is interesting to note, however, that during my research on the
Baha'i Faith in Central India I found that Baha'i village teachers freely
used the term avatar in reference to Baha'u'llah. Indeed there are
numerous bhajans (religious songs) that refer to him as the Kalkin
Avatar. Thus my use of the term was not technical but rather in the
sense of a cross-cultural symbol." <
Sure and it is to be understood as a redefining of the avatar notion.
> "4) I am sure Gandhi struggled with the text, as he did with most
issues, but there is little doubt in my mind that his reading was
fundamentally different from those right wing Hindus centered at Poona
who used it as a justification to call for the violent overthrow of the the
unjust British Raj." <
No question about that; however, the question is does the Gita easily
lends itself to the Gandhian approch.
Thanks for your msg.
Bruce\'1a
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSat Apr 6 18:56:27 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:16:39 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Milissa Boyer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: What is a CB?
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Milissa Boyer wrote:
> I need to ask for some clarification of what a Covenant-Breaker is.
> However, what about someone who joins a CB group?
As far as the individual avoiding the company of such people, the same
rules apply. However, there is a difference in the way the institutions
approach *followers* of Covenant-breakers. Our Protection Board member,
Carl Ewing of Santa Fe, New Mexico (Mason Remey's first headquarters in
the 1960's) said that if a declared Covenant-breaker wants information
about the Baha'i Faith, that matter goes through the Counsellors straight
to Haifa. Nobody but the House and the Hands and the International
Teaching Center can take a step with a person who has been expelled from
the Cause.
However, there is an increase in the number of former *followers* of
Covenant-breakers who are asking about the Faith, and the Auxiliary Board
Members can deal directly with them, and if they choose to do so, can
direct their assistants to communicate with them. This depends on the
circumstances. For example, there was a man who was a member of Rex
King's group in Las Vegas, New Mexico 20 years ago, and he left it. He
became a Baha'i years ago, and was an active member of the Santa Fe
Baha'i community for years, until his recent death.
The sum of my understanding:
Former followers of Covenant-breakers can be enrolled by an NSA,
generally after recommendation by a Board Member, and this has been done
several times.
Former Covenant-breakers (enrolled Baha'is expelled from the Cause by the
Head of the Faith) must be enrolled only under the direct guidance of the
House.
Brent
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSat Apr 6 18:56:58 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 16:43:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Arsalan J. Sadighi wrote:
>
> Also, where is it documented that "several leading Persian pioneers"
> advocated such a thing? Are we now getting into documenting what some
> individuals might say at Conventions? I have heard much worse things from
> delegates including the last International Convention. Does that somehow
> make it a policy statement? Does that imply that somehow the outcome of a
> Convention is tainted because some delegates said some stupid things?
>
> Jackson Wrote:
> Indeed, it is documented that in one country's national convention
> several leading Persian pioneers of prominent family personally
> counselled all the delegates that although women were technically eligible
> for election to the NSA they would of course bear in mind that it would
> be most unsuitable and an affront to the dignity of the body if a woman
> were actually elected.
>
Actually, it is documented in an American pioneer's account of the NSA
election in that country and their lobbying in the opinion of that
pioneer did effect the outcome of the election. Certainly, no women of
that country were elected to the NSA.
Jackson
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSat Apr 6 19:02:45 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:00:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Cc: TCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: houses of worship
I saw something last week which was an interesting commentary on the
ability of religious communities to provide for their needs if they think
it important to do so. I saw a very dignified and attractive little
church that was quite evidently converted from a one-car garage. I
wonder how many decades of fundraising and conventions that took?
Jackson
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSat Apr 6 19:03:17 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:15:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: talisman
Subject: Re: "Right of God"
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> genders. I see it more as a papering over of the problem. It could well
> be that just as when we become worthy of the Laws they are given to us.
> I quote the example of the Right of God being given to the whole Baha\rquote i
> World when we had matured sufficiently. Does that mean when we have
The law of Huquq-u-llah was given to the world with the revelation. Huquq
was collected in the US during the lifetime of 'Abdu'l-Baha
and forwarded to him for use in humanitarian projects.
A linear idea of the 'maturing'
development of the Baha'i community does not work. There are many
areas where understanding and practice deteriorated, in some there was a
later revival, in some there has still not been one. These 'revivals' do
not constitute a 'giving' of the law to the Baha'i world but a realization
that something that was not being done should have been. This might be
considered a growth in maturity, or a relapse into maturity, but it would
surely be preferable not to have lost the 'maturity' in the first place.
Jackson
From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduSat Apr 6 19:03:35 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:25:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON
Cc: Juan R Cole , talisman
Subject: Re: 1902 tablet
On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON wrote:
> and religion. But there are still limits. I do not think, for example,
> that at some point in the future the dowry (bride-price) could be
> discarded on the basis that the law was rooted in social conditions in
> which women had not acheived financial equity with men, and that those
> social conditions no longer exist. I am not entirely
I would suggest that the principle of mutatis mutandis simply turns this
into an exchange of gifts, e.g. wedding rings where this would be a
culturally appropriate symbol. This seem especially so as one of the points
of this provision seems to be to downplay the commercial aspect of
marital arrangements.
Jackson
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSat Apr 6 19:03:51 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:36:05 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Talisman
Subject: Morality of the House
Well, if the House is acting immorally by not allowing women on its
membership, not supporting Amnesty International, and continuing to
require review of Baha'i literature, then what happened to the view that
the "infallibility" of the House of Justice means its "moral immaculacy"?
Brent
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
Last Updated 11-17-96
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu