Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 3/96
From CaryER_ms@msn.comFri Mar 29 15:53:07 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 01:52:50 UT
From: H/C Reinstein
To: Talisman List via the MSN
Subject: The Way We Were, Part 2
A few weeks ago, I posted a short article titled "The Top 16 Biblical Ways to
Acquire a Wife." My point, by inference, was to illustrate that we no longer
live by the laws and interpretations of ancient civilizations. Whatever the
reasons may have been for the ancient social laws, whether revealed by a
Prophet or evolved over time by religious leaders, they're gone now. They
often shock or even repel us today but, like it or not, they were scripture.
Here is another article that illustrates the same point. The very last
sentence of the excerpt has nothing to do with current discussions on Talisman
but it's interesting and provocative so I chose not to edit it out.
The Artist Formerly Known As Cary :-)
=========
"An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner
for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on
vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel
comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always,
she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree
was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends
up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything
more fattening than shrimp.
Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating?
Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1).
And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls
(I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy
22:5).
Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury
(Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one
fabric (Leviticus 19:19).
And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery,
which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy
22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think
of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or--at
best--unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the
millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their
own anti-gay attitudes."
--From lesbian columnist Deb Price's new book, "And Say Hi To Joyce."
============
"God loves me..... That knowledge humbles me..... I am
a big bird winging over high mountains, down into serene
valleys. I am ripples of waves on silver seas. I'm a
spring leaf trembling in anticipation." Maya Angelou
From iskandar@ns.moran.comFri Mar 29 15:53:49 1996
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:59:45 -0500
From: "Iskandar Hai, M.D."
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'"
Cc: "'rharmsen@music.ferris.edu'" ,
"'rstockman@usbnc.org'"
Subject: RE: lawh-i-hikmat
Dear Friends,
I am not an expert in history nor philosophy nor a lot of other things but here are my points:
1. Baha'u'llah says: "Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to QUOTE the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
"This is a Tablet wherein the Pen of the Unseen hath inscribed the knowledge of all that hath been and shall be - a knowledge that none other than My wondrous Tongue can interpret. INDEED MY HEART AS IT IS IN ITSELF HATH BEEN PURGED BY GOD FROM THE CONCEPTS OF THE LEARNED AND IS SANCTIFIED FROM THE UTTERANCES OF THE WISE. IN TRUTH NAUGHT DOTH IT MIRROR FORTH BUT THE REVELATIONS OF GOD. Unto this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur in this perspicuous Book." (From the Tablet of Wisdom; capitalizations are mine). I believe a thorough reading of the above answers a lot of questions.
2. One of the early British believers, Ms Ethel J. Rosenberg, asked Abdu'l-Baha in 1906 about historical matters revealed in the Tablet of Wisdom. I believe His answer is translated and printed in a new biography of her which is published by George Ronald and available from the US Baha'I Distribution Service. The original appears in the compilation MA'idiy-I-AsmAnI, Part II, reprinted by the Baha'I Publishing Trust of India in 1984 (pages 68-71). I do not have access to its English translation: He emphasizes the unreliability of historical records pertaining to those times and the reliability of the Word of God.
3. Baha'u'llah's reference in the Iqan to 40 or 72 believers of Noah is not, in my view, historical inaccuracy. He may simply be referring to two different accounts or historical traditions and the exact number of Noah's followers is not central to His argument; rather the fewness of the number of Noah's believers seems to be the point. Baha'u'llah is saying that, since several of Noah's (divine) promises were not fulfilled, some of His believers turned away from Him leaving the steadfast ones to be either 40 or 72 in number.
4. A photograph of Nabil-i-akbar is published in Volume One of Adib Taherzadeh's Revelation of Baha'ullah; (opposite page 175; Vol. 1).
Respectfully,
Iskandar
----------
From: Dr. Chandrasekaran[SMTP:candy@pc.jaring.my]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 1996 6:06 AM
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: lawh-i-hikmat
I have been reading with interest some of the discussions taking place
in the talisman but some are just bordering on "fruitless" discussions.I had
written to Dr. Cole about getting some info on the LAWH-I-HIKMAT and he said
my best bet would be through the talisman.I would like info on how we relate
this avicenna schema to the big bang theory.The other thing that bugs me is
if Bahaullah is quoting verbatim from Shahratani and Abul Fida he must be
confirming the findings of the two philosophers.How can Bahaullah quote
verbatim a erroneous statement?This is tantamount to questioning the
infallibility of the Manifestation of God.This seems the point in Dr.Cole's
article "PROBLEMS OF CHRONOLOGY IN THE LAWH-I-HIKMAT".I feel the present
historical data on the ancient greek philosophers is wrong and more digging
by archaeologists will reveal truths that complement the truths enshrined in
our faith.Please give some input so that I can prepare this booklet as
envisioned.
love
DR.CHANDRAN
NB:Anybody knows where I can get hold of the photograph of NABIL AKBAR
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comFri Mar 29 15:56:50 1996
Date: 29 Mar 96 06:23:02 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Equality/Uniformity
Yes? No?
Dear Jim Harrison,
You wrote:
"...The old world conception of political power has been cast aside in
the Writings; power doesn't reside in the UHJ in the same sense that power
resides in the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Senate. ..."
I wonder if what you say about power is actually true. The power of any
policy-making or law-making institution is ultimately based on its positive
loyal acceptance by the people who are governed by it. Lacking this, it will
eventually fall and be replaced by something else. The "power" of the US Supreme
Court does not come primarily out of the barrel of a gun but through acceptance
by society of the tolerable justness of its decisions.The "power" of the
Universal house of Justice comes from exactly the same source: acceptance.
You wrote:
"So long as we continue to see the Universal House of Justice with old
world
eyes we will be powerless to truly serve the Cause and teach it effectively. ...
The issue is equality, not uniformity. Let's stop seeing the Faith as simply
another extention of the old world order."
The problem I see in what you're saying is that equality often _does_ and
must mean uniformity of some kind. If a man has a job and earns $7.00 per hour,
we expect that a woman who does the same job should also get $7.00 per hour. If
she only gets $4.50 per hour, we should not expect Baha'is to go around saying,
"Oh, no problem: equality doesn't mean uniformity." Under that criterion, _any_
deviation from uniformity can be rationalized, and that's precisely the _OWO_
way of looking at things. So, yes, INDEED, we need to stop confusing the two
Orders.
-- john dale
From berny.munro@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Mar 29 15:58:08 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 00:19:29 +1100
From: Berny Munro
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: New Subscriber
Tena Kotou Tena Kotou Tena Kotou Katoa.
Ko Takitimu te Waka
Ko Ngati Kahungunu te Iwi
Ko Momokai te Maunga
Ko Te Wairoa te Awa
Ko Te Rauhina te Marae
Ko Bernadine Munro te Ingoa.
Greetings to the friends on the net. Apparently it is custom to introduce
yourself when joining a list and when I read that it had become the custom
to do it in a Maori way I was pleased and felt that that would be one thing
I could easily comply with.
To translate my korero above:
My name is Bernadine(commonly called Berny). I'm from Wairoa which is on
the East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand. My tribe is Ngati
Kahungunu and my Mountain is Momokai. The canoe on which my ancestors
travelled to these shores was the Takitimu.
I'm a mature (well classed as such!) student at the University of Otago
currently studying towards a BSc with a Human Nutrition major and will then
do a Post grad in Dietetics.(When are they going to invent a spell check
for these things or have they and I just haven't figured out how to use it
yet!)
I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to contribute much, this will depend
on time, exams etc and the most important thing in my life after God, my
children. I would like to know if there are any Native Americans on the
list and if we would be able to correspond.
Not sure how people think on this subject but it appears to me that there
is a spirtual link between the Native (Maori) peoples of New Zealand and
the Native Peoples of America. It is an idea that I would like to explore
as it intrigues me.
Kia Ora Kotou
Berny.
P.S. a quote a friend signs who e-mails with that I will"borrow"
"Women have a much better time than men in this world; there are far more
things forbidden to them"
-Oscar Wilde
From Alethinos@aol.comFri Mar 29 16:03:05 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:38:51 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Equality/Uniformity
In a message dated 96-03-29 06:28:54 EST, you write:
>The "power" of the
>Universal house of Justice comes from exactly the same source: acceptance.
Dear Mr Dale:
I was under the (obviously erroneous impression) that the *power* of the
Universal House of Justice came from Baha'u'llah Himself, in His connection
with us and our adherence to the Covanant.
Also I am at a loss to understand how dealing with the inequieties of the
past such as the disparity in wages has to do with a statement from the
Manfiestation of God concerning His Administrative Order. No one said that
this situation wasn't odd to observe and that it brought up lots of
questions, but, going with what you seem to have gone to great pains to point
out to Kevin Haines, we have been told that at this time we DO NOT know and
that eventually we will.
Unfortunately I have to leave for work, because there are quite a few other
points that certainly need to be addressed that you have made recently but
that will have to wait. Thanks for the post.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From lua@sover.netFri Mar 29 16:03:38 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:02:58 -0500
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: darknesses
Allah-u-Abha, friends.
Rick: Beautiful post! It is all the more meaningful for me as I approach
the responsibilities of parenting. I have this growing urge to do no harm
to this being I now carry within my body. What if I approached the adults
around me with the same urge? What if I began to approach everyone with the
assumption that they deserved the same loving regard that I hope to impart
to my child(ren)? What if I gave up my agendas, my desires, my whims in
favor of truly doing service? What is it that stands in my way? Which
attributes would I need to focus on in order to achieve this? If I dare to
ask these questions, will clear answers come? Perhaps a degree of
infallibility in our own inner knowing can come - if we ask, and wait
patiently for guidance, and begin to develop a sense of the difference
between our voices and the Voice, and then willingly do what is required of
us. The insan-i-kamil, it is said, always responds to a situation with the
appropriate response. This response is one of servanthood and absolute
self-effacement. He is, it is said, the 'child of the moment.'
Personally, I believe that our aversion to encountering and transforming our
own darkness is NOT fear of that darkness, but really a fear of our own
light. It is often much easier to avoid the Siyah Chal within ourselves and
point the finger out there than it is to take responsibility for the (albeit
potential in most cases) light that we carry and live up to it. After all
it is unknown territory. Hard work up ahead...in the next moment, and the
moment after that...or is it this moment and this moment?
In gratitude,
LuAnne
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Mar 29 16:04:35 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:02:50 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: jwalbrid
Cc: "Dr. Chandrasekaran" , Talisman@indiana.edu,
jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Big bang
On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jwalbrid wrote:
> The Lawh-i-Hikmat supports the doctrine that the world had no beginning
> in time against the opposing theory that it was created in time.
A question. My understanding of the Master in SAQ is that the universe
is without beginning, based on the philosophical point that there cannot
be a "creator" without a "creation." On the other hand, scientifically I
have no problem with some sort of initial big bang of what we know as the
universe. So I wonder, assuming that the age of the big bang can be
calculated from the speed and distance of the galaxies from the center of
the universe, to me that doesn't age the entire universe. It ages what
we *know* as the universe. But to me, there could well have been other
big bangs over in the next neighborhood, spinning off their own
galaxies. So that this corner of the universe might have its origin with
"our" big bang, but the others demonstrate the principle that there have
been universes all along.
I have difficulty explaining myself because of the problem with
terminology. By definition "universe" means everything, but what I
really mean is that which was spun off from "our" original big bang.
I don't know which Baha'u'llah was referring to: "Ours" or "THE" if
there is one.
Brent
From Dcorbett@aol.comFri Mar 29 16:04:50 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:14:57 -0500
From: Dcorbett@aol.com
To: gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu, jwalbrid@indiana.edu
Cc: candy@pc.jaring.my, Talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Big bang
Are we the only creation? Baha'u'llah spoke of "other creatures on other
worlds"... Perhaps there are other Universes with intelligent life who are
also God's Creation...
- Dan
From jwalbrid@indiana.eduFri Mar 29 16:05:38 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:21:02 -0500 (EST)
From: jwalbrid
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Big Bang and Time without Beginning
There was a big medieval philosophical debate, on both side of the
Mediterranean, about whether the universe had a beginning in time. The
argument that it did was essentially that scripture said so, both Genesis
and the Qur'an. The philosophers, however, argued that God must be
simple and unchanging, and that to argue that God one day decided to make
the universe was impossible to explain coherently, particularly if you
thought of God as being outside of time. Time was considered to be the
measure of change and thus was not appropriately said of God.
As for its compatibility with the Big Bang, that is a more complicated
question. Neither medieval philosophers nor modern cosmologists are
particularly comfortable with a singularity. Why did the Big Bang occur
as and when it did? Cosmologists are thus beginning to speculate about
what might have been before the Big Bang.
Incidentally, the Stoics held that time was cyclical and that the
universe was periodically destroyed and recreated by a universal
conflagration. Presumably they held that the dark matter was sufficient
to cause the universe to collapse.
john walbridge
From L. Fri Mar 29 16:06:05 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:53:13 +0100 (MET)
From: L.
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Beating--Another perspective
The beating, killing, mutilating, etc. of women is definitely part of many,
many cultures in the world. But the perspective we should really be
concerned with is that of the people being beaten, threatened with death,
mutilated, being kidnapped or sold to work in foreign or local brothels,
etc. Women and children are not sadists. There has been a sufficient
amount of research to show that they do not like being beaten, threatened
with death, mutilated, or working as a prostitute, etc. But sometimes
society forces them to accept it. This is called structural violence.
Female "circumcision" is a case in point. The majority of African women (it
seems to be the most widespread in Africa, and it is probable that the most
extensive type of "circumcision" is found in Africa) do not like being told
by westerners that they are being mutilated. They are in an absolute bind.
They do not want their culture denigrated and they know that if they are not
"circumcised" very few men will be willing to marry them. But they also
would rather not have to go through an excruciatingly painful and
humiliating process which, in some cases, leaves them without a clitoris and
thus renders the women unable to have physical pleasure during intercourse.
How to attack and eradicate this cultural practice is a lively debate among
feminists (feminism is far from being "post" as one person thought in a
previous message). Is it to be attacked as a human rights violation or a
nefarious health practice? This is being discussed in human rights
journals, medical journals, and other kinds of journals. It is also a hot
subject in international conferences. The African women who are at the head
of this combat in their own countries seem to prefer the health practice
approach as this would not attack their culture. Working together,
respecting each others opinions and cultures seems to be the key to this
particular problem.
The sentiments in the first paragraph of course go out to all the men in the
world who are also being victimized, but as I similarly said in a previous
message, the scale of structural and overt violence towards women is mind
staggering. Why should Baha'is be concerned with this? Our Writings tell
us that women must be at the forefront of establishing peace in the world.
How can they do this when most of them, even in the West, are just trying to
economically survive and trying to avoid being physically hurt or worse?
They have no time for doing much else.
Sincerely,
L.
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduFri Mar 29 16:06:48 1996
Date: 29 Mar 96 10:55:59 U
From: Dan Orey
To: osborndo@pilot.msu.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Labels (was Re- Homosexu
Reply to: RE>Labels (was Re: Homosexual
Dear Heterosexual Friend - I really appreciate you thoughts, and willingness
to discuss things here. My "straight" Jewish graduate assitant just told me he
didn't agree with your issue, and didn't see what was wrong with being labeled
"straight" as long as folks label me and my kind as gay or homosexual. No
matter. What we are showing here is the double bind of how do we discuss any
group of folks with out insulting them, and with out dividing them or casuing
disunity. Its a challenge for all of us. Keep up the dialogue, we don't need to
agree, but we do need to be civilized, and I really appreciate your thoughts. -
Daniel the resident GUPY
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comFri Mar 29 16:08:16 1996
Date: 29 Mar 96 14:15:46 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fruitless Contention
Dear Talismanians,
Thanks to all who have recently consulted upon and debated the relative
merits and demerits of our continuing discussion re: women on the
Universal House of Justice.
Two posts in the past few days struck me as particularly worthy of
comment where it regards this issue -- Jim Harrison's and Kevin Haines'
opinions, both expressing the idea that we should move on to more
"fruitful" areas of discussion. Both writers suggested that since the
House of Justice has ruled conclusively on the issue, our discussions
could bear more fruit on other topics.
Jim also provided my favorite Talisman contradiction-in-terms in his
post, where he said:
"We live in a society that doesn't understand discipline
and patience...; we have got to have it NOW!"
Perhaps Jim was just joshing. But I did want to make a serious point
in this context -- that those who say, as Kevin did in his post, that
our energies are "mostly dissapated in fruitless contention" make a
value judgement that not everyone here subscribes to.
Me, for instance. I think that our continuing debates on this issue
represent a real bright spot in my Baha'i life, and in the lives of many,
many others. I do not see them as fruitless at all -- instead, they let
me see the fruit of some very good thinking and some creative consultation
in a Baha'i context.
Characterizing our discussion as unproductive commits the Western fallacy
that all human interaction must have a goal. Have we become so
corporatized that each discussion we have has to be attached to a goal
and objective? Why can't we just talk? Must we always close off the
consultation with a value judgement like "I deem this subject unworthy
or unproductive, so let's talk about something else?"
Certainly, it's obvious to all of us that the House has ruled on this issue
and will not change its ruling in the foreseeable future. No one that I
know of doubts or disputes that ruling. But achieving understanding means
much more than blind acceptance -- it means discussing and digesting the
ramifications, both philosophical and active, of the ruling.
Which leads me to my last point. I reacted strongly to a single line in
Jim's post, which read: "This is how factions start."
I would beg to differ. Factions start when discussion gets closed off,
not when it is allowed to flourish. Every rebellious faction that ever
existed grew under repression. If you want to radicalize a rebellious
group, just marginalize them and repress and criminalize their ideas.
Instead, I would suggest that Talisman exists precisely for the opposite
reason -- to allow a safe space where such things can be discussed. When
such a place (Tony's famous civil discourse arena) does actually obtain,
we can safely and without fear of factionalism air our ideas and our
differences. In this way, unity, rather than uniformity, flourishes.
So for those who would urge us to move on to "more productive discussions,"
I would say that cyberspace does not compel anyone to participate in or
judge the value of any particular thread. If you'd rather not discuss a
particular topic, don't. But please don't dismiss those who do, by
inference or otherwise, as impatient, fruitless contenders. It hurts
our feelings.
Love,
David
From L. Fri Mar 29 16:08:36 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 20:14:29 +0100 (MET)
From: L.
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ: Beginning with words, ending with insight
I do not understand the attachment people have to there only being nine
members of the Universal House of Justice (and also national spiritual
assemblies and local spiritual assemblies)? The constitution of the
Universal House of Justice can be changed. Do I remember correctly that the
Seat of the Universal House of Justice already has offices for increasing
the membership to nineteen? If my memory is accurate the quotation from the
Aqdas can be interpreted as being nine or a multiple of nine, like for the
national convention.
L.
P.S. Thank you, Mr. Dale!
From gjavedan@erols.comFri Mar 29 16:09:18 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 04:06:47 +0000
From: "Guity Javedan, Ramin Javedan"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dear Talisman "Operator/Coordinatior,etc."
Dear Talisman "Operator/ Coordinator /or similar role"
Allah'u'abha.
I'm a novice in the area of internet, e-mail, etc., but another Baha'i
friend told me I could send something to this address to be put on a
kind of mass mailing to everyone "on the Talisman 'network' ", and
provide you with my own e-mail address for anyone wanting to respond
to me. Thus anyone "on" Talisman (I don't really understand the
specifics) would be able to see my question and perhaps provide an
answer. Could you kindly explain briefly the specifics of this (who's
getting my message, etc) ? I am very thankful.
Would you also kindly "post" the following question to Talisman
"users"/ "readers" with my e-mail address.
(Also, I would appreciate any other suggestions of leads outside of
Talisman that would perhaps lead to an answer to this question. Does
anyone know whether the Research Department at the World Centre
customarily receives questions by e-mail, and if so, what would their
e-mail address be?)
I would be most thankful if anyone out there knows the answer to
this: What is the "subject related to the Teachings" of "advanced
academic studies" that a certain Baha'i friend undertook and then
received a letter from the Guardian, as quoted in the following
excerpt from a letter of the Universal House of Justice (Excerpt from
Universal House of Justice 19 October 1993 to an individual believer;
the full excerpt is Passage No. 50 in the Compilation on Scholarship
from the Research Department at the World Centre):
"It is useful to review a number of statements written by Shoghi
Effendi on this subject. To a believer who had completed advanced
academic studies in a subject related to the Teachings the Guardian
stated, in a letter written on his behalf:
'It is hoped that all the Baha'i students will follow the noble
example you have set before them and will, henceforth, be led to
investigate and analyse the principles of the Faith and to correlate
them with the modern aspects of philosophy and science. Every
intelligent and thoughtful young Baha'i should always approach the
Cause in this way, for therein lies the very essence of the principle
of independent investigation of truth.' "
(Also, I would appreciate any other suggestions of leads outside of
Talisman that would perhaps lead to an answer to this question. Does
anyone know whether the Research Department at the World Centre
customarily receives questions by e-mail, and if so, what would their
e-mail address be?)
From richs@microsoft.comFri Mar 29 16:10:22 1996
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:36:25 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'" ,
"'Eric D. Pierce'"
Subject: RE: change from within/ was: darkness upon darkness ...
Dearest Eric and Talizens,
Eric, you get full credit. I'll see if I can answer your question.
>
>From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu]
>>I wanted to note that with reference to individual/group dynamics,
>>it seems to me that there are _shades_ of gray. While I agree that
>>we can't/shouldn't force change on others, aren't there social
>>*influences* that we are called upon to try to create through our
>>search for truth and justice?
>
One of the problems with rambling at a quarter past 1 in the morning
is that one doesn't fully convey what one wants to convey. I'll try
again.
The short answer to your question is "yes." Resoundingly. The
long answer is to realize that focusing on one's self as the locus
of change doesn't mean turning one's entire attention inward.
Rather it changes the question from "How can I change it" to "What
can I do to help other people change themselves." It's a subtle,
but incredibly important difference.
Linda Kavelin-Popov, the projenitor of the Virtues Project, has a
concept of "spiritual companioning" which forms one of the core
techniques of the Virtues Project. In short, spiritual companioning
is a process by which one guides another person through some
issue by helping her to find her own answers. Trying to "guide"
her to an answer you think is the "right" answer is off limits and
strictly verboten.
This concept of "spiritual companioning" and the idea of "change
from within" are almost identical, and are probably inseparable.
It's worth noting that this goes way beyond the simple notion
of change by example. We can be active agents, catalysts
if you will, for change in others, but we have to ask the right
question first. If we don't ask the right question first, we get
more intrenched behaviors, and the cycle of dysfunctionality
continues to spin on indefinitely.
Warmest Regards,
>Rick
From gec@geoenv.comFri Mar 29 16:11:05 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 14:58:58 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ,NSA,etc. -- number of members
At 08:14 PM 3/29/96 +0100, Loni wrote:
>>I do not understand the attachment people have to there only being nine
>>members of the Universal House of Justice (and also national spiritual
>>assemblies and local spiritual assemblies)? The constitution of the
>>Universal House of Justice can be changed. Do I remember correctly that the
>>Seat of the Universal House of Justice already has offices for increasing
>>the membership to nineteen? If my memory is accurate the quotation from the
>>Aqdas can be interpreted as being nine or a multiple of nine, like for the
>>national convention.
>>
The LSA of Tehran I believe at one point had 13 members. Nine I think is
only the minimum number. Others can clarify.
Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
p.s., Sorry Loni, I pushed "send" before changing the address so you also
got a private copy of this post.
From asadighi@ptialaska.netFri Mar 29 16:11:37 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:29:00 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
Subject: Re: Beating--Another perspective
Enough already with cultural this and cultural that. Does anyone remember
the head shrinkers and the cannibals around the world, or those who
circumcise girls, or practice of selling an buying girls in Asia for
prostitution. For far too long the cultural imperatives have been used to
justify abhorrent behavior and, quite frankly, I have none of it. You can
justify any kind of ridiculous practice based on the fact that somewhere at
some point it was or is an acceptable practice.
I do not give a smiling penny about what any culture says if what is the
practice is out of step with the Writings. All cultures have good things and
bad things and as far as I am concerned all the unacceptable stuff will have
to be washed away and very soon. Good news, it is acceptable to have four
wives, infinite number of concubines, beat the living day light out of them
and live like a king in a very large number of places in the world. Does
that make it right? The concept is appealing to us male chauvinistic types,
but I dare not advocate it around here, see?! <;-)
Don says,
> In no way do I mean to justify beatings of any sort, only to point out that
>the cultural context of the Koranic verse in question was likely far different
>than what most of us in the West can relate to.
The Quranic verses are still the law of the land for far too many places in
the world to make it a past issue or make it inconsequential. These
practices are alive and well I must say. I don't think we should become
hostages of cultural contexts and practices. Nothing justifies violence
against a relatively powerless group because some Arab used to kill the wify
instead of beating her 1000 years ago. I only beat those that can fight back
with more power and effectiveness! But that is me, I don't know about you guys!
>Allah'u'Abha!
> Although I really haven't followed closely the thread on the Koranic verse
>mentioning beating one's wife, I thought I'd add another perspective on the
>wider subject of beating.
> My perspective on physical punishment was long "fundamentalist_--that is
>beating was bad, period. Much better to admonish, explain, etc. Then during a
>Peace Corps training in Mali some years ago, when the subject of beating came
>up (as it was not uncommon for wives & children to be the subject of beating
>--not pummeling but physical punishment nonetheless), one of our Malian
>teachers said that as a child he much preferred beating to verbal admonishment.
> This didn't change my belief on the subject, but made me aware that the
>issue is not as clear cut as a well educated middle class American might have
>it.
> Furthermore, living in West African cultures made me aware that physical
>punishment is in some ways expected. Lack of it in certain circumstances can
>be interpreted as not caring. How does such a society avoid rampant physical
>violence and abuse? Generally neighbors hear beatings and run to mediate etc.
>This neighborly involvement, which we have mostly lost in "a man's home is
>his castle" America, is another dimension of an "it takes a village to raise a
>child"* culture.
> In no way do I mean to justify beatings of any sort, only to point out that
>the cultural context of the Koranic verse in question was likely far different
>than what most of us in the West can relate to.
> I'd be interested in how Baha'is in areas of the world where physical
>punishment is the norm deal with this issue.
> Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
>
>* There was an interesting discussion on an African discussion list of where in
>Africa (or alternatively in Native American cultures) this saying arose. The
>sentiment expresses a reality in African village life, but the only proverbs
>that anyone could find which approximated the wording used were in a couple of
>different languages from Eastern Africa.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From iskandar@ns.moran.comFri Mar 29 18:10:59 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 16:57:50 -0500
From: "Iskandar Hai, M.D."
To: "'talisman@indiana.edu'"
Subject: RE: Big bang
Abdu'l-Baha specifically testifies to this fact that God has creatures on other planets who have free will and that life is not exclusively limited to the Earth. It is in an as yet untranslated Tablet.
Bye,
Iskandar
----------
From: Dcorbett@aol.com[SMTP:Dcorbett@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 1996 12:15 PM
To: gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu; jwalbrid@indiana.edu
Cc: candy@pc.jaring.my; Talisman@indiana.edu; jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Big bang
Are we the only creation? Baha'u'llah spoke of "other creatures on other
worlds"... Perhaps there are other Universes with intelligent life who are
also God's Creation...
- Dan
From 73613.2712@compuserve.comFri Mar 29 18:12:52 1996
Date: 29 Mar 96 17:36:17 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Women/UHJ/Symbolism
Dear Friends,
This latest round of discussion on the mystery of male participation on the UHJ
shows more than anything how, as John Dale points out, this is a major
issue/problem and will not go away by having some among us request that we focus
on really important issues. My own feeling is that this is like other difficult
questions in the Baha'i community and that it will raise its head periodically
among Baha'is and by non-Baha'is who find it a troubling inconsistency in the
Baha'i teachings. Also, as the faith grows the problematics of the status quo
will come more and more to the foreground of Baha'i teaching work, similar to
the Mormon Church's ban on non-whites in the priesthood or the ongoing debates
in some Christian communities over women and the priesthood. I think Jim and
Kevin are playing the ostrich role by trying to wish this issue away.
John Dale's eloquent symbolism model still seems an overly complex solution and
one that requires some difficult logical contortions to maintain itself. For
example, the number 9 as a symbol of Baha'u'llah. But Baha'u'llah says it does
not have to be 9 members, but merely a minimum of 9. In the future there may be
19 or 33 or 99 members. Perhaps I am simply symbolically challenged but I don't
see how 9 males symbolizes Baha'u'llah anymore than a mixed gender House. In
fact, a mixed gender House of Justice would be more in accord with the
Baha/Maiden reality of Baha'u'llah than the male only model.
I also think that Jim and Kevin and Brian may be over-reacting a tad bit in
seeing this as a divisive issue or even one that dominates discussion either on
Talisman or in the community at large and is thereby a distraction to the real
work of teaching or the implementation in our communities of the principle of
equality among the sexes. I just don't see it in those terms. The discussions on
this issue on Talisman come up from time to time, as do other issues, due to new
arrivals wanting to hear about previous Talisman dialogues on this or that
subject. It is the same in the real world where the question of women's service
on Baha'i institutions pops up on a regular basis. But I do not see this as a
dominant topic on or off Talisman. I object, however, to the attempt by some to
try and hush up any further discussion of this or any other topic on Talisman.
If you have had your fill with this topic, you need not follow a thread. We do
not need self-appointed thought police in our midst.
My own position remains that in the future women will be allowed to serve on the
House of Justice. The scriptural basis and historical trajectory for this
position has been made clear to my mind and I am now content with letting
history takes it course. I do not know if this change will occur in my lifetime
and I am not going to raise the banner of "Women On the UHJ NOW!" I will,
however, state the reasons for my position whenever this issue is raised by
seekers or within Baha'i discussions on the topic.
An historical remembrance: Back in the 70s many Baha'is from around the world
kept raising the thorny issue of the Baha'i communities lack of involvement in
social and political issues. This was an equally pressing spiritual/moral
dilemma for many Baha'is and a sad inconsistency between or rhetoric and our
collective behavior. Over and over again the status quo (Non-involvement in
politics means no social activism, or social activism will be a source of
disunity, etc) was raised as an unchangeable principle of the faith and those
who spoke for a more activist stand by Baha'i communities were labeled as
dissidents and worse. The social activists Baha'is based their position on
Baha'i sacred texts and historical arguments. Still, they were labeled as
fomenters of discord amongst the faithful. Then gradually the House began to
change the style of their discourse on the subject and eventually steered the
community toward social activism. In the last decade their has been a major
shift in the Baha'i community on this issue which was not too long ago seen in a
completley different light. Dramatic shifts such as this very recent one in
Baha'i history give me hope for change in regards to women's service on the
House of Justice.
In remembrance,
Steve Scholl
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Mar 29 18:20:05 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 23:41:24 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: tablets list procedures
Talismaniacs,
here's my proposal for procedures to get the list of Baha'u'llah's
tablets as complete as possible as soon as possible, and with a minimum
of messing up. It's drawn largely from my experience in editing
multi-author books, in which I've found that a modicum of procedure
and discipline at the beginning saves a lot of wasted effort later.
I suppose that much the same procedure could be used to compile a list
of `Abdu'l-Baha's tablets, though I think a far higher proportion would
have no name, so that it might be necessary to identify them by date or
first 5 words or some such.
These procedures are flexible: let me know what I left out or should
change. I would like to have a base-line version of the list ready to post
in about 4 weeks, and changes after that will be posted in digests of new
and changed entries.
Sen
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Leiden list
a listing of the Tablets of Baha'u'llah in original languages
and translation
List procedures 29 March 1996
In brief:
Post new entries only (not the entire list) to Talisman.
Digests of new entries will be posted periodically, and the
whole list updated at longer intervals.
The list and submission to the list are public domain.
Volunteers to scan particular publications for entries would be most welcome.
And in full:
1. Users' entries and amendments are very welcome. Please do
not make new entries to the list itself and repost the entire list:
just post the new entry(s), or the old entry with an amendment
and explanation, to Talisman (Talisman@indiana.edu) and the
list coordinator (for now: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL).
Apart from avoiding the problem of having multiple parallel
versions which would require tiresome collation later, this will
have the advantage of making the new material more visible:
when the Talismaniacs have had a chance to comment on it, it
will be incorporated in a digest of new entries (monthly?). The
complete list will be reposted at longer intervals (initially
quarterly, later annually?), with a cumulative digest of changes.
Users are particularly asked to examine the cumulative digest
and comment on errors and omissions.
2. I (Sen McGlinn) am currently co-ordinating the digests of
changes and keeping track of who has the master copy of the
list. If you have a great deal of new material to add or
systematic changes to make, or would simply like to take on the
task for a while, please ask to take over the master list and
explain what you propose. In deciding whether to accept or
decline, I will consider my own assessment of whether this will
indeed be labour-saving (as opposed to the method under (1)
above) and by an off-the-cuff guess at the competence of the
person offering to do the work proposed accurately and
consistently. In the latter I will be guided by a straw poll of
experts - meaning professionals in the field of Middle Eastern
Studies or those who have published solid and relevant work in
the filed.
3. The editorial policy for the present (phase 1) is inclusive -
that is, to include all alternatives, and all possible entries, except
that spelling is UK standard (thus search on 'Splendours' not
'Splendors'). The goal is to produce a useful tool which is as
complete as possible as quickly as possible. This should serve as
an aid to finding particular material, not as a substitute for
users' own evaluations of it as regards the proper name, dating,
whether items are identical and so forth. Nevertheless users'
arguments for the exclusion of particular information - eg that
particular titles are not correct, or that tablets referred to do not
exist - are very welcome. Those which identify simple errors in
the collation of the list, or which elicit choruses of agreement
from the learned Talismanians, will be acted on, and the
remainder, which may well be of use in phase 2, will be kept
for reference then.
4. At some stage in the future it may be useful to move from an
inclusive policy which simply gathers all possible material to an
attempt to produce a list reliable and consistent enough to be
published (phase 2). Since the present coordinator is not
competent to do the work, and the list at present contains only a
tiny proportion of the total material, all decisions about the who
and how are left as matters pending. Volunteers welcome
however.
5. During phase 1, all those who submit new entries and
amendments and the coordinator and others editing the list and
the digest of changes are deemed to have given up any claim to
copyright or to academic title to the information. If an editor is
later asked to produce an authoritative list from this raw
material, that editor or the person commissioning their work will
presumably have rights over that particular version, but not over
the raw material. The list is thus a free good, which individuals,
publishers and Baha'i Studies Associations are free to reproduce
on paper or disk or by other methods. For good order, it would
be desirable that the entire list, with its preliminaries and
acknowledgements, should be printed. Where individual entries
or groups of entries are reproduced, the citation should specify
the file name of the list or digest which has been used:
eg: LEIDEN.603 is the complete list for March 1996,
LEIDEN-D.605 is the digest of subsequent changes up to
and including May 1996.
6. Books which are referred to only once are given in full, or,
where they are already included in W.P. Collins' *Bibliography
of English-Language Works on the Babi and Baha'i Faiths 1844-
1985* (George Ronald, 1990), by a short reference to Collins.
Books referred to more than once are assigned a standard
abbreviation, and entered with brief details in the table at the
head of the list. The abbreviations for standard English-language
publications are taken from Collins p. 311 \{not done in the
March 23 version\}, with new abbreviations assigned by the
coordinator as required. Abbreviations for Persian and Arabic
publications are assigned by Ahang Rabbani
(rabbana@bmoa.dnet.dupont.com) as part of a Bibliography of
Persian and Arabic language source materials on the Babi and
Baha'i Faiths.
7. The lists of abbreviations at the head of the list also
summarize the publications which have been consulted thus far.
Clearly this is only a very small fraction of the total literature. It
would be very much appreciated if users would volunteer to
contribute by going through a particular publication and locating
any tablets by Baha'u'llah, or references to such tablets, which
it might contain. Any substantial extract from a tablet should be
noted (even if it is already in the list), and any references to
tablets for which there is no entry, alternative names or dates,
etc. Volunteer on Talisman, thus avoiding double-effort, and the
work in progress will also be entered in the abbreviation list,
which will be included at the foot of each digest with a start date
e.g.:
INBAMC Vol. 10: in process, A.Smith@anywhere.com 3/96
PyB = Payam-i-Baha'i, 1992-5: in process,
J.Afsharih@otherplace.ed 4/96
RB = Taherzadeh, Revelation of Baha'u'llah. Vol. 1
in process, I.volunteer@yourplace 4/96
I would like to have a lot of these entries please :-) In English,
Taherzadeh's volumes and Baha'i Scriptures are prime candidates, and
there is no doubt some material in the Star of the West volumes in
both Persian and English. For original languages, virtually everything
needs to be done.
Sen
From dcrafts@earthlink.netFri Mar 29 18:20:31 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 14:47:48 -0800
From: Denise Crafts
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Equality/Uniformity
Dale wrote:
>>The "power" of the
>>Universal house of Justice comes from exactly the same source: acceptance.
Jim wrote:
>...that the *power* of the Universal House of Justice came from Baha'u'llah
Himself, in His connection
>with us and our adherence to the Covanant.
>
I am at a lose to see the difference between these two statements. What am
I missing.
Denise
From spurushotma@brahma.hcla.comFri Mar 29 18:20:42 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 15:37:29 PST
From: spurushotma@brahma.hcla.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re:RE: Big bang
The Guardian apparently also told Mr Olinga that of
all the life in the Universe the civilization on Earth
was one of the most backwards because we still had
war. Probably as the Most Great Peace approaches we
will be allowed to interact with other civilizations.
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comFri Mar 29 18:25:18 1996
Date: 29 Mar 96 06:23:34 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: Kevin
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: UHJ: Beginning with words, ending with insight
Dear Kevin,
Your recent post about discussions about the gender of the UHJ was very
good, and I think a lot of people really share your well stated concerns about
creating constructive insights that will allow the Baha'i teaching effort to go
forward and that will allow a clear signal to be sent from the Baha'i community
to the world for the divine redirection of human society.
The very problem that is confronting us in this issue is precisely the
question of how to send a clear signal to the world when there exists a major
apparent inconsistency in the Faith of God in relation to the role of women, and
which all the God-cynical world is going to pick up on and question us about.
We are trying to avoid an appearance (not to mention the reality) of a major
moral inconsistency.
This issue is not a test of our obedience -- nobody here is urging
delegates to the election of the House of Justice to vote for people known or
thought to be women -- but a test of our intelligence, for we know that
Abdu'l-Baha Himself knew the answer as to why the House of Justice was male
only, and we know that He chose not to reveal the answer directly, but instead,
with the answer in front of His own mind, He said that the answer will "ere
long" be as clear as "the sun at high noon". We also know that great spiritual
teachers "test" the intelligence and maturity of their followers by veiling
things in this way. "Ere long" could refer to future empirical history, but it
could also refer simply to the time required for insight to penetrate the veil.
We are confronted with an apparent and non-trivial inconsistency between
the equality of women and men, on the one hand, and the fact that only males
(cultural, genetic?) can serve on the Universal House of Justice. In addition,
we are told by Abdu'l-Baha that at some time the answer will be "as clear as the
sun at high noon" -- i.e., a pretty obvious and self-evident solution will
appear. So naturally, people begin to search for a possible solution. Many
ideas are suggested. None of them seems to have the required self-evident
clarity. We are frustrated.
And on top of this intellectual failure (so far), the plot thickens. The
Guardian and the Universal House of Justice themselves have said they "do not
know" the answer. Therefore the two possible divinely guided sources of
infomation within the Faith of God "do not know" and are ignorant about a basic
question and facet of the Faith of God which concerns the entire human race and
which relates in fundamental ways to peace. What can this mean? Not only is
this strange in itself -- is God playing tricks here, or what? -- but the lack
of knowledge on the part of the Guardian and the House of Justice is then
considered "infallible", so that we are led dangerously close to an apparent
complete collapse of logic and ability for self-enlightenment in the Baha'i
community on this subject, which is in contradiction to the express words of
Abdu'l-Baha, Who _did_ know what the answer was but for some reason chose,
apparently, not to reveal it and said that "ere long" it will be clear.
So let nobody try to simply fly away from this on the wings of faith and
think that there is not a problem here. There is a _major_ problem here, both
an apparent one and a real one, and it was deliberately created by Abdu'l-Baha
as a test of our ability to bring men and women together in unity, and the
amount of thought and frustration within Talisman and elsewhere on this issue is
proof of the need to continue the process of coming to unity on this issue of
the masculine and the feminine in light of our human history and current
conditions.
What I have been trying to suggest in relation to this issue, is that we
reload our BOSS (brain operating software system), press the "restart" button,
and
(1) Re-observe that it was Baha'u'llah Himself who set up the
Universal House of Justice as
an institution with 9 male members which is under His special protection and
guidance.
(2) Re-cognize clearly the fact that there are 9 and not some other
number for no literal physical reason but because 9 _symbolizes_ Baha, ie.,
Baha'u'llah Himself.
(3) Go back and observe that the words "clear as the sun at high
noon" of Abdu'l-Baha, Who
knowingly uttered this as a cryptic and not as a literal statement, may be seen
as capable of _deciphering themselves_ by virtue of the fact that the words "sun
at high noon" are used elsewhere by Abdu'l-Baha Himself to refer to the Baha'i
Revelation and thus to its source and agent, Baha'u'llah. Self-deciphered, the
cryptic statement of Abdu'l-Baha becomes "Ere long, the answer will become as
clear as 'Baha'u'llah'." Again, there is no literal physical or spiritual or
psychological or material reason why all the members of the House of Justice
have to be all male. Their gender is used simply as a matching _symbol_ of
Baha'u'llah's own gender.
I would go on by saying:
(4) The basic answer to the conundrum of why there are nine males on
the Universal
House is thus "as clear as 'Baha'u'llah'", which is as clear and self-consistent
an answer as I can conceive of getting under these circumstances.
(5) In essence, the solution offered is that The Glory of the Lord
set up the House of
Justice to both inwardly _be_ the vehicle of His continuing guidance and to
outwardly _symbolize_ Himself and His continuing spiritual presence on Earth.
These are logically separable decisions. The decision to symbolize Himself
through humans having the number of His name (9 = Baha) and His own outward
gender was made -- we must believe -- because God, consistent with His
benevolence, saw that it would _hasten_
acceptance of the Cause of God on Earth and thereby the progress of women, and
that it would provide the greatest good in the quickest time under the global
unfortunate and unwanted circumstances of female oppression and male domination.
Thus, in a decision rationally consistent with His benevolence, God, through
Baha'u'llah, set up the outward character of His House of Justice to match the
outward character of His Manifestation. God is benevolent by definition, and
what we have to take on faith is that He saw this was the best strategy possible
under the circumstances in terms of implementing His own wishes, including the
progress of women. There is no clear evidence to the contrary.
(6) This strategy is itself consistent with precisely the "feminine"
quality of moderation,
balance, and gentle, step-by-step wisdom that God wishes us to exemplify. We
are not to make the Cause of Unity a cause of disunity and revolution. Thus the
decision to create a symbol in the first place can also have its possible
base in strategic reasons that are consistent with the role of feminism.
(7) We also know from the Writings that at the innermost level of
reality, the soul is
genderless and that males and females (and any genetically intersexual humans)
are ALL EQUAL in station and spiritual dignity in the sight of God. So we KNOW
that this symbolization of Baha'u'llah by 9 males is not to be taken as a sign
of female inferiority or of male superiority in the eyes of God. And we know
from Baha'u'llah Himself that God will inspire the House of Justice with
"whatsoever He willeth," so that the cause of women will not be compromised by
having nine males on the House of Justice.
(8) We can further note that because Abdu'l-Baha is not physically
present to explain His
statement, the only way its meaning could be _definitely known_ would be if it
were Revealed to either the Guardian or the House of Justice, both of which,
while (infallibly) claiming a lesser degree of divine guidance, have denied
themselves to be the recipients of Revelation. Lack of Revelation until the
next Manifestation comes ensures that nobody can claim to _know_ the answer.
The House of Justice and the Guardian are thus speaking truthfully when they
state that they do not _know_ the answer. For without Revelation, they cannot
know Abdu'l-Baha's mind and intent absolutely, and they have infallibly told us
that they are not the recipients of Revelation. This gives all of us the
opportunities to also speak infallibly by saying that we too are _not_ the
recipients of Revelation. All we can say is that the guidance received by the
House of Justice is at this point to keep the "9 males" symbolism or fact
intact.
(9) However, this is a Faith in which it is precisely the case that
reason and revelation are in
harmony. Thus, although we cannot know through Revelation what the answer is,
we can still responsibly put together the best answer that _reason_ can reveal.
This is what we are trying to do here, and doing this as best we can is vital in
order, as said above, to remove the appearance of a deep and serious problem and
in fact to assist the process of coming together over this issue of masculine
and feminine roles. Perhaps the reason Abdu'l-Baha did not outrightly give us
the answer but made it into a test for us is so that by engaging in the test, we
are forced to focus ourselves on the problem of male-female unity until both
sides really really feel that progress and justice are being created.
(10) The basic advantage of the "symbolism" solution offered above, I
think, is that the words that create the problem are precisely the same words
that solve it based on Abdu'l-Baha's own use of those words in other situations.
I know of no other solution that has this property. I also have seen no other
solution which is logically instantaneous in terms of solving the problem. All
other solutions involving the empirical course of history, the empirical average
qualities of males and females, etc. would create endless scientific debates as
we have seen in Talisman already and could never obtain the required level of
self-evidence to be as "clear as the sun at high noon." And they could never be
"ere long" solutions since the process of history and empirical discovery will
go on endlessly.
(11) I thus think that a solution which is "as clear as the sun at
high noon" is perhaps indeed
in front of us in the form of the "symbolism" solution.
(12) I believe that individuals are free to adopt this solution as
their personal understanding
until better evidence and reasoning or an authoritative institution says they
cannot..
(13) I believe it is also advisable for people who wish to acknowledge
their ignorance of the
reasons for all males on the House of Justice to ADD that they DO know that it
has NOTHING to do with any alleged inherent superiority of males.
I feel that we should, as Kevin feels, be very much aware of the need to
"get on with" teaching the Faith and directing the rays of its light into the
darkness around us. I feel that we can now do this better on the issue of the
symbolism which, I believe, is involved in the male character of the House of
Justice. I hope that, beginning with words, we can end in insight and get on
with other things.
Sincerely, John Dale
From mfoster@qni.comSat Mar 30 17:32:14 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 17:36:51 -0600
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: L., Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ: Beginning with words, ending with insight
My understanding is that, at the discretion of the House, its membership can
be increased. The architect of the Seat of the Universal House of Justice
once mentioned in a gathering (at Green Acre) that, initially, the number
will be raised to nineteen, and that it will then increase in multiples of
nineteen - up to ninety-five. Does anyone know if my recollection is correct?
Mark (Foster)
From asadighi@ptialaska.netSat Mar 30 17:32:38 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 14:51:19 -0900
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Equality/Uniformity
The original post stated that the Supreme Court's power did not come from
guns or oppression but because individuals accepted the legitimacy of that
body. The intention, as I understood it was, that the House of Justice also
has its power driven from the fact that Baha'is accept and honour the
Supreme Body. Jim's statement was that the source of power and authority of
the Supreme Body is from Baha'u'llah Himself rather than acceptance by
Baha'is as individuals. The implication being that the power, authority, and
legitimacy of the Universal House of Justice is independent of the view the
beleivers might have of that August Institution. A big difference in my
opinion. For what is worth, I must agree with Jim.
Arsalan
>Dale wrote:
>
>>>The "power" of the
>>>Universal house of Justice comes from exactly the same source: acceptance.
>
>Jim wrote:
>
>>...that the *power* of the Universal House of Justice came from Baha'u'llah
>Himself, in His connection
>>with us and our adherence to the Covanant.
>>
>I am at a lose to see the difference between these two statements. What am
>I missing.
>
>Denise
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes
From lora@creighton.eduSat Mar 30 17:33:19 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 17:59:11 CST
From: Lora McCall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Spiritual identity & labels
Dear Talismanians,
I wonder if we know how lucky we are to have Dan Orey as a Baha'i and
as a member of Talisman. In the many months that I have been
subscribed, he has patiently and intelligently put forth his opinions
regarding gay and lesbian issues, as well as about countless other
matters. He has listened to the derision and hatred and all the
self-righteous attitudes about gays, but he continues to be open to
the discussion. How many people do I know who can be ridiculed and
mocked, or even just politely ignored, who will keep striving every
day to engage in rational discussion of such emotionally charged
issues? I can count them on one hand, and I urge everyone to stop
for a moment and think about this.
What is it that Baha'u'llah calls us to? Are we drops of one ocean
or not? It seems to me that we don't have the "luxury" of sorting
out people any more based on perceived differences. We're all just
souls, humble and submissive at Baha'u'llah's door. I think we're
supposed to be admiring one another's names and attributes, not
labeling and passing judgment on others.
That being said, I will share a post which was originally meant as a
private communication, but now I want to stand up publicly for this
man of integrity and wisdom. How dare any of us treat him with
disrespect! How could I stand before my Lord and say, "Yes, I love
all people, well except Dan Orey, you know, because he's gay." I
wonder what Baha'u'llah would say to me then.
I would prefer to look at a person's spiritual "identity" instead of
any human or biological details. Who Dan *is* is a wonderfully
open, intelligent, courageous and patient man, whose strength of
character and sense of humor enrich the Baha'i community. He is a
lover of Baha'u'llah.
With fervor,
Lora McCall
------------------------------------------
Dear Dan,
Gracious God! I am learning so much from listening to you. I wonder
if you know the impact your kind, insightful and patient demeanor is
having on me -- and I hope on others who are listening. This planet
is just too small and Baha'u'llah's call so insistent for the peoples
of the world to continue to draw distinctions between "us" and
"them". And because language plays an integral part of how we create
and re-create ourselves and our culture, it's critical to look at
those words (i.e. homosexual) which divide and undermine. Thanks for
addressing this one so clearly. Frankly, I hadn't thought of it that
way before, but now that there's some light shining on it -- of
course it's ludicrous to label ourselves homosexual and heterosexual.
Because that collapses everything down to sex (which IS much of what
our society does anyway -- at least in those countries like the U.S.
where human value is based on the market, and sex sells more stuff
than anything else -- but that just proves how vulgar this system is).
As a woman, I've been in the "them" category, and fought against
being labeled as all the things women are labeled as.(ooh, some poor
English structure in that sentence, huh?) Basically, it all
boiled down to "meaning and value equals my body and what I can *do*
for men." I won't bore you with all the gorey details :) I just
meant to wonder aloud if I understand what you've explained in regard
to labels based on what I've experienced.
Anyway, thanks for being the T'man resident GUPY. Your strength of
character, wisdom, and deep love for Baha'u'llah continue to shine
through.
Love and respect,
Lora
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSat Mar 30 17:34:09 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 17:03:10 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Numbers of Members on the Institutions.
Dear Talismanians
The number of nine members as the Guardian stated is the starting
number for all Institutions at the Local , Secondary and International
levels.In the future at the discretion of the Universal House of
Justice it will increase. The current highest level is placed at 171
members .
Whether the House would go beyond that number I am not sure, although I
find it highly unlikely.What the membership of the Supreme Tribunal
mentioned in the Will and Testament will be is unknown to my
recollection, and will be subject to a ruling by the House at that
time.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From belove@sover.netSat Mar 30 17:34:21 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 17:43:36 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FW: Re: Beating--Another perspective
On Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:53:13 +0100 (MET) Loni Bramson-Lerche wrote:
>The sentiments in the first paragraph of course go out to all the men in the
>world who are also being victimized, but as I similarly said in a previous
>message, the scale of structural and overt violence towards women is mind
>staggering.
Thanks for this term, "structual violence" I think it explains the victimization of men, an elusive concept because the perpetrator would seem to be "other men." But this misses it. It it is structural violence, then we are all victimized by it. Calling it a medical issue would certainly address the short term issue for womena and that's some progress and important.
From belove@sover.netSat Mar 30 17:35:04 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 17:22:48 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FW: Fruitless Contention
On 29 Mar 96 14:15:46 EST David Langness wrote:
>
>Characterizing our discussion as unproductive commits the Western fallacy
>that all human interaction must have a goal. Have we become so
>corporatized that each discussion we have has to be attached to a goal
>and objective? Why can't we just talk? Must we always close off the
>consultation with a value judgement like "I deem this subject unworthy
>or unproductive, so let's talk about something else?"
Just as I was contemplating the Koan "Mu!" in which the novice has to decide whether it is intellectually acceptable for the Buddha to say both that dogs don't have a soul and dogs do have a soul -- just as I was wondering about the meaningfulness of the talisman dialogue--- David sends us this post.
And maybe this is the answer. It's all just, as we used to say, shuckin' and jivin'. The point is not to have an answer, the point is to have a style. It's really all an aesthetic excercise, a word dance. It may be pointless in the long run, but some here on Talisman do it rather beautifully.
>
>Certainly, it's obvious to all of us that the House has ruled on this issue
>and will not change its ruling in the foreseeable future. No one that I
>know of doubts or disputes that ruling. But achieving understanding means
>much more than blind acceptance -- it means discussing and digesting the
>ramifications, both philosophical and active, of the ruling.
>
And, continuing my response thread, there is no final understanding to be achieved.
T.S.Eliot:
..And so each venture is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate with shabby equipment always deteriorating in the general mess of imprecision of feeling, undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope to emulate-- but there is no competition -- there is only the fight to recover what has been lost and found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions that seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain or loss. For us, there is only the trying. Ther rest is not our business.
And possibly what is clear as the noon day sun is that scholars and plumbers, like men and women, though equal (whatever that means) are also different and differently endowed. What will become clear, what is not clear now, what will become clear as the noon day sun is our true natures. Isn't that why many of us are here? Isn't that what we are searching to know?
(The reference to the women on the UHJ thread is intentional. I wonder if it's the same issue.)
>Which leads me to my last point. I reacted strongly to a single line in
>Jim's post, which read: "This is how factions start."
>
>I would beg to differ. Factions start when discussion gets closed off,
>not when it is allowed to flourish. Every rebellious faction that ever
>existed grew under repression. If you want to radicalize a rebellious
>group, just marginalize them and repress and criminalize their ideas.
>
And continuing: we have yet to find a way to honor our true nature and all the differences therein contained, without seeing that also as some disloyalty to a whole. All us purple flowers in the garden want to be purple without offending the reds and the blues, both of whom claim us.
>Instead, I would suggest that Talisman exists precisely for the opposite
>reason -- to allow a safe space where such things can be discussed.
When
>such a place (Tony's famous civil discourse arena) does actually obtain,
>we can safely and without fear of factionalism air our ideas and our
>differences. In this way, unity, rather than uniformity, flourishes.
>
>So for those who would urge us to move on to "more productive discussions,"
>I would say that cyberspace does not compel anyone to participate in or
>judge the value of any particular thread. If you'd rather not discuss a
>particular topic, don't. But please don't dismiss those who do, by
>inference or otherwise, as impatient, fruitless contenders. It hurts
>our feelings.
>
>Love,
>
>David
>
From candy@pc.jaring.mySat Mar 30 17:35:44 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:32:15 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: RHARMSEN@MUSIC.FERRIS.EDU
Cc: TALISMAN@indiana.edu
Subject: MAILING ADDRESS
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your prompt reply but my gut instincts tellS me
you have the key for resolving those historical issues.So far in a nutshell
the framework of the booklet will include photograph of Nabil-i- Akbar,Abdul
Baha's
tribute to him,historical background of Nabil,practical philosophy of Bahaullah,
the various theories of creation from the various religion,big bang
theory,Bahaullah's concept further elucidated,the logos or primal will bahai
concept,philosophers both the historical and the various concepts in relation to
the tablet.At the moment it is all in the preliminary stages and any help
rendered will go a long way in helping the asian bahais to understand this
unique tablet.
My mailing address is as follows:-
Dr.Chandra Sekaran
c/o POLIKLINIK RAKYAT,
NO:5,JALAN 16,
KG.CHERAS BARU,
56100 KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYSIA.
TEL/FAX:603-4948057
THANK YOU AGAIN AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU TOO FOR THE WONDERFUL RESEARCH
WITH LOVING REGARDS,
DR.CHANDRAN
From Alethinos@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:36:36 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:39:02 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fruitless Contention
Dear David L:
You may wish to review your history. Here you state:
>Jim's post, which read: "This is how factions start."
>I would beg to differ. Factions start when discussion gets closed off,
>not when it is allowed to flourish. Every rebellious faction that ever
>existed grew under repression. If you want to radicalize a rebellious
>group, just marginalize them and repress and criminalize their ideas.
If you will examine the history of the National Socialist party of Germany,
later to become known as the Nazi Party you will find that they were never
outlawed, nor were they supressed.
I would also suggest that Individualism has reared its ugly lil' head again.
Simply because you proclaim in a loud voice that you have enjoyed the mental
masturbation on these subjects does not mean that they hold some deep
intrinsic value.
It is so easy to tread safe ground. We all know nothing can come of this
useless speculation. None of us knows why women will not be serving on the
House. But it is such a adolescent joy to have a continious bitch session
about the *power structure* - the pedantic ravings of freshman poly sci
majors. What great contributions have been made to the whole of the American
Baha'i community because of the mega-spillage of words over this non-issue??
How has it moved the American community one centimeter further off its
collective butt than the dribble we receive, (free of charge mind you) each
month in the American Baha'i??
Yes we are all quite the ground-breakers here! We argue about the dresses the
angels are wearing at the dance on the pin head. We tackle issues that are so
irrelevent to what our NEEDS are at this time, as individuals and as a
community that it is both laughable and sad to see the great mental spewings
over something that _we cannot do a thing about_.
It is far more difficult to tackle the Issue that has been facing us for the
past forty years and that we have so far turned aside from. The mental and
emotional, let alone spiritual energy that it will take, singly and together
to bring about the spiritual revolution needed in this country is just far
too daunting a task to face for us. We rather sit around beating the
non-existent horse.
Not only do we have a mental and spiritual gridlock in the senior
institutions of this country but the only group that could possibly blow it
open in both the minds and the hearts of Joe and Jane American-Baha'i are
basking safely in their Burbclaves and pissin' and moanin' about the color of
the napkins and the tartness of the ice tea.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Alethinos@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:37:24 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:39:03 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women/UHJ/Symbolism
With regard to having one's head buried.
I don't think so. Just the opposite. It is all this muss and fuss over things
we can't do a thing about. And how arrogant to assume that a bunch of
flea-pickin' butt-scratchin' yahoos were able, through their collective
psychic attenuation to somehow sway the House to, (amazing that it only took
nearly TWO decades) encourage the Baha'is to become more socially active! Ha!
What a crock!
Read the Guardian. He was telling us long ago to challenge the staus quo.
Read THE POWER OF UNITY the sections where we see the Guardian's voice
change, on the issue of dealing with prejudice in the South, from one of wise
caution in the late 20's to guarded encouragement in the late 30's and 40's
to proclaiming in the mid-50's that the Baha'is should forget about the
possible negative consequences of antagonizing the Whites because it had been
proven through their lack of response to Baha'u'llah's Message that they just
wern't *there* and that maybe a huge increase in Blacks in the Faith and
increased activity would wake them up!
The House has never pushed the American Baha'is into anything. Go back and
review the letters from the House. They realized that you can't light a fire
from the top down. The ONLY reason that we saw a marked change in their Voice
in the late 80's and early 90's regarding socio-political activity is that
the lack of any activity within the American Community was alarming. I have
heard this repeatedly from quite a few folk from Haifa. There was no
*swaying* the House. Get a clue. They have always tried to guide. Why do you
think it took soooooooo long for them to come down on the NSA? Like they
didn't have an idea of what was NOT happening until a week before the
meeting? Come on. They gave them (and us, by extention) a good deal of time
to see if we would do it ourselves.
We are a priest-oriented country, despite our protestations to the contrary.
Look at our deepenings and firesides for God sakes. We WANT someone to tell
us what the think and do. We love it when National puts on a big ole'
campaign and we get to come a runnin' and thar's a gonna be a lot of talkin'
and singin' and food and we's all gonna be told to get on out ther' and
TEACH!!!
Don't you think the House knows the socio-psch make-up of America? What we
needed if we were ever going to truly achieve a "new race of men" was for a
complete break from our past. That meant among other things no heavy top-down
guidence that we would follow like lil' robots. Hence the big emphasis on
*grass roots* stuff. It was the lingo of the day and I am sure they assumed
that this might get it into our heads what was truly needed. But of course we
had too many control freaks up the line who saw us as American Baha'i Inc.
(with offices in LA, NY and Dalles.)
Please, please can we take of the
"I've-got-some-pretty-impressive-initials-behind-my-name" glasses for awhile
and try and see things from a perspective other than I am an American scholar
and I just did lunch with God attitude!
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Geocitizen@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:38:13 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:45:37 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: fruitless contention
David Langness writes:
--
Characterizing our discussion as unproductive commits the Western fallacy
that all human interaction must have a goal. Have we become so
corporatized that each discussion we have has to be attached to a goal
and objective? Why can't we just talk? Must we always close off the
consultation with a value judgement like "I deem this subject unworthy
or unproductive, so let's talk about something else?"
--
It is not a "Western fallacy" to suppose that human interaction ought to have
a goal. It is a feature of the Baha'i Faith, which we might wish to recall
is not partial to endless disputation for its own sake, and is centrally
focused on real benefits to humanity.
Why can't we just talk? Baha'u'llah gave us the answer to that question when
He discouraged us from pursuing "sciences" that begin with words and end with
words. Being concerned that our talk benefit some real person(s), preferably
sooner rather than later, seems far more in accord with Baha'u'llah's
exhortations than any celebration of the joys of fiendish disputation.
But I must state, yet again, that I do not object to the topic of women's
ineligibility from service on the UHJ by arguing that it has *no* value, nor
do I wish us to ignore it in favor of some nebulous and undefined "something
else" as Mr. Langness states.
Rather, there are specific other topics to which Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha,
the Guardian, and the Universal House of Justice have directed us. Why is
the mere mention of these topics, which the central Institutions of our faith
have identified as the pivotal issues for Baha'is to address, equated with
repression? Why is the most gently stated suggestion that we might find
discussion of such issues more fruitful equated with a wish to silence
discussion altogether? I am mystified by this repeated misreading of what I
am saying.
Mr. Langness also writes:
--
If you'd rather not discuss a particular topic, don't. But please don't
dismiss
those who do, by inference or otherwise, as impatient, fruitless contenders.
It hurts our feelings.
--
As anyone who has read what I post on Talisman will know, I frequently
apologize when hurt feelings result from my posts, even if I did not intend
to hurt anyone's feelings.
In this case, however, I have a clear conscience and feel no compulsion to
apologize. I know that what I wrote was clearly stated, and anyone who read
it carefully would have seen that my purpose was not to call any *persons*
"impatient, fruitless contenders," but rather to point out that certain
*topics* draw their participants into a cycle of fruitless contention, which
benefits no one. This is not a value judgement about the participants
themselves. In fact, it implies that they are not only capable of better
than fruitless contention, but that they would tend away from it on more
constructive topics.
So any insult inferred from what I said is hardly of my manufacture.
But, to return to my central theme: I am not calling for anyone to avoid,
ignore, or remain silent on any particular issue. (Are you reading this
carefully, Steven Scholl?)
I am suggesting that in allotting our limited time, each of us as a
conscientious actor, in the knowledge that we cannot address every topic from
which some tiny portion of value may eventually be distilled, we might choose
to discuss topics that the Master and the Guardian and the Universal House of
Justice have identified as central to the well-being of humanity.
No matter how much we may enjoy the endless tennis match of certain subjects
here, most of humanity is still in desperate enough straits to recognize that
focusing on such subjects is a luxury. Perhaps continuing to turn a blind
eye to that fact is the real ostrich approach.
Regards,
Kevin
From Geocitizen@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:38:29 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:54:01 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: the true power of the Universal House of Justice
Dale wrote:
>>>The "power" of the Universal house of Justice comes from
>>>exactly the same source: acceptance.
Jim wrote:
>>...that the *power* of the Universal House of Justice came from Baha'u'llah
>>Himself, in His connection with us and our adherence to the Covanant.
Denise wrote:
>I am at a loss to see the difference between these two statements. What am
>I missing.
To put it briefly, the difference between the power of the U.S. Supreme Court
and the power of the Universal House of Justice is that, if the acceptance of
the people were to go away, the power of the Universal House of Justice would
still be there.
Regards,
Kevin
From m@upanet.uleth.caSat Mar 30 17:39:23 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:44:00 -0700
From: M
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: "Dead Man Walking", Aqdas para 62 & A.I. membership
I saw the movie "Dead Man Walking" this evening - not exactly family
entertainment but, wow! Sarandon deserved her Oscar for that one. It's one
of those rare movies that leaves me wondering if I've just been manipulated
a little more than I'm comfortable with; I have to reserve judgement on it
for a day or so. I would like to hear opinions of others. It also drew
some bothersome loitering questions to the forefront of my mind so I thought
I'd toss them out here.
1. In view of the rather explicit and broad interpretation in the notes to
the Aqdas of the somewhat vague phrase, "we shrink from very shame to treat
the subject of boys", it seems odd to me that the explicit admonition
"Should anyone destroy a house by fire; him also shall ye burn; should
anyone deliberately take another's life, him also shall ye put to death" -
even in light of the fact that life imprisonment is offered as an acceptable
alternative, seems to be treated as a less serious matter, rendered
somewhat less explicit in the notes, and is the subject of less controversy
or discussion. I realize this law is "designed for a future state of
society" but I, for one, would appreciate any insights others on Talisman
may have to offer.
2. In 1984-5 or thereabouts, Amnesty International began campaining for
the abolition of capital punishment. The policy for this new campaign
differed from the previous campaigns on behalf of prisoners of conscience in
that members were permitted to lobby the governments of their own countries
regarding this issue. Prior to that, campaigns on behalf of Prisoners of
conscience in any given country were participated in by members in all
countries except the offending country for obvious reasons. The decision
by A.I. re. the capital punishment issue was closely followed by a letter
from the BWC strongly advising against (some might say prohibiting) Baha'is
from holding memberships in A.I. . I had been both a public information
representative for the Baha'i Community and a member of A.I.; At the time,
although it wasn't explicitly stated, I assumed that the decision of the
House of Justice was based on the new focus by A.I. on capital punishment
(which I gathered was not totally ruled out by the teachings of Baha'u'llah)
and/or the decision by A.I. to permit it's members to lobby their own
governments on this issue. I had mixed feelings about the decision at the
time; nevertheless I accepted the decision of the House of Justice and did
not renew my membership in A.I. My question is - was the A.I decision
based upon the adoption of the campaign for the abolition of capital
punishment and / or the decision to have A.I. members lobby there own
governments? I have long since misplaced the A.I. letter from the House.
Does anyone have a electronic copy.
Appreciatively
G
**************************
The Universe may be
as great as they say
but it wouldn't be missed
if it didn't exist (Piet Hein)
**************************
From L. Sat Mar 30 17:41:56 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 14:27:56 +0100 (MET)
From: L.
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: UHJ,NSA,etc. -- number of members
>This is news to me.
>Any further details available?
>Regards,
> Iskandar
One of Shoghi Effendi's main tasks was to establish a uniform system of
administration throughout the Baha'i World. When he became Guardian there
was no uniform practice as to the number of members to be on an assembly,
who was eligible to be a member, or even what responsibilities an assembly
was to have.
I am sorry, but I do not have the time right now to go through the published
articles on early Baha'i administrative practices and history to note down
all the details. Perhaps Tony has it at his fingertips as he is currently
editing a book which may or may not have this information in it.
L.
From nineteen@onramp.netSat Mar 30 17:42:34 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 09:26:28 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Kevin , Talisman
Subject: Re: fruitless contention
> Why is the most gently stated suggestion that we might find
>discussion of such issues more fruitful equated with a wish to silence
>discussion altogether? I am mystified by this repeated misreading of what I
>am saying.
Dearest Kevin,
It seems that the reason for this is that if one characterizes a
discusion as "fruitless" then the implication is: engaging in such a
discussion is bad per se. Thus, logically one would have to conclude
that the discusion is being choked off because one does not want to be
bad and engage in such a thing. Naturally, the friends don't like to be
told they are bad as one friend said, "It hurts our feelings." It is
not up to individuals to tell others they are bad--but rather they are
good. The master said if a person has nine bad qualities and one good
concentrate on the good. That is not done for the sake of one's own self
but for the sake of the other person so that they might be nutured and
growth can occur. Baha'u'llah has said, "If ye be aware of a truth, if
ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a
language of utmost kindliness and good-will."
The posts by David and Steve were courteous and mild. They know that
their statements are outside the mainstream but they feel they have a
message to convey to the friends and normal channels are difficult. Thus
they feel Talisman--a scholarly and enlightened forum of deepened and
liberal-minded Baha'is can examine their thoughts in a non-judgmental
way. Their insights are not ones that we are required to agree
with--only to allow them in a courteous and loving manner to have them.
This is what they truely want, IMHO.
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 Eonist2@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:43:05 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 10:37:13 -0500
From: Eonist2@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ membership and more
Alma wrote:
"Does anyone but me wonder how the different definitions of gender affect
the membership of the Universal house of Justice?"
Yes Alma, I have also wondered about the same question. I have given the
question quite a bit of thought because I believe it has ramifications far
beyond just membership on the House of Justice.
Hannah Reinstein's comments of 25 March were most interesting and certainly
offer one possible perspective on the question, but I don't think I can
completely agree with her.
First, I do not believe the answers are in the "Written" word or the laws,
regardless of language or translation thereof. If anything the answer is in
the spirit of the sacred texts rather than the \lquote black letter law'. There in
lies the importance of this on going dialog on talisman contrary to what some
list members think. The answer is not in labels, or legislating criteria, or
even understanding the precise meaning of this word or sentence. It is
rather in understanding the spirit of why Baha'u'llah would restrict
membership to men only. I do not even pretend to begin to have an iota of
understanding, but the dialog taking place here helps define some of the
issues involved in our understanding.
Hannah said: "It seems to me that a person's birth sex is closest to an
objective criteria . . ."
[Please forgive how I might express
myself here, Hannah. My
comments are not intended as a
flame, so I hope neither you nor
Anyone else construe them as
such]
I don't think you really mean that statement or have thought it through all
of its implications Hannah. Consider the following scenario.
Carl Smith was born a normal anatomical male of the human species. While
growing up in a very spiritual family and environment he hears about and
learns much about the Baha'i Faith. He does not become a Baha'i, but he
incorporates the concepts he has learned as a part of his life philosophy.
Early in his twenties he confronts a personal problem he has had as long as
he can remember: transsexualism. He seeks component medical help; he
struggles with the problem; ultimately he has sex reassignment surgery, and
emerges --legally and physically-- Carla Smith, female.
Now that she has resolved this major conflict, Carla get on with her life.
She moves to California to attend College. While she is there she again
hears of the Faith and this time declares her belief in Baha'u'llah.
She becomes a very deepened, active and spiritual Baha'i. She serves on her
LSA, as secretary and chairperson. She does travel teaching, serves on local
and national teaching committees and other committees. She even becomes an
assistant the an Auxiliary Board Member. She is frequently sought out to
lecture and give classes in various Baha'i schools, firesides and
proclamations. Eventually she is elected to the NSA as secretary where she
serves for 30 years.
Now! Since she has never hidden the fact that her "birth sex" was male,
should she be allowed to serve on the Universal House of Justice?
I don't think so.
All those in favor please say aye.
All those opposed please explain why.
If you liked that question try another. Go back to the original scenario and
read it again but this time change Carl Smith to Andrea Brown; Carla Smith to
Andrew Brown; male to female and vice versa, etc. This time however Andrew
does not disclose his "birth sex" to anyone.
Should the man Andrew Brown be eligible for election to the House of
Justice?
If you don't like questions involving election to the House of Justice,
consider either Carla or Andrew getting married. What if the LSA preforming
the wedding doesn't know the "birth sex" at the time of the nuptials, but
then find out later.
As I think you can see, it is one thing to say how to deal with these
questions when you know the "birth sex," but quite something else when you
don't know and have no reason to question it. Most transsexuals --myself
included, Baha'i or non-Baha'i-- do not make a practice of disclosing their
"birth sex" unless backed into a corner and forced to do so.
I don't know the answers to any of these questions. Maybe we should start
requesting a chromosome test with a declaration card. You know: sign your
declaration card, certify to the LSA that you have read four Baha'i Books and
submit your chromosome test. Or maybe Transsexuals should automatically be
deprived of some of their administrative rights. Forgive me but somehow I
don't think these ideas would pass test of objective reasonability. But,
none-the-less, these scenarios I have offered are credible and the characters
are possible.
I do not believe there are any simple rulings or answers that a future House
of Justice could issue that would resolve these questions.
To me the real question is not WHY can't women serve on the House of
Justice. The question is WHAT IS TO THE SPIRITUAL significance of gender.
Why is mankind endowed with two wings. It must be more than just
procreation.
La Chevaliere d'Eon (sorry no real name here)
you can call me Gale if you prefer.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSat Mar 30 17:43:28 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 08:26:20 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: RE: UHJ,NSA,etc. -- number of members
---- Begin Forwk
Dear Iskandar and fellow Talismanians.
I believe this 'rumor' is because the Four Hands of the Cause appointed
by Baha'u'llah served on that LSA during the time of the Master. They
gave themselves 2 votes each making an LSA with 13 votes.I am not aware
of the Tehran LSA having 13 actual members but I have not done much
research on its history. The one NSA in the world that had 10 members
for one year was the UK one in 1925.There was a
tied vote for the ninth place they did not know what to do so both
people served.Also that NSA members appointed that year alternative
members, if you could not attend you sent your alternative to the
meeting on your behalf.The alternative was not able to vote.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut.
This is news to me.
Any further details available?
Regards,
Iskandar
----------
From: Alex Tavangar[SMTP:gec@geoenv.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 1996 2:59 PM
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ,NSA,etc. -- number of members
The LSA of Tehran I believe at one point had 13 members. Nine I think
is
only the minimum number. Others can clarify.
Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From burlb@bmi.netSat Mar 30 17:43:52 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 08:27 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: New Baha'is
The number of new people becoming Baha'is can be considered a reflection of
the internal growth of the group itself. Therefore, groups need to
enthusiastically pursue a process of spiritualization. However, it must be
understood that spiritualization cannon occur by a deepening process outside
of teaching innitiatives; the two must go together. Reflection and action
are interdependent. Spiritual growth does not happen by intellectual
excercise. If people act without prayer, reflection or consultation their
results will not be fruitful.
(ITC, to all Counsellors, July 1988)
Important observation, eh?
BB
*************************************
MAN OVERBOARD by Burl Barer is still only $19.95 and may be ordered from any
bookstore. ISBN#: 1-56901-815-4 Buy Yours Today!
********************
From Member1700@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:44:40 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:01:14 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: RE: UHJ,NSA,etc. -- number of members
Baha'u'llah, in the Kitab-i Aqdas (K30) states:
The Lord hath ordained that in every city House of Justice be established
wherein shall gather counsellors to the number of Baha, and should it exceed
this number it doth not matter.
Therefore, the Aqdas clearly indicates that the number nine for membership
on Houses of Justice is a minimum number, not a fixed one. During his
ministry, 'Abdu'l-Baha experimented with various numbers of members on local
Houses of Justice. There are photographs of the Tehran Assembly during those
days that have thirteen men (and other numbers) in them. It is unclear
whether they were all considered members of the Assembly, however. The
photos may simply have included other distinguished Baha'is who are sitting
with the Assembly. However, it is also likely that Assemblies in Iran
included more than nine men on them, since they were not elected but more or
less self appointed.
I have read an account to the functioning of an Assembly in Bombay during
'Abdu'l-Baha's time that had nineteen men on it and held meetings that were
open to the public. Likewise, the first House of Justice elected in Chicago
included ten members. I believe that there was a tie for ninth place or
something, and the believers--having a translation of the Aqdas--decided that
it didn't matter if there were ten members of the Assembly. Which is, of
course, scripturally correct.
Of course, all local Houses of Justice at this time were limited to men
only. Women were excluded. It was not until 1912 that 'Abdu'l-Baha allowed
the election of women to the Chicago House. But, that is the subject of
another post! I will try to get to it later.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:46:41 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:41:40 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women on the House
I would suggest that those on Talisman who find this discussion distasteful
might just ignore this post (and this entire thread) and move on to more
"fruitful" discussion.
I certainly appreciate John Dale's thoughts on the question of the
current exclusion of women from membership on the House of Justice. It seems
to me that he has avoided some of the sillier justifications for this
practice--though I think that his thinking is based on several false
premises. Unfortunately, my computer just ate his posting, so I will have to
respond to his very sophisticated thinking from memory.
First of all, Baha'u'llah nowhere states that women are ineligible for
service on the House of Justice. There simply is no such verse. All
statements about Baha'u'llah's supposed exclusion of women are derived from
one word in the Aqdas, rijal (men, noblemen, gentlemen), which he has used to
address the members of the House of Justice. He also uses this same word
(rijal) to refer to the members of local Houses of Justice in various
Tablets. These references were posted on Talisman by Juan Cole some weeks
ago.
In addition, in five or six places, Baha'u'llah has stated explicitly in
his Writings that women are in this day counted as rijal in the Cause of God.
Under normal circumstances, that should settle it. In no other instance in
all the Writings is the use of male-gendered language by Baha'u'llah thought
to exclude women. There is the well-established mutatis mutandis principle
of Baha'i law that would preclude that. Otherwise, most of the laws of the
Aqdas are written as applying to men only (that is, using the male pronoun,
etc.) and would exclude women.
But, of course, this is not a normal circumstance and an important
exception has been made in this case. I believe that it is clear that this
exception will eventually be eliminated in the course of Baha'i history and
that women will serve on the House of Justice in the future.
Second, the well known Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha in which he states that the
reason for the exclusion of women from the House of Justice will become as
manifest as the sun at noonday in the future can be shown, without a shadow
of a doubt, to refer to the Chicago House of Justice. It is a Tablet to
Corinne True in reply to her petition that women be allowed to serve on that
body. Her letter still exists. No one in Chicago (including True) doubted
the meaning of the Tablet as referring to the Chicago Assembly at the time it
was received. So, to apply the meaning of this Tablet to the Universal
House of Justice it, I believe, quite clearly a mistake.
Third, I do not believe that any argument can be based on the number of
members of the House of Justice, since Baha'u'llah clearly states that such
number "does not matter" as long as it is more than nine. There may, in the
future, be 500 members on the House of Justice, if it happens to work out
that way.
Finally, the argument that the House of Justice must be all male in order
to stand as a symbol for Baha'u'llah strikes me as suspicious. The obvious
question is Why? Why should women be any less suitable representatives of
Baha'u'llah himself? Does the House also have to be all Persian to stand for
Baha'u'llah? This argument is suspiciously close to the Catholic orthodox
argument for why priests must be male (as representatives of Christ). Both
arguments are weak because they provide no explanation for the necessity of
male correspondence.
In any case, this whole subject has be discussed quite thoroughly on
Talisman--even though that was a while ago. I am quite happy to go on
discussing it, and to the whole thing all over again, if there is interest in
the subject. But, the archives of the discussion are available and that
provides another alternative for those who are interested.
Regards,
Tony
From Geocitizen@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:47:01 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:03:15 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re(2): fruitless contention
Esteemed Richard,
In response to my writing:
>> Why is the most gently stated suggestion that we might find
>>discussion of such issues more fruitful equated with a wish to silence
>>discussion altogether? I am mystified by this repeated misreading of what
I
>>am saying.
You replied:
>Dearest Kevin,
>
>It seems that the reason for this is that if one characterizes a
>discusion as "fruitless" then the implication is: engaging in such a
>discussion is bad per se.
Some may intend such an implication. I do not. I have stated with the
greatest clarity I can muster that I do not. In fact I have repeatedly
stated that engaging in discussion of these fruitless topics probably is good
per se, although the good they yield is nowhere near being proportionate to
the time and energy they consume.
Thus my point is that these topics are insufficiently good for the amount of
time we have been allowing them to consume, and that we do not have the
luxury of spending so much time for so little good when the crying needs of
humanity are clearly not being addressed.
Saying that some topics are better than others need not imply that the
less-good topics are "bad" topics.
>Thus, logically one would have to conclude that the discusion is being
choked off
>because one does not want to be bad and engage in such a thing.
This does not follow.
As stated above, the topic is not being called "bad," so no persons can be
implied to be "bad" for discussing it.
If one chooses to spend less time discussing topics that are less beneficial,
and more time discussing topics that are more beneficial, there is no need to
castigate oneself with terminology such as "I must choke off this topic
because I will be bad if I discuss it." One simply makes the choice to focus
limited energy and time in the places where it will do the most good; a
guilt-ridden attitude toward the choice is in itself unproductive, and if one
is being logical or wants to be productive, one will avoid guilt.
>Naturally, the friends don't like to be told they are bad as one friend
said,
>"It hurts our feelings." It is not up to individuals to tell others they
are
>bad--but rather they are good.
I have told no one that they are "bad". In fact, in my last post on this
subject I clearly stated that I assume everyone here to be intrinsically
good, and capable of productive discussion, for if I thought anyone was "bad"
it would waste my time to suggest productive discussion to them. Thus no one
can blame their hurt feelings on me.
For the same reason, your references to the admonitions of Baha'u'llah and
'Abdu'l-Baha seem more useful as general reminders of right behavior than as
supports for your attempt to refute what I am saying here.
> . . .
>The posts by David and Steve were courteous and mild.
Were my posts not courteous and mild? If I have been discourteous I hope you
will point out to me exactly where, because it was never my intention to be
such and I am always eager to correct myself when I give impressions I did
not intend.
> . . .
>Their insights are not ones that we are required to agree
>with--only to allow them in a courteous and loving manner to have them.
>This is what they truely want, IMHO.
If this is what they want from me, then they already have it. I have nothing
but the deepest respect for the insights people have derived from grappling
with difficult issues such as the exclusion of women from UHJ election, and
strive to be courteous and loving in all my interactions with them, even when
we deeply disagree on some things.
What bothers me is the false accusation that I want to ignore such issues in
the hope that they will go away. To conclude this, one must entirely misread
everything I have written, perhaps mapping me onto some archetype assembled
from various bad experiences with Baha'is who tend toward orthodoxy or
fundamentalism.
In fact, I have said that such issues need not be seen as forbidden or to be
avoided, simply recognized as topics that can consume additional time and
energy that is better spent elsewhere. Thus *when* we discuss them (note the
conspicous lack of silence required for this to occur, David, Steven, and
Richard) we might exercise greater caution to ensure that our discussions do
not become mired in fruitless contention.
Is it wholly unreasonable for me to hope that one day I can read responses to
what I have actually written, rather than responses to some monolithic
conception of quasi-fascist repression?
Weary Regards,
Kevin
From sbedin@gov.nt.caSat Mar 30 17:47:10 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 11:05:27 MST
From: Stephen Bedingfield
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ: Beginning with words, ending with insight
> My understanding is that, at the discretion of the House, its membership can
> be increased. The architect of the Seat of the Universal House of Justice
> once mentioned in a gathering (at Green Acre) that, initially, the number
> will be raised to nineteen, and that it will then increase in multiples of
> nineteen - up to ninety-five. Does anyone know if my recollection is correct?
>
> Mark (Foster)
I believe your recollection is correct with respect to the 19 members. If
you examine the plan (4th floor?) of the Seat it incorporates space for
19 offices (this floor is the members' office floor). As to the
multiples of 19, I hadn't heard this one. I will ask Husayn Amanat if
I see him soon (perhaps April).
stephen
--
Stephen Bedingfield | "We desire but
Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 | the good of the world and
Canada (403) 983-2123 | the happiness of the nations"
email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca | - Baha'u'llah
From lua@sover.netSat Mar 30 17:47:26 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:27:45 -0500
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Enneagram
Beloveds,
I have been reading a manuscript on the enneagram which my beloved spouse is
editing and serveral questions have crossed my mind. The book is presenting
the enneagram as a symbol of cycles, much akin to Gurdjieff's (and other
common sources within Sufism - the seven maqamat, The Seven Valleys, etc.)
explications of the octave; a sevenfold path of transformation which
includes triadic subsets within it. The origin of the enneagram, largely
touted these days as a system of personality typology, has been attributed
to mystery schools of Central Asia (one of which Gurdjieff claimed to have
been initiated into). The Naqshbandis also laid claim to knowledge of the
workings of the enneagram at some point. The shape of this symbol is a
nine-pointed star. I wonder about the Blessed Beauty's stint at the
Naqshbandi tekkye in Sulaymaniyyih, about the possibility of his coming into
contact with its employment in Islamic esoterism, his choice to employ it as
a symbol of the Faith that He founded, its possible use in the way of oral
tradition within various Islamic-Sufi sects (Shaykhism). Is there anyone
one on the list who is familiar with this either in the context of Islamic
esoterism or the Work of Gurdjieff, Bennet, etc. who wishes to comment,
speculate on the possible connections to the Faith?
Regards,
LuAnne
From CaryER_ms@msn.comSat Mar 30 17:47:39 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 18:30:54 UT
From: H/C Reinstein
To: talisman@indiana.edu, Eonist2@aol.com
Subject: RE: UHJ membership and more
Dear Gale,
Your example of Carla pointed out a definite flaw in my logic! I'm grateful
for that. I think my post was more reactive than analytical. I certainly
didn't interpret your comments as a flame nor mind the criticism. I'm so glad
to see that people are interested in contributing their valuable ideas. Most
discussions of gender on Talisman revolve around membership on the Universal
House of Justice. That discussion, while fascinating, certainly can't be
settled now. I'll comment on why I feel that way later in this post. Also, the
discussion always tends to polarize people around several classic axes, for
example, genetic male/genetic female, scholar/non-scholar,
translator/non-translator, platitude-passer (analogous to gas-passer)/non-pp,
and all the usual suspects. No wonder some people tire of it. I don't though.
I have to read every single thing that I can about gender in a Baha'i context.
My life depends on learning and understanding all that I can.
However, what you and I are discussing--and to widen that circle a bit, also
Dan Orey--are really issues of how people with gender issues (bad euphemism, I
know!) are integrated into the Baha'i community. So far, the record on the
community side is rather poor. I know of at least three other Baha'is besides
myself with Gender Identity Disorder (GID). By hearsay, I know that there are
more than that. GID, by the way, is the American Psychiatric Association's
name for transsexuality. It's rather cold but that's what they call it. At
least it's better than a term with the dreaded s-word in it. That word tends
to make people think it has something to do with sexuality which it doesn't.
Sex, sexuality, and gender are just ripples that may or may not overlap
randomly. I refuse to be defined by sexuality nor will I define anyone else
that way.
By hearsay, I know that one Baha'i t-person (my preferred, vanilla euphemism)
fell away from the Faith though I don't know why. The second t-person was
shunned by her community and eventually became inactive in Baha'i activities.
She did, however, become very publicly active in a transgendered protest
group. That group is known for being confrontational and political. That's not
an implied criticism. It's just a comment. The third wrote to me that she had
been out-ed publicly by local Baha'is who somehow felt that such an invasion
of privacy was okay or even necessary. It's not.
I've only been out in the community since October and other than less than
kind encounters with a certain ABM, have had almost no problems so far.
Actually there's more to those encounters that I know about second-hand but I
wouldn't be comfortable discussing it. [That person's] behavior was very
distasteful to me. Apparently, mine was to [that person] as well. Remember,
I'm newly out. I expect some problems but I can handle them because the
support I've received dwarfs the problems.
We are all aware of the hateful and self-righteous bashing that occurs on
soc.religion.bahai and AOL against gay persons. It is utterly antithetical to
the Baha'i way of life to participate in bashing. I'm certain that it does
incalculable harm to the community's teaching efforts because it excludes
millions of potential souls from ever being reached.
At some future time, the transgendered membership in the House issue may
become a reality. Obviously the House will deal with it then, perhaps on a
case basis or perhaps in a broader way by legislating. A cartoonish vision of
a scene reminiscent of Tootsie just entered my head. It goes like this: a
member of the House stands up at a world congress and shouts "I was born a
woman!" There's a gasp from the assembled thousands. An ABM mutters between
gritted teeth "do you realize what that person is doing?" with obvious
distaste. At least one Talizen faints . . . Another sputters hoarsely: "I'm
straight, damnit!" . . . The curtain is hastily drawn shut . . . A ghostly
voice can be heard above the din. It whispers just one word. " ~ ~ ~ Badasht
~ ~ ~ "
Warmest,
Yentl
The Artist Formerly Known As Cary :-)
===============
'and then the day came when the risk
to remain tight in a bud was
more painful than the risk
it took to blossom."
--Anais Nin
----------
From: owner-talisman@indiana.edu on behalf of Eonist2@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, 30 March, 1996 7:37 AM
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ membership and more
Hannah said: "It seems to me that a person's birth sex is closest to an
objective criteria . . ."
[Please forgive how I might express myself here, Hannah. My
comments are not intended as a flame, so I hope neither you nor
Anyone else construe them as such]
I don't think you really mean that statement or have thought it through all
of its implications Hannah. Consider the following scenario.
Carl Smith was born a normal anatomical male of the human species.
From mfoster@qni.comSat Mar 30 17:47:49 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 12:50:20 -0600
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: UHJ: Beginning with words, ending with insight
>I believe your recollection is correct with respect to the 19 members. If
>you examine the plan (4th floor?) of the Seat it incorporates space for
>19 offices (this floor is the members' office floor). As to the
>multiples of 19, I hadn't heard this one. I will ask Husayn Amanat if
>I see him soon (perhaps April).
Hi, Stephen -
What he told us at Green Acre was that he designed the meeting area of the
Seat to be large enough to accommodate (through expansion) up to 95 persons.
Mark (Foster)
From mfoster@qni.comSat Mar 30 17:48:04 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:05:37 -0600
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: LuAnne Hightower , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Enneagram
LuAnne -
I have several books on the enneagram which claim that it can be traced back
to Sufism or to Gurdjieff (supposedly through his contacts with the Sufis).
However, to the best of my knowledge, the actual system was developed by
Oscar Ichazo (spelling?) and promoted through his Arica school. Arica has
also attempted to sue certain individuals who have written books on the
enneagram, although I am not sure how successful it has been in that regard.
Mark (Foster)
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlSat Mar 30 17:49:03 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 20:08:29 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 9+ members
Derek
The size of the supreme tribunal would presumably be flexible,
since there would have to be at least 3 judges in every court
I suppose, and it might be necessary to have dozens of courts
sitting simultaneously (unless anyone imagines that the world
will have so few problems they can be nicely lined up and
picked off one-by-one :-)). We do know that the electoral
college which elects the supreme tribunal should have two or
three persons from each country and nation (not just per
country - would that mean that there should be a Basque, Welsh
and French Canadian representative?) in proportion to the
number of inhabitants. This is in the Tablet 'Abdu'l-Baha
wrote to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace at The
Hague in 1919. Assuming an average of 2 representatives per
country and 150 countries that would be 300 or so members. The
tribunal itself is to be elected only from within the
electoral college (in contrast to the UHJ, for which all male
Baha'is with voting rights are eligible), so that puts an
upper limit on the number of members of the tribunal - a very
flexible limit since the number of countries and nations could
be increased by counting states within federal countries, and
'two or three' is rather vague. I know of nothing to indicate
that the Universal House of Justice would have any say in
determining the size of the tribunal, and it is prima facie
unlikely since the tribunal forms part of the world
government.
Membership on local assemblies has varied widely at times.
There's a letter from Shoghi Effendi in Unfolding Destiny, p
49, which says:
Concerning the membership of the Spiritual Assembly, I
have already communicated with America to the effect that
the members who are entitled to vote must be strictly
limited to nine. Additional members may attend only in a
consultative capacity. I realise fully the delicacy and
difficulty of your position but it must be made clear to
all that nine and only nine can vote. All other
subsidiary matters are left to the Assemblies.
Lovingly,
Shoghi
This was 11 April 1926. The National Assembly subsequently
elected had 10 members (UD p64), and Shoghi Effendi asked them
to limit themselves to 9 in the following year (UD70). I
suspect that the tenth member might have been a 'substitute'
for the event that one of the other members was unable to
attend. Isobel Slade was substitute member representing London
in 1926, and Shoghi Effendi apparantly approved the practice
or let it pass at that time, at least on local assemblies:
20 May 1926
...with regard to the election of the Assemblies and your
desire to have substitutes in order to ensure a steady and
easy-to-obtain quorum for business, Shoghi Effendi would not
like to give you any further special regulations but would
prefer you to communicate with America and follow the method
they have adopted. He has a keen desire that uniformity
should exist in the regulations. I am sure you would gladly
communicate with Mr. Horace Holley on the subject. (UD53)
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-3216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wilgar123@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:49:18 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 14:58:58 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: concealed knowledge
In the Epistle to the Son of the Wolf (1953 edition, p.32) Baha'u"llah says:
"In the treasuries of the knowledge of God there lieth concealed a knowledge
which, when applied, will largely, though not wholly, eliminate fear." Does
anyone have any ideas about (or know of any commentaries relating to) this
passage?
Love and laughter,
Bill G
From gec@geoenv.comSat Mar 30 17:51:51 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 15:12:58 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Sun at high noon
Since I did not save the post I'm not 100% sure but I believe it was Tony
who expressed the following opinion about women's membership in the UHJ (my
paraphrasing):
[Abdu'l-Baha's Tablet restricting HJ's membership to men was written
with a limited/specific intent to address the Chicago House of Justice and
not the UHJ. At the time, membership in the Chicago Assembly was limited to
men.]
I'd like Tony (Robert Stockman and others can also feel free to offer some
insights) to elaborate on the following points:
a. Aside from personal interpretation, is there any evidence to support the
purported limited/specific intent of Abdu'l-Baha?
b. If in fact membership in the Chicago HJ was restricted to men, how/why
did this restriction come about? Was it self imposed or instituted by
Abdu'l-Baha?
c. Abdu'l-Baha prefaces his statement about male membership with:
"according to the explicit text of the Law of God..." What "explicit text
of the Law of God" do we know of that refers to the Chicago HJ?
d. And finally, since the restriction on membership has now been lifted and
women as well as men are members of the Chicago Assembly, it would seem
logical to assume that whatever the reason was for the exclusion of women,
at some point it was "made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon,"
and eventually irrelevant (vis-a-vis the Chicago circumstance). Any
thoughts as to what this particular situation was and how its continued
application with respect to women's membership in the Chicago HJ was deemed
unnecessary?
I am aware of the exchanges in the past few days on Talisman about this
issue. Some of the posts indicated frustration and a genuine struggle to
deal with/understand the implication of this question. I too am perplexed
by this question but so far (with the grace of God) have maintained my firm
faith that the wisdom of this statement by Abdu'l-Baha "will erelong be made
manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon." This of course does not
negate the need for discourse and striving for a deeper understanding of our
Faith.
Warmest Regards,
Alex B. Tavangar
From Wilgar123@aol.comSat Mar 30 17:52:08 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 16:38:54 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: contemptuous language
Dear Friends,
I would like to see the use of personally contemptuous language (such as
"yahoo" and "crock" - as anyone who knows anything about idiomatic English
realizes, "crock" can be short for a term of vulgarity-) censured by other
list members. Notice I said "censured" not "censored." I am not so concerned
here with hurt feelings, as most of us are adults and can take the abuse, but
rather with the lowering of Talisman standards to the level of Daytime Talk
Shows etc. I just find it rather demeaning and aesthetically provincial.
Bill G.
From A.Aniss@unsw.EDU.AUSat Mar 30 17:54:03 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:08:08 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Guardian's list of Bab's writings
B = Bushir
S = Shiraz
K = Karbala
M = Macca
I = Isfahan
T = Tabriz
Ch = Chihriq
Ma = Ma-Ku
Risaliy-i-Fiqhiyyih,
Revealed in Bushir
(commentary on the surih of Kawthar),
comprising no less than two thousand verses
Qayyumu'l-Asma' (commentary on the surih of Joseph),
(First Tablet to Muhammad Shah),
(Tablets to Sultan Abdu'l-Majid),
(Tablet to Najib Pasha),
(Tablet to Vali of Baghdad),
Sahifiy-i-baynu'l-Haramayn (),
revealed between Mecca and Medina, in answer to questions posed by
Mirza Muhit-i-Kirmani.
(The Epistle to The Sherif of Mecca),
Kitabu'r-Ruh (The Book of Spirit),
comprising seven hundred surihs;
Khasa'il-i-Sab'ih (),
which enjoined the alteration of the formula of the adhan (noon prayer),
Risaliy-i-Furu'-i-'Adliyyih (),
Rendered into Persian by Mulla Muhammad-Taqiy-i-Harati
(Commentary on the Surih of Kawthar),
which effected such a transformation in the soul of Vahid;
(Commentary on the surih of Va'l-'Asr),
Revealed in the house of the Imam-Jum'ih of Isfahan;
(Dissertation on the Specific Mission of Muhammad),
Written at the request of Manuchihr Khan;
(Second Tablet to Muhammad Shah),
craving an audience in which to set forth the truths of the new Revelation, and dissipate his doubts;
Tablets sent from the village of Siyah-Dihan to the ulamas
of Qasvin and to Haji Mirza Aqasi,
Inquiring from him as to the cause of the sudden change in his decision.
The period of His confinement in Mah-Ku and Chihriq.
To this period must probably belong the unnumbered Epistles which, as
attested by no less an authority than Baha'u'llah, the Bab specifically
addressed to the divines of every city in Persia, as well as to those residing
in Najaf and Karbila, wherein He set forth in detail the errors committed by
each one of them.
Mah-Ku Period:
It was during His incarceration in the fortress of Mah-Ku that He,
according to the testimony of Shaykh Hasan-i-Zunuzi, who transcribed
during those nine months the verses dictated by the Bab to His amanuensis,
revealed no less than nine commentaries on the whole of the Qur'an--
commentaries whose fate, alas, is unknown, and one of which, at least
the Author Himself affirmed, surpassed in some respects a book as deservedly
famous as the Qayyumu'l-Asma.
The Bayan (Exposition) (Arabic),
That monumental repository of the laws and precepts of the new
Dispensation and the treasury enshrining most of the Bab's references
and tributes to, as well as His warning regarding, "Him Whom
God will make manifest"--was revealed. Peerless among the doctrinal
works of the Founder of the Babi Dispensation; consisting of nine
Vahids (Unities) of nineteen chapters each, except the last Vahid
comprising only ten chapters.
The Bayan (Exposition) (Persian),
revealed during the same period; fulfilling the Muhammadan prophecy
that "a Youth from Bani-Hashim ... will reveal a new Book and promulgate
a new Law;" wholly safeguarded from the interpolation and corruption
which has been the fate of so many of the Bab's lesser works, this
Book, of about eight thousand verses, occupying a pivotal position
in Babi literature, should be regarded primarily as a eulogy of the
Promised One rather than a code of laws and ordinances designed
to be a permanent guide to future generations.
(The Third Tablets to Muhammad Shah),
The Dala'il-i-Sab'ih (Seven Proofs),
The most important of the polemical works of the Bab, was revealed
during that same period.
During the Bab's confinement in the fortress of Chihriq:
Lawh-i-Huru'fat (Tablet of the Letters),
was revealed, in honor of Dayyan
Khutbiy-i-Qahriyyih (Sermon of Wrath)
Revealed August 1848;
Addressed to Haji Mirza Aqasi
soon after His return from Tabriz:
Tablet to Haji Mirza Aqasi.
Kitab-i-asma` (The Book of Names),.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^ Web Page: http://acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au/~ahmada/ ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From nineteen@onramp.netSun Mar 31 00:41:12 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 18:30:47 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Kevin , Talisman
Subject: Re: Re(2): fruitless contention
>As stated above, the topic is not being called "bad," so no persons can be
>implied to be "bad" for discussing it.
>
>If one chooses to spend less time discussing topics that are less beneficial,
>and more time discussing topics that are more beneficial, there is no need to
>castigate oneself with terminology such as "I must choke off this topic
>because I will be bad if I discuss it." One simply makes the choice to focus
>limited energy and time in the places where it will do the most good; a
>guilt-ridden attitude toward the choice is in itself unproductive, and if one
>is being logical or wants to be productive, one will avoid guilt.
Dear Kevin,
I am sorry if it seems I was being critical--I was only in my limited
fashion trying to answer the question that was posed that possibly was
rhetorical in intent. The implication that the other person is being bad
is very easy to miscommunicate--I took note that there was the perception
that because it was said Steve and David were courteous and mild it
somehow followed that maybe the other person wasn't, which was never
something said, but one can see how that could be understood.
It is my understanding of human discursive dynamics that if one
characterizes another's commentary as "fruitless" then there is a
significant moral judgment being made. Even if one feels what they are
saying does not carry the content that another attributes to it we should
still be respectful if another says that something hurts their feelings.
We can't decide for the other person what is hurtful--the People of Baha
from my readings of the Writings are called to a higher standard of
sensitivity. To a certain extent each of us is in denial about the need
to treat each other with warmth and love. I only point this out because
I feel like there are members of this list who need to hear supportive
statements that give them room to feel and question those things they
feel are neccesary. Many people have posted to this effect. I don't
believe they feel we have to agree with them but we cannot decide for
them what is beneficial and what is more beneficial.
For me (and maybe I'm just fooling myself) our time is best spent helping
each other and engendering unity amongst ourselves on this list. If that
involves people grapling with imponderable things because they need to
discuss those things we need not be saying one topic is more fruitful
than another. Because the friends are telling us what they need to talk
about. Other friends don't have to talk about those things. I
personally haven't chosen to talk about certain things.
I think it very useful in fact to see what the friends have to say about
many of these things because they could be significant issues for the
believers as the Faith rises out of obscurity.
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 Wilgar123@aol.comSun Mar 31 00:42:40 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 20:19:46 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: conscience and authority
Dear Friends,
It strikes me that many of the more heated discussions on Talisman can be
reduced in some way to the age old problem of conscience vs. authority. The
more "conservative" thinkers tend (though not always) to side with authority
while the more "liberal" (though not always) tend to side with conscience. I
think that if one looks deeply at this issue there is a real dilemma which
cannot be ignored by either side. It would seem to me that as Baha'is the
power of conscience (including not just feeling but also rational discourse)
must be given a great deal of weight, if for no other reason than the power
Baha'u'llah gives it. Here I am referring to the fact that he calls
individuals to him with the assumption that they can make judgments as to
whether He is Who He claims He is. In other words, individuals have the power
to make judgments about the nature of the Manifestation, otherwise how could
they be asked to make that decision? (Here, of course, I am assuming that all
such decisions are not predestined by God - an assumption that in some
religious traditions would certainly be challenged) I believe it follows that
individuals can, and must, make judgments about God. For example, I find the
notion that God would burn unbaptized infants in hell (or anyone else for
that matter) or that a god would demand the sacrifice of a dead man's wife on
his funeral pyre, unethical in the highest degree. And yet, as we all know,
these ideas have been held by some (and, in some cases by many) to be the
Will of God/gods. The question is: "Is my judgment legitimate?" Moreover,
"what if I am wrong and God actually does burn unbaptized infants in hell?" I
think many Baha'is would answer the question by saying that Baha'u'llah as
the Manifestation answers these questions. But this misses the point, for it
is I who must decide that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation, and when one
realizes this in its full impact, the decision can be (perhaps should be)
rather terrifying, for I am asserting my conscience (no doubt not in a
vacuum) against those who believe otherwise, and who am I to ultimately know
whether my conscience is correct? Perhaps Jesus is Lord in the sense that
many fundamentalist Christians believe and his authority should not be
tampered with by my conscience. Is this not the same position taken by many
of our more conservative friends when it comes to questions within the
community? And yet, structurally speaking, I do not see that there is a real
difference, for if I find that the fact that women cannot serve on the House
goes against my conscience ( and here, I am assuming that this matter is
taken seriously and reflected upon with the intensity of my entire being) I
see no way that I can deny my conscience. I can abstractly say that I am
incorrect, but then again I could say the same thing about God burning
unbaptized infants in hell. I would still feel that it is wrong.
On the other hand, I also realize that the individual conscience can do (and
has done) great harm to human society, and here the "conservative" position
carries much weight. No doubt Hitler felt he was correct, as probably did
Mao, Stalin, David Koresh and terrorists of varying causes. And thus the
dilemma. Where is the line to be drawn? In my opinion, within the Baha'i
community we agree to draw the line not in terms of the idea but at the point
of action, and this point is determined by Baha'u'llah through his Covenant.
Thus our conscience can have its say in the realm of ideas (for example those
who believe that women should be on the UHJ) but we agree to follow the
dictates of the legitimately authorized institutions. Moreover, since the
administrative structure created by Baha'u'llah is fluid and not static, the
expression of the individual conscience remains an important, perhaps even
vital, part of community life.
I think it behooves us, therefore, to be honest about the power that
conscience (out of necessity) plays for each of us, as it was "conscience",
in some sense, that brought many of us to the religion of Baha'u'llah and
dictates what we believe. I also feel that we should have the integrity not
to demand of others what we ourselves are not willing to give up. And
finally, we should all do well to remind ourselves that as human beings in
the face of the Divine, our conscience should stand with some degree of "Fear
and Trembling" and that it is faith at its deepest level that gives us the
strength and "right' to express our "feelings." This applies not only to
beliefs concerning issues within the community, but to Belief.
Love and laughter,
Bill G
From Member1700@aol.comSun Mar 31 00:44:34 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 21:22:12 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Dear Alex:
Yes, it was me who was insisting that the (1902) letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha
which excluded women from membership on the House of Justice was addressed to
the Chicago situation. It was written to Corinne True in response to her
petition that women should be allowed to serve on the Chicago local
body--then called the House of Justice, and addressed by 'Abdu'l-Baha as
such.
I did not intend to say, however, that 'Abdu'l-Baha intended this
exclusion to apply only to the Chicago House of Justice. He clearly intended
it as an exclusion from all Houses of Justice. The New York House of Justice
was similarly composed of men only, as were all of the local Houses of
Justice in Iran at the time. It was believed that Baha'u'llah's use of the
word rijal to address the members of the House of Justice limited the
membership on all such bodies to males.
To answer your questions: (By the way, Rob Stockman disagrees with me
totally on most of these points, but he has not seen all the historical
evidence. Not that such evidence would necessarily change his mind--but it
sure changed my mind.)
1. Yes, there is abundant evidence that 'Abdu'l-Baha's (1902) letter refers
to the Chicago House. We have Corinne True's letter to 'Abdu'l-Baha, his
reply, the minutes of the Chicago Assembly concerning this. We know that
True was agitating for women's membership on the Chicago House, and that this
letter ended the controversy for a time.
Even the House of Justice, in its letter on this subject, implicitly
accepts the fact that the "as manifest as the sun at noonday" quote cannot,
by itself, support the idea of the exclusion of women from the present
Universal House of Justice. They base their argument mostly on a subsequent
letter from 'Abdu'l-Baha (1909) which was also directed to the Chicago
Assembly (True was still agitating) but said the same thing--this time
referring to the Chicago House as Baytu'l-Adl Ummumi (General House of
Justice, but which can also be translated universal [small u] House of
Justice--the normal term for the International House of Justice being
Baytu'l-Adl Azam).
2. The restriction of membership on Houses of Justice was, in 1902,
universal. The three House of Justice elected in America--New York, Kenosha,
Chicago--were elected in accordance with instruction and Tablets received
from 'Abdu'l-Baha, applied by the Persian teachers.
3. The explicit Text 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to is the apostrophe that
Baha'u'llah addresses to the House of Justice (in general) in the Aqdas which
reads: "O ye men (rijal) of Justice!"
4. There were a number of specific historical circumstances that led
'Abdu'l-Baha to lift the restriction on women's membership on Houses of
Justice in America (not in Iran). Not the least of these was the demands of
the American women. But still, in 1911, when specifically asked if women
should be elected to the Kenosha Assembly, 'Abdu'l-Baha said no.
What led him to change his mind is not clear. But, perhaps his new
experiences in America during his tour, which gave him a first had view of
how a gender-integrated society might work. Perhaps because the Chicago
Assembly could not meet because of a shortage of active Baha'i men. Perhaps
the fact that organization was irregular in many cities where Baha'is
lived--with various committees, Boards of Counsel, Assemblies and Houses of
Justice in session. Above all, I think, 'Abdu'l-Baha did not want this to
become a matter of controversy and did not think it was an important matter
to be maintained at the risk of more gender tension in the community--Lord
knows there was enough already!
Those are my thoughts on the issue. You might get the Women's Service on the
Institutions of the Faith paper from Eric and have a look at the full
argument. Maybe Jackson can fill in some of the obvious blanks I have left
in the above. (Thanks in advance, Jackson. :-)
Regards,
Tony
From Geocitizen@aol.comSun Mar 31 00:48:03 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 21:46:23 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re(3): fruitless contention
In response to my attempts to clarify yet again what I am saying on this
topic, Richard wrote:
>I am sorry if it seems I was being critical--I was only in my limited
>fashion trying to answer the question that was posed that possibly was
>rhetorical in intent. The implication that the other person is being bad
>is very easy to miscommunicate--I took note that there was the perception
>that because it was said Steve and David were courteous and mild it
>somehow followed that maybe the other person wasn't, which was never
>something said, but one can see how that could be understood.
Note, however, that I did not *assume* you meant to imply I had been
discourteous. I *asked* you whether or not you intended such an implication.
This, to me, is a far more important aspect of courtesy, in that it prevents
massive amounts of time wasted in a process of debating things *no one ever
even said*.
Since you have not taken the opportunity to state forthrightly that you think
I have been discourteous, I refer to the matter as an example only, and
having done so will hereby cease to accuse you of that opinion, in order to
prevent yet more wasted time.
> It is my understanding of human discursive dynamics that if one
>characterizes another's commentary as "fruitless" then there is a
>significant moral judgment being made.
If I were to point out a person or group of persons and tell them, "your
commentary on topic X has been fruitless," with no further elaboration, they
might indeed be making no great leap in suspecting I was making a significant
moral judgement about them. What I have actually done here is not parallel
to that situation, because I have used every means I can think of to distance
my discussion of the *topics* from any condemnation of *persons*.
I have gone to the greatest of pains to ensure that no one thinks I am making
a moral judgement against any person. I have stated explicitly and
repeatedly that I am not making any such judgement. The following question
is not rhetorical, Richard: Why do you steadfastly ignore my repeated
statements to this effect? Do you think I am simply lying when I say this?
>Even if one feels what they are
>saying does not carry the content that another attributes to it we should
>still be respectful if another says that something hurts their feelings.
>We can't decide for the other person what is hurtful--the People of Baha
>from my readings of the Writings are called to a higher standard of
>sensitivity.
David said to me that it was hurtful to be labeled a "fruitless contender."
I did not respond by saying to him, "You should not be hurt because that is
not hurtful to you." I responded by saying, "You should not be hurt because
I never did the thing that is hurtful to you."
So, Richard, please do not accuse me of "deciding what is hurtful to the
other person."
And what about the possibility of my hurt feelings? No matter how many times
I explicitly state that I am judging no one, I am repeatedly lectured about
the evils of judging people. No matter how many times I explicitly state
that I do not advocate silence and repression, I am painted as some kind of
neo-Nazi/Stalinist fundamentalist. No matter how genteel the diction used to
make these accusations, is there not some potential for hurt feelings when my
real thoughts (clearly stated!) are utterly ignored and people are taking
turns hurling mud at some nefarious stereotype with my name on it?
For the most part I have chosen to shrug off the mudslinging and just carry
on with the work. I bring it up now because of the particular irony of your
comments about hurt feelings in this context, Richard.
> To a certain extent each of us is in denial about the need
>to treat each other with warmth and love. I only point this out because
>I feel like there are members of this list who need to hear supportive
>statements that give them room to feel and question those things they
>feel are neccesary. Many people have posted to this effect. I don't
>believe they feel we have to agree with them but we cannot decide for
>them what is beneficial and what is more beneficial.
I am not deciding "for them" (the people posting) what is more beneficial or
less so, because my focus here is not on whatever benefits we may ourselves
derive from our participation here. When I talk about our discussions
bearing fruit, I mean the kind of fruit that will benefit humanity as a whole
and promote the growth of the Baha'i community. Our Central Figures and
Institutions have clearly identified some issues that are more important than
others *for these purposes* and that is my sole focus.
>For me (and maybe I'm just fooling myself) our time is best spent helping
>each other and engendering unity amongst ourselves on this list. If that
>involves people grappling with imponderable things because they need to
>discuss those things we need not be saying one topic is more fruitful
>than another.
Certainly we cannot entirely ignore our own needs, and evaluating one's own
needs is entirely subjective, so in that context you are correct: each of us
must decide on our own which topics are more fruitful than others.
But again, I am not talking about the benefit to the participants in the
immediate circle of Talisman, I am talking about the benefit to humanity as a
whole, and in that context I think it is clear that some topics are more
fruitful, some less, and some not at all.
So perhaps the question arises: is Talisman for our private benefit, or do
we hope in some way to benefit a larger circle with our discussions. John
Walbridge has said that he hopes insights generated on certain issues might
be of use to Assemblies and to the Universal House of Justice in future
decisions and explanations. This seems to lean toward more public-spirited
goals for our discussions.
> Because the friends are telling us what they need to talk
>about. Other friends don't have to talk about those things. I
>personally haven't chosen to talk about certain things.
Never have I advocated the removal of that right of personal choice from
anyone. All I have said is that certain topics may require a more cautious
approach -- not silence.
Why, Richard, do you continue to ignore my attempts to explain this, and
imply that I am telling others to be silent when I have repeatedly stated I
am doing no such thing?
Weary, Frustrated, Confused Regards,
Kevin
From jcdhender@loop.comSun Mar 31 00:48:41 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 18:45:48 -0800
From: The Hendershots
To: 'Talisman'
Subject: Re: fruitless contention
What is fruitless to some, or even to most, might have a positive effect on someone else who is reading. Reading the posts over the last month, I get the feeling that Talisman thinks it should somehow be solving the world's problems--as a group! And that when discussions don't move the Faith along or change the nature and overcome the complacency of the Baha'i community, they somehow haven't achieved a purpose.
It seems to me that any effect Talisman has on the Baha'i community will come when individuals reading the posts get new ideas, think differently, take bits and pieces from the ideas on Talisman to their communities, etc. On line, the group could work on the mysticism conference as a tangible Talisman-inspired effort. But the group can't see the secondary results of the conference that are still happening as the attendees take ideas back to their communities, or as they relate to God differently in their private lives. Hopefullly, the greater effects are occurring constantly on an individual and community level.
Some people seem frustrated that discussion has gone on so long about why women are exempt from service on the House of Justice, but some of the most recent postings were the most meaningful for me and will certainly help me the next time a seeker asks about this. Who knows? Perhaps something I say to a seeker based on what I read this morning will be the key to that person accepting the Faith. Maybe someone will read something on Talisman today, use the idea in a fireside talk, and 5 people in the audience will be affected by it. In other words, one poster may end with words but some reader somewhere may convert those words into action. Who are we to say that any of these discussions are meaningless?
Chris
P.S. Now that I wrote this I can't get it to transmit. We are on "The Loop" which seems to have constant problems with its mail server and disconnects it on weekends to try to fix it. I got all of last weekend's postings on Monday and wonder if that's what's going on again today (it's Saturday morning). Well, I'll just let this sit in the outbox until the loop decides to connect us up...
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Mar 31 00:51:13 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 22:25:14 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fruitless Contention
Dear Phillip:
I realize this may come as some shock but after reading your response and
concern for the body fluid references it dawned on me that you were under the
mistaken impression that I was writing this post to you. I am sorry if this
is true. I actually had not read your post. What was it you were saying
originally?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From l.droege@genie.comSun Mar 31 00:52:43 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 96 03:53:00 UTC 0000
From: l.droege@genie.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: fruitless contention
Usually I stay in lurk mode, being neither as eloquent nor as witty
as many others on this list, but occasionally I feel it necessary to
add my two cents...
IMHO, considering the number of people who, upon hearing that women
can't serve on the UHJ, either react with contempt or simply turn
away from the Baha'i Faith, I hardly feel that discussion of the
topic is "fruitless."
Sure, discussing it isn't likely to bring us to the definitive
answer (if the Guardian said he didn't know and the UHJ says it doesn't
know I doubt we're going to figure it out, at least just yet ),
but we at least (either individually or collectively) need to come
up with something to tell seekers that isn't totally off-putting.
In some contexts, it might actually be helpful to admit that we
just don't know. In others, perhaps this could be discussed in
the context of Progressive Revelation, i.e. from wife-killing to
wife-beating to almost-equal, etc. (cf Quran thread). My suspicion
is that context + honesty might just be the best way to deal with
it.
Leigh (speaking as an ex-militant feminist still evincing occasional
slight rabid tendencies)
A further thought (I'm writing this on the fly, so to speak): Possibly
we just ain't ready yet... I just can't see the folks in India &
Pakistan who murder their brides for dowry money, alleged unfaithfulness,
infertility, etc., or the practitioners of Machismo in South America
or the Good Ole Boys of America's corporate world taking seriously a
religion "ruled" by a council including a bunch of wimmen!
Love, L
From candy@pc.jaring.mySun Mar 31 00:53:01 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:40:53 +0800 (MYT)
From: "Dr. Chandrasekaran"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: concealed knowledge
Dear Will,
In the compilation"Light of Guidance" the Guardian states that
Bahaullah did not reveal what that knowledge is and the Guardian himself is
not aware what it could be.William Hatcher in his book "Physical Reality"
postulates that it could have been the knowledge/concept of afterlife.
best regards
Dr.chandran
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Mar 31 00:54:02 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:00:37 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Contention a la fruit
It is amazing to me that the huge contradictions that plague our thinking
about the Cause, at least in this country can continue to go on, swallowed
whole by so many. Due to our excessive focus on the importance of the
individual we feel that if one or several people are pleased with a continous
line of fruitless speculation it must contain the equivalent *value* of all
other posts or issues. At the same time we see, implcit in these statements
and actually spelled out in others that we should attempt to be as
*value-free* in our discourses, debates, discussions, etc as possible.
How? And what is more why? There is nothing in the Writings that supports
such a fallacy as *value-free* anything. There is nothing in all of existence
that is *value-free*.
(Fat free perhaps but even that has value)
I hope I won't be forced to quote, among others, John Walbridge who says that
basically we just don't know with regard to the subject of women on the House
- that matters are far from clear and that this matter does go back to
Baha'u'llah and is not "an accident of history." (See Talisman archives of
Aug. 27, 1995)
For those that are new to this list this useless contention has gone on and
on and on. It took up nearly six weeks in the late summer and early autumn.
And nothing came of it. Some have said here that they have learned things
about the issue that will help them when they are teaching seekers. What?
What would we tell a seeker? I mean something that was learned from the
Universal House of Justice itself or the Central Figures? Not much new there,
we already have their statements. So what else is left. I can see it now:
"Well Anne, I can understand that the issue of women not being on the
House is upsetting to you, and that you cannot seem to justify it in your
mind - given the emphasis in the Writings of the equality of men and women.
But good news! We have a number of scholars and scholar-wannabes who
completely disagree with the overwhelming number of statements made on this
issue by the Central Figures, the Guardian and the UHJ itself. They feel that
any time now the House will cave under the pressure of the wafer-thin
circumstantial evidence that has been built up, participle by dangling
participle over the past twenty years or so. So fear not and please
completely ignore the overwhelming spiritual thrust of Baha'u'llah's Message
for humanity while awaiting confirmation of your long-held and cherished (and
certainly not skewed due to the bizarrness of the late twentieth century and
its spiritual morbidity) liberal-democratic platform!! Care - for - a -
COOKIE!"
People are not dying at the gates just waiting for the Baha'is to at last
resolve this one big ISSUE so that they can all rush out and sign those
really nifty declaration cards (where did that one ever develop?!) They are
dying of spiritual thirst. They need a way to find the light within
themsleves so that they can see it in others. They need something far more
than a religion tailor-made to fit the bewildering collage of *value-free
values* and spiritually enlightening daily affirmations given by Stuart
Smally and whipped up in a nice frothy decaf latte that gives us *permission*
to go ahead and do whatever the hell we want because we gotta right!
They need spiritual reality. And while this issue may be *painful* and
*confusing* to a whole lot of middle class whites in the suburbs of America I
don't think it will excite much concern from people who wonder when the hell
someone is gonna come remove the two ton foot from their necks.
And finally this. It is not that everyone on this list should be talking
about the *same* thing; (whoever advocated that?) but that we should all bend
our discourse to the urgent needs of the Faith and by extension Humanity at
this time. There are a hundred or more elements to such a goal and they all
need to be discoursed and then, (big shock here!) acted upon. And one of the
most critical of these many issues is this: what does it truly mean for men
and women to have equality? Why don't we stretch ourselves a bit and drop all
the liberal sound-bite philosophy and really approach this form a new angle.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Geocitizen@aol.comSun Mar 31 00:54:54 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:36:28 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talisman's potential (was Re: fruitless contention)
Chris wrote:
>... Reading the posts over the last month, I get the feeling that Talisman
thinks it >should somehow be solving the world's problems--as a group! And
that when >discussions don't move the Faith along or change the nature and
overcome the >complacency of the Baha'i community, they somehow haven't
achieved a purpose.
Solving the world's problems is something toward which our Faith calls each
of us to devote our most strenuous efforts. Our Writings and Institutions
also tell us that working together in groups of different kinds, such as
Talisman or our local communities or groups such as the Association for
Baha'i Studies, *can* if coordinated with proper care on the part of each
participant allow our individual efforts to reinforce each other's beneficial
effects.
Overcoming complacency in the Baha'i community is a pressing need, as Shoghi
Effendi indicated in _Citadel of Faith_ when he included "the apathy and
lethargy that paralyze their spiritual faculties" as being "among the
formidable obstacles that stand in the path of every would-be warrior in the
path of Baha'u'llah," going on to describe these as "obstacles which he must
battle against and surmount in his crusade for the redemption of his own
countrymen." (p. 149)
That last phrase about redeeming all Americans is part of a process that
begins with but (and this is the part most people seem to forget) *does not
end with* the individual. The process the Guardian outlines is something
like this:
-the arising of the individual
-the revitalization of the Baha'i community of America
-the redemption of America as a whole
-America leading all nations spiritually as 'Abdu'l-Baha foretold
-eventually, the Most Great Peace (not with America taking all the credit for
it, mind you, but certainly with America recognizing that its meriting any
place in history is directly proportional to the degree to which it
contributes to this achievement)
So, if it seems somewhat ridiculous to you that a small group like Talisman
could even think of setting its sights on the solving of the world's
problems, I humbly suggest there may be a few non-trivial things you are
forgetting.
>It seems to me that any effect Talisman has on the Baha'i community will
come
>when individuals reading the posts get new ideas, think differently, take
>bits and pieces from the ideas on Talisman to their communities, etc. On
>line, the group could work on the mysticism conference as a tangible
>Talisman-inspired effort. But the group can't see the secondary results of
>the conference that are still happening as the attendees take ideas back to
>their communities, or as they relate to God differently in their private
>lives. Hopefully, the greater effects are occurring constantly on an
>individual and community level.
While there is certainly some truth in what you say about the effects of
Talisman on the larger community, the claim that "effects are occurring
constantly" which we simply "can't see" is one I have heard for too many
years for it to hold any encouragement for me now. From the Guardian we have
been given three unmistakable measures by which to gauge the success of our
efforts: growth in enrollments, support for the Baha'i Funds, and increasing
external opposition. On all three scales we are clearly lacking.
Thus no matter how wonderful may be the many things going on that we just
"can't see" there is still something missing, something else or something in
addition that needs to be done and is not being done.
Talisman may be able to help create that which is needed to fill this gap,
but not if the need goes unrecognized by all of Talisman's participants, and
not if all of their time is spent debating unrelated topics, now matter how
dear to our hearts such topics may be.
Regards,
Kevin
From nineteen@onramp.netSun Mar 31 00:55:06 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 23:43:23 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Geocitizen@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re(3): fruitless contention
> ever have I advocated the removal of that right of personal choice from
> anyone. All I have said is that certain topics may require a more cautious
> approach -- not silence.
> Why, Richard, do you continue to ignore my attempts to explain this, and
> imply that I am telling others to be silent when I have repeatedly stated I
> am doing no such thing?
>
Dear Kevin,
Please excuse me, I never intended you to think I thought you were discourteous or
acting in any manner that was harmful. I agree we should be cautious, and never think
I was making accusations--I would never consider doing such a thing--but as you can see
in some ways you are making my point because look how many misunderstandings have
arisen between us in a couple of messages. People interpret each other's comunicative
behavior by implication, nuance ect. Things that are never said are still assumed
because of the dynamics of language.
Believe it or not I'm really not taking sides in this--I just feel it is important to
say yes to people so they can work things out--it's not rational--it's a growth process
of some sort. These Baha'is want to have their say. They in some sense are the
minority view so I feel we should be gracious in that respect.
I'm just trying to be positive towards people who feel the friends haven't been very
positive towards them in the past or whenever. Maybe they're mistaken but I can't make
such judgments.
I'm very sorry that I haven't been able to make my points without troubling your
spirit. The last thing I want is for you to feel "weary, frustrated and confused". I
just have been unable to make myself clear and apparently have been hurtful myself in
the process. I just feel like I have been trying to explain an injury that some of the
friends feel and that injury is tender and we should be careful when we examine it. I'm
sure quite justifiably you feel you have been careful, and you have. I was just trying
to pass along in my limited way what I thought might be useful observations--you are a
fine and sensitive Baha'i, you needn't pay any attention to my ramblings.
Richard
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Mar 31 15:20:18 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:53:53 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: contemptuous language
I . . . i am just so overwhelmed here. I feel that I have been violated. DO I
not have a right to voice my thoughts in mild-to-medium (on the Salsa
Institute of Abusive Language, San Antonio, Texas) contemptuous language??
WHAT is someone here going to dare to smother me with their goose-down
stepping overstuffed pillow?? You, you closet facist you!!! (OH!!! I hope
that didn't bruise dear! You know I just love you!)
I feel . . . betrayed, bewildered, (oh wait that is the line from BIRDCAGE.)
I guess we will have to let Ruhiyyih Khanum know that cussing like a retired
longshoreman is not something we will put up with in this Faith! Throw the
old girl out OUT I SAY!!!
I get tired of the pussy-footing that goes on here. I haven't called anyone:
1.) a facist
2.) a neo-nazi
3.) a neo-nazi facist (loved that one - hey catch a history lesson)
4.) a covenant-breaker (until recently a Talisman fav)
5.) a ranting raving lunatic ("and honey jou' know who jou' ARE!)
6.) a cross-dressing neo-nazi vegetarian (and the men who love them)
7.) a reader of Burl's latest work (now THAT is a nasty lil name sticker!)
8.) a layperson
I am guilty of laughing to scorn the ideas that some folk have put forth. If
I feel they are being silly, stuborn, foolish or have their head lodged in
less-than-sanitary locations (no window-view there) than I will say it.
If I am going to actually insult someone trust me, there will be no doubt as
to when and how it was done. But that won't be happening. Far too many of us
are attached to our ideas. When the Idea enters the playing field it is Us.
Like pork-belly fathers at a little league game:
"COME ON JOEY!!! DAMN YOU RUN LIKE YOUR MOTHER!!! HEY! HEY! CATCH THAT BALL
BOY!!!! DON'T EMBARASS ME OUT THERE SON!!?? OUT!! HE CAN'T BE OUT UMP!? WHAT
IS WRONG WITH YOU! YOU GOT THE I.Q. OF A CHIA PET!! YOU'RE AS UGLY AS THE DAY
IS LONG BOY!!!
We cannot let go, and yet we hope to teach America how to consult, to see
past to the Truth of the matter. We mask our wonderful loving contempt for
each other with sweet salutations and au revoirs:
Warmest!
Baha'i Love
Cheers!
Kiss off!
Let's just cut it for awhile and be a bit more real. Let us set aside our
frail sick lil' egos and realize that we are talking, arguing and wrestling
ideas here. And let us realize that a loaded idea is a dangerous thing to
leave laying around where unsuspecting/uncogitating fellow humans can pick it
up and run with it. Hitler counted on that. So did Stalin. So does Rush. And
so too the "nefarious elements" within the Faith that the Guardian so quietly
warned us about just before he passed.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSun Mar 31 15:21:01 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 96 15:04:57 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Should/Shouldn't We: Discussions of Women's Membership in the UHJ
Dear Friends:
About discussions of women's membership on the House:
If folks think that the discussion of some topic is important and meaningful,
then common sense suggests that, at least for those people, the topic is
important and meaningful. Steve Scholl's and David Langness's postings
brought this out in a particularly nice way, I thought.
On the other hand, we know that common sense is often wrong, or at least
fails to give the whole picture. Progress often comes from those who refuse
to accept the dictates of common sense. Often, they lambast it for its
conservative, safe posture. Rather, we should embrace uncommon sense:
Newton, Einstein, Martin Luther King, the guys who started Apple Computer,
and many more decided that common sense was wrong. So, I can endorse Jim
and Kevin's postings too (except for some overstrong remarks, which have the
effect of turning folks away from the merit of what they are saying),
Now, the point I want to make in this posting is the following: We can
be sure to hear from Jim and Kevin, whose postings many of us enjoy, if
we discuss the issue of women's membership in the House. So, my argument
is that, in addition to the reasons that Steve and David give, we have
the extra reason of being able to benefit from Jim and Kevin's remarks
about the importance of transcending the issue too.
All in all, this tempts me to conclude that the subject is indeed a very
productive one.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From cenglish@aztec.asu.eduSun Mar 31 15:22:13 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 00:26:51 -0700 (MST)
From: "THOMAS C. ENGLISH"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reply to koreru - Maori and Nat. Am. connections (?)
On Fri Mar 29 06:19:29 1996
berny.munro@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Berny Munro)
Submitted a Maori korero beginning:
>Tena Kotou Tena Kotou Tena Kotou Katoa.\'1b[K
Then ended with the following:
>Not sure how people think on this subject but it appears to
>me that there is a spiritual link between the Native (Maori)
>peoples of New Zealand and the Native Peoples of America.
>It is an idea that I would like to explore as it intrigues me.
Kia Ora Berny:
I contemplated making this a personal reply. However, I know
what I'm relating will be of interest to one or two other
Talismanians (Isn't that an island down there by you and
Australia?) so will post it publicly, where its value will
definitely be judged.
In the early 1980's a Pawnee woman (named Johnny) and her
Cherokee (?) husband retired after _very_ successful
professional lives. She, as a commercial artist and inventor
(the 'Disneyland' logo and the cardboard 'zipper' on much
U.S. packaging to name her most familiar accomplishments) and
he as a ceramics engineer/business owner (design and manufacture
of rocket engine thrust nozzles). Very active with the Los
Angeles Indian Center they had a peculiar urge to visit N.Z.
and get to know the Maori people first hand.
They ended up near the Bay of Islands in a non-tourist Marai,
(In or near Whangarei) headed by Sir James Henare. Before
their stay was over, they received a *very* important Maori
relic and found they had a role in Maori prophecy about helping
the Maori move forward into world affairs.
In a private post replying to a comment on a sort of korero I
made, I mentioned Erima and Hemo Henare, and Hemo's
uncle, Wallace Hetaraka who became a Baha'i about 1983.
Wallace's story is a lot of bandwidth, so will not be related.
However, Wallace's process of becoming a Baha'i ended the dilemma
of how he was going to finish the 'future' panel of his carving
in the NZ Parliament.
Erima was with the NZ Consulate in Los Angeles about 1983-87.
He too was very interested in the linkages between the Maori
and native peoples of America. Wallace was in the US for a
few weeks demonstrating how a Maori master carver works. The
retired couple felt it was their duty to take Wallace and Hemo
across the southwestern US and show them what they could of
the indigenous people. (Wallace's greatest interest was how
young Maoris could carve and sell their work without breaking
tapu) This involved about 2000 kilometers of driving. They ended
up in Albuquerque, New Mexico at the Pueblo Indian Cultural Center.
Wallace and Hemo saw some *very* interesting designs in the pottery
and weaving, but had to return to Los Angeles because of time
constraints for their hosts. The only Indian people they talked to
were the ones at the Cultural Center. The only reservation
lands they got onto were the ones passed through by Interstate 40.
While this road trip was going on, the National Assembly of the
U.S. had been contacted by NZ's National, and told about Wallace.
Baha'u'llah turned up the heat a bit, and a telephone chase
began from hotel lobby to hotel lobby across three states.
Ultimately, a woman at a hotel checkout desk was asked if there
was a dark-skinned, dark-haired, medium build fellow, and a
young mother and her baby there. They were standing in front
of the desk, about to check out. They were asked to at least
make a brief stopover in Arizona.
On the return drive to Los Angeles, Johnny and her husband
detoured about 200 kilometers so Wallace and Hemo
could get hooked up with the Bahai's and their friends.
There was a gathering in Globe, Arizona with the Friends
from the area, a Navajo Indian NSA member, Chester Kahn, his wife
Brenda; and Nancy Cly, Phillip and Charlotte Titla. Nancy, Phillip
and Charlotte belong to the San Carlos (Geronimo's) Apache
Tribe. Nancy was a Baha'i; Phillip is a carver, and Charlotte
a notable Tribal leader.
Part of this group attended a few hours of a Sunrise Dance
(girl's coming of age/re-creation of the world) at San
Carlos, then met a 94 year old Apache woman tattooed
on her chin and arms in the traditional way. This
began what those attending can only describe as the *wows*
of cultural coincidence. Hemo and Wallace spoke a lot in
Maori about moko, and were excited.
Johnny and her husband had to return to LA. Wallace and Hemo
were kidnapped by the Baha'is, driven 200 kilometers back to
Interstate 40 and the Native American Baha'i Institute (NABI).
Barbara Tong, whose Hawaiian husband Gordon was a Medical
Doctor on the Navajo Reservation, had just gotten a large box
of Hawaiian food from Gordon's parents. The people at
NABI had a Pacific island feast because of another amazing
coincedance. The evening was finished by prayers and a talking
circle/honor ceremony in the prayer hogan that was finished by the
Maori with a haunting, beautiful koreru in their native tongue.
The following day, the entourage left for the Hopi Reservation.
It is surrounded by the Navajo Reservation. Brenda Kahn took
us up on First (Polacca) Mesa where Wallace offered the two Hopi
carvers he met a trip to New Zealand, as in "Ow 'bout a trip
to New Zealand mate??" One young kid said, 'No way, my home
is on this mesa and I'll never leave.' the other one said sure.
He and Wallace swapped addresses.
The group went down the mesa to Elizabeth Dahe's (Daw-Hee).
Elizabeth is the only Hopi Baha'i so far. As the eight or so
people settled into Elizabeth's for Hopi hospitality (good
talk and hot fry-bread), Wallace started asking
Elizabeth's son Frank about traditional things. He drew one
of the symbols he saw in the Albuquerque museum on a yellow
legal pad. "What's this mean mate?" Frank replied, "That's
the symbol for a river." Wallace drew another. Frank said,
"That's wind on water." Wallace said, "Those are the same
for us." They went on drawing and talking. Lake symbol,
ocean symbol, ocean with wind.... Frank went on to say that
the Hopi have quite an ocean oral history but it's almost
forgotten. They swapped and compared creation stories
until their fry-bread and coffee got cold and were so
interested and excited in the matches they probably forgot
where they were.
And so my Baha'i sister, that is how the Hopis came to
celebrate a great anniversary with the Maori about 1989.
>From that trip, when the Baha'is kidnapped Wallace
Hetaraka and Hemo Henare, the Maori and Hopi were united,
compared cultures, and within two years, some Hopis went
south.
You probably also know that Wallace took a Taiaha converted
to a Ko to Haifa, presenting it to the Universal House of
Justice, fulfilling for the Maori that good old Anglican
prophecy, "He shall judge among the nations, And shall
rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into
plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks...."
(The American Baha'i, May 1988).
My Baha'i love, greetings, and prayers to the people of
New Zealand.
--
Chris English ...a fine suit ill-made, and slatternly
P.O. Box 10 or stiffly worn, farm from adorning, only
Phoenix, AZ 85001 exposes the awkwardness of the wearer.
602.379.4511 - Chesterfield [1694-1714]
From burlb@bmi.netSun Mar 31 15:23:19 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 23:50 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Prudent Silence (long post)
Dear Friends:
Life is difficult anymore. It used to be we could keep a lid on growth and
scrutiny by doing nothing and saying less, but I have been reading the
American Baha'i newspaper and it is pretty obvious that some people in this
country don't know the value of prudent silence --they just haul off and
tell people about Baha'u'llah, or worse, put our precious unific principles
right out there for people to discuss, borrow and use as if they were their
own. Not smart. If everyone starts integrating the basic principles of
Baha'u'llah's world order into their lives, churches, clubs, and
organizations, then what will have that they don't? I don't like the
looks of this situation and I believe the Blessed Perfection backs me up --
so pardon me while I proof text. He says that had it been up to Him he
would never have said a word about His Revelation -- but he had *no choice*
because God spoke right through Him. HOWEVER:* God gave us the choice he
never gave Baha'u'llah* -- we can choose to keep our mouths shut, and just
as He would have preferred to commune with His own Sprit, we can choose to
communicate only with each other. Believe me, I think this is a proven and
effective pathway. The Guardian urged us all to invite people to our homes
at least once every 19 days for the purpose of showing them hospitality and
teaching them about Baha'u'llah. But most of us figured out long ago that it
is more prudent not to do that. Why burden our associates with the
responsibility the Cause of God when it takes all of their energy just to go
to work and and come home? Don't they have enough to worry about without
laying *this* on them? Plus, if we screw up they will reject Baha'u'llah
and He's had enough problems already.
And they we have other issues to consider: Why make ourselves look silly by
identifieing with a minority religion, especially one with Islamic sub-texts?
You show me a country with Zero Baha'i Growth and I'll show you a country
with a strong middle class, functional economy, and an excellent selection
at the video store. You show me some third world regime of tin-pot dictators
and simple hearted peasants and you'll find all sorts of enrollements -- the
correlation is clear, friends, so let's be honest -- do we want America to
be just like one of those unstable third world countries? Of course not. We
know what we are doing and we know what we are not doing and we know why.
None of this would surprise Shoghi Effendi because he knew who we were and
what we were about: "the fears and anxieties that distract their minds, the
pleasure and dissipations that fill their time, the prejudices and
animosities that darken their outlook, the apathy and lethargy that paralyse
their spiritual faculties." Then he goes on to talk about cleansing
ourselves of our "impurities", but as I am one of the most impure I can
assure you that this cleansing business is more than "Calgon Bouquet, take
me away".
Ya see, I finally figured this out:I don't want divine assistance because
the Divine is only going to assist what the Divine likes and wants, and
that's not the same as my likes and wants. If you're like me, you know that
if we teach, we will get that Divine Assistance (which we don't want), so we
don't teach and we don't get it -- which is what we want. So, we get what we
want without divine assistance. The lack of assistance perpetuates the
condition of not wanting it. Instead of having Divine Directed Crises and
Victory, we can have self-generated crises which we can own as our own inner
turmoil. And we can, heart to heart, and individual to individual, thrash
it all out with like minded souls fighting the same spiritual battles -- the
battles against the process of Spiritual Transformation which I find so
disconcerting, inconvenient, and time consuming.
But its ok. If we wait long enough we will all die. Abdul Baha isn't going
to beat us up in the next world, after all he is so forgiving. The Guardian
will be too busy with whatever Next World Crusades are in progress to look
back in anger at our self-inflicted failures on Earth, and Baha'u'llah is
just too much Baha'u'llah for us to even think about what he is going to say
for do and besides not understanding the language or historical context, it
may not mean much to us anyway. We can always remind him that he is the
Manifestation of the All-Mercifull and hope He has a sense of humor.
As for me. Well, I'm a lost cause and that may be my saving grace if I am
allowed to have one. I recall Ruth Moffet and Madame Rabbani in the elevator
at the St. Louis conference. A women got on the elevator and didn't know HOC
Rabbani, but was thrilled to meet Ruth Moffet. The woman effused praise in
all directions, but dear Ruth said, as Madame Rabbani beamed on in delight,
"Oh, no, dear...I'm just an old doorknob."
I loved that: "just an old doorknob" Old doorknobs have been jerked
around, twisted, pull on, put upon, used, abused, and get pretty worn.
But...if you're used to get one person through the door it is as if you
lifted the gates for all mankind.
Burl
*************************************
MAN OVERBOARD by Burl Barer is still only $19.95 and may be ordered from any
bookstore. ISBN#: 1-56901-815-4 Buy Yours Today!
********************
From sscholl@jeffnet.orgSun Mar 31 15:27:29 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 23:58:59 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: I am He, there is no He. . . but. . . ME!
Dear Friends,
Well, I thank Bill Garlington for trying to get us to elevate our language
to that of Geraldo. I must confess when I first read Jim H's reference to
myself and others as "flea pickin', butt scratchin yahoos" I focused on the
"ya-hoo" appelation and was rather embarassed to think that Jim was
referring to my station of "He-ness". You see I thought my little
messianic secret was, uh, secret!
But let me pull up my hip boots and wade once more into our collective
stream of consciousness and respond briefly to Jim's thoughts.
1. Jim, I don't think I was implying that a handful of anti-war Baha'i
converts in the 60s and 70s moved the House of Justice. What I recall
taking place was a worldwide movement on the part of Baha'is from my
generation to raise the issues surrounding social activism and
non-involvement in politics to a new awareness within the community. This
did not take place in one place with one group or via a network of
consipirators being guided from a beach side home in Hermosa Beach,
California. What I recall was that many, many Baha'is in that period became
trained in their careers to be of greater service to the world. They began
to put their Baha'i ideals into practice personally. Yet there was also a
growing sense that we had to do things collectively as Baha'is. As you
noted, Jim, this was not particularly radical in terms of what the sacred
writings and letters of the Guardian called us to. In fact, and I thought I
stated this, what was being done at the time was the development of a new
ethic and a new scripturally-based platform for moving the community toward
social activism. And this was a very, very hot and contentious issue. (To
give you a personal example, I was banned from speaking within the city
limits of one US city because I dared to quote Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi
Effendi's writings calling on LSAs to be actively involved with service to
the world and to the poor and oppressed regardless of race, religion, or
creed. Citing such quotes was considered to be fomenting discord among the
Baha'is.) This was a generational movement within the community that went
beyong any one country. It was not led by anyone and it was not a scholarly
movement. It was a grassroots movement.
And I think that this movement did sway the House. I think that the House
did not move faster in guiding the Baha'is in this direction was because
they could see that the talent and skills were not present in the Baha'i
community. Suddenly (over the course of a decade plus) there existed a
dedicated group of Baha'is with skills in medicine, community organization,
radio broadcasting, agriculture, etc. and they were making it clear that
they wanted to see the community more involved with the world.
Such was my point. And I think that that shift was a monumental one; one
which we are very gradually evolving into as a community. I don't see this
as an arrogant assessment and, again, it was not a personal victory for any
one. It was merely evolving maturity and changed circumstances partly the
result of an influx of certain types of younger Baha'is between 1968-1974.
And my further point was that this was a very hot and contentious
discussion, similar to ones we have on Talisman. And thus I am
uncomfortable with anyone trying to stop such discussions because they
personally find them barren, which is a position I find arrogant in the
extreme.
The other on-going issue for Jim and some others seems to be that we should
get off our keyboards and really do something REAL, and if we just read
this or that Shoghi Effendi letter and all got on the same page we could
change the world, etc. But we will all have different issues and it seems
to me the goal is to let a thousand flowers bloom and have diversity in
action. Some Baha'is feel that race issues are the most important thing to
get behind and should be the focus of the community, some feel that THE
ISSUE is our devotional life, others social and economic development, some
mass teaching, yet others pioneering, and all can pull out their quote to
support their most important issue. In my community the two big issues are
combining of devotional life development and social activisim. But I do not
expect it to be the way, the truth and the life for every one or every
community. We must all do the best we can with what talents and gifts
creation has bestowed on us. I thought this was what the House was saying
when they noted that not every one can or should be doing the same thing.
And so in closing, I would say that though I respect Jim, Kevin, and
company who are frustrated by discussions they feel are fruitless and about
things that "we can't do a thing about," I disagree wholeheartedly. I
disagree because I believe in the power of reason and faith working through
language and the process of consultation to open up new visions. Having
have self-appointed thought police designating off limit subjects because
they are not relevant to the current agenda is a misguided attempt to
control the independent investigation of truth. I am sure many like-minded
Baha'is in the days of Corinne True kept telling her to shut up because
there was nothing more to be done. The text was firm, change could not
come, stop beating the dead horse, please, we need to discuss something I
think is really, really important because it says so right here. Thank God
for devoted and stubborn women such as Corinne True who just would not stop
pestering the Master with their pesky questions.
With love to all,
Steve Yahoo
PS: Jim also asks if I don't think the House knows the socio-psch makeup of
America. I am not sure. I am sure they have some clues but I don't think
they are particularly expert on the topic. There is little American
presence on the House these days and I don't see that the US is their top
priority. The House is in many ways isolated from currents of thought and
trends here in America, both within the Baha'i community and within the
culture at large. The letter on individual rights and freedoms did not
demonstrate an unerring knowledge of the United States political history or
of the philosophical roots of the western democratic liberal tradition.
Peter Khan's talk on mental tests also was not what I would call an
irrefutable discussion of current trends in American political cultural.
But I also do not see that as being part of their job. At least I did not
see any mention of it in the job description.
From Geocitizen@aol.comSun Mar 31 15:27:46 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 03:03:07 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re(4): fruitless contention (brief)
Dear Richard,
Thank you for clarifying your responses and your intentions. I now
understand better what you have been trying to accomplish on this thread, and
get the impression you also have a closer understanding of my goals in saying
what I have said. In a sense we are both trying to do the same thing -- to
reduce the amount of fruitless contention without condemning or silencing
anyone. I am glad we have reached a point where we realize our goals are
more harmonious than we had realized.
Perhaps there is hope for Talisman after all (not that I ever had any doubt
;).
Regards,
Kevin
From Geocitizen@aol.comSun Mar 31 15:29:56 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 03:39:51 -0500
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: contentious topics (was Re: I am He...)
Dear Steven,
Most of what you said regarding Baha'i social activism and service to
humanity as a whole I found admirable, and I agree with your stating that a
diversity of issues and approaches will best serve the progress of the Cause.
Indeed, I think the Universal House of Justice stated much the same thing.
Also, I appreciate your clarification of what you mean in your belief that a
movement toward social activism among the Baha'is "influenced" or "swayed"
the House, for it now seems, if I read you correctly, that you mean the House
adjusted to this fact as it would adjust to any other changed circumstance in
the world or within the Baha'i community. There is certainly nothing
heretical or arrogant in such a view.
However, there is one assertion you made that I think needs to be corrected.
You wrote:
>Having have self-appointed thought police designating off limit subjects
>because they are not relevant to the current agenda is a misguided
>attempt to control the independent investigation of truth.
Sigh. I have lost count of how many times I have had to repeat myself on
this subject, but here goes another.
In no way am I calling for silence, designating an off limit subject,
attempting to control the independent investigation of truth, or any such
thing. Perhaps you did not read the exchange between myself and Richard
Logan, where what I really have said and really do think has been reiterated
several times.
In brief, my statements regarding topics such as women and UHJ membership has
been nothing more than the observation that such topics have demonstrated, in
Talisman's past, a tendency to break down into fruitless contention. I have
never claimed that *all* discussions of such topics break down, nor have I
suggested that they ought to be designated "off limits" subjects. My
conclusions from the above-mentioned observation are limited to the
following:
1. We may, on an individual basis, wish to freely choose to focus more time
and energy on topics that can generate a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and
2. If and when such contentious topics are discussed, we might wish to
exercise greater caution to ensure that they do not break down into fruitless
contention.
Do these conclusions really justify describing me as "self-appointed thought
police"?? They seem quite mild to me, but perhaps I'm a direct matrilineal
descendant of Genghis Khan without realizing it, or something.
Regards,
Kevin
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comSun Mar 31 15:30:44 1996
Date: 31 Mar 1996 06:11:43 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: Alethinos@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Contention a la fruit
> People are not dying at the gates just waiting for the Baha'is to at last
> resolve this one big ISSUE so that they can all rush out and sign those
> really nifty declaration cards (where did that one ever develop?!)
Jim -
A statement well worth repeating.
It also appears to me that much of the problem is what I believe the House
has referred to as idealistic materialism, a philosophy or paradigm that I
believe has seriously infected the Faith, at least in America, at attitude
that our problems will be resolved if we find solutions to certain social
problems. I believe that this presents one of the most serious threats to
the FAith in the West today because it denies a fundamental teaching of all
religions that spiritual achievement, nearness to God, is the most vital
condition for the furtherance of society. From this perspective, to me, it
means not that these discussions are wrong, but that they are so unimportant
they are inappropriate.
All this discussion reminds me of 'A Canticle for Liebowitz' and, on a more
scholarly level, 'Beyond Virtue' by Macintyre. We have the words and
teachings but have no idea what they mean.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From Alethinos@aol.comSun Mar 31 15:35:51 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:48:57 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: I am He, there is no He. . . but. . . ME!
WELL! I am shocked, SHOCKED! do you hear me!! You obviously don't qualify for
a status of Yahoo-ist at all! Why you sounded downright logical and
clear-sighted there in that last post!! You can't do THAT kind of thing and
expect people to think you a long-haired cyrstal-grabbin' tarot-chartin'
putz! What to do . . . what to do?
Well perhaps we can find more common ground. I too am a firm believer in what
reason and language that moves and guides can do. And while it is about us
having a unity of Vision and Thought that cannot realistically mean we all
see identically, or that we all do the same thing. An army has many many
soliders with many tasks. But they all know where the front line is. They all
know what it will take to win the war. There are fronts worth fighting on and
others that simply are not as crucial at the moment, for whatever reason.
This is all I am it would seem Kevin Haines are saying.
Talisman is a mighty tool if its goal is to move the hearts and minds of
first the Baha'i community and then the world. Who say we can't?? I keep
hearing folk pronouncing what can and cannot be done *on the Internet*. Well
I am not writing *to* the Internet. I am writing to another soul at the end
of the cable line. And while it is less spiritually effective than being eye
to eye, it can have a powerful affect still.
All of these issues that we have so intensly discussed and discoursed over
the last year are important. But not necessarily so for the reasons we think,
and esp. not necessarily so via the framework we choose to put them in.
Women on the House is really another element of equal rights for women. But
that field of endeavor is far too important and far too deep to be summed up
by a number of women someday sittting as members in Haifa. We have at the
moment recieved the ANSWER, and we might as well go on. There is a lot more
to be done in this field alone. And the needs of millions of women around the
world, right now as we speak, does not hinge on this *issue* being answered.
The women in Bosnia, or in Ethiopia, or Indonesia really, at this instant,
could probably care less whether a woman will someday be a House member. The
young girl who is being harassed by older teen boys in South Central to "give
it up sista!" really can't find it in her heart or stomach to care about this
right now.
We have got to stop, as Baha'is, from having our lil' storms in a tea cup and
feeling as if we are really achieving something. The battle dear friends is
out there, in the world, not here, within the Faith. We can dress it up all
we want to fit the flitting passions and philosophies of a desperate age, but
it will not attract the shoppers, you know. Baha'u'llah has given us the
biggest attraction, the key to the human heart. We just need to use it.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From Member1700@aol.comSun Mar 31 15:37:07 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:24:11 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Dear Denise:
Thank you for your interest in my post. I am afraid that this is sort of
an abbreviated version of things I have said before on Talisman. Those
earlier discussions are archived and available, and if you want several hours
of reading material, they can be ordered from Eric Pierce. The 1902 Tablet
of 'Abdu'l-Baha is discussed in the paper entitled "The Service of Women on
the Institutions of the Faith" which is now old, but still lays out the basic
argument.
As to Corinne True agitating for this or that, I am not sure of what your
objection is here. How do you imagine Mrs. True's style? Certainly she had
enormous stature within the community, being an extremely wealthy and active
Baha'i. But, shall we say, everyone acknowledged that she was rather
difficult to work with. She certainly did agitate within the community,
though women's networks, for a number of things--and she wasn't subtle about
it either. (I might refer you to Jackson's book, volume four of the STUDIES
series, where he discusses at length her efforts to have the Bahai Temple
Unity elected.) The Chicago House of Spirituality considered her their
nemisis for years.
As American Baha'is we are quite cut off from the realities of the early
history of the Baha'i Faith in America, often imagining all the early Baha'is
as saints and the early Baha'i community as a serene collection of harmonious
workers, all united in their vision. Ha! Nothing could be further from
reality. The early believers were quite human indeed, and the early
community was fraught with factionalism and personal intrigues. They were
just as flawed as we are, and still they were able to build the World Order
of Baha'u'llah. Still 'Abdu'l-Baha would praise their saintliness and
dedication. Still we look back upon them as saints. There is a lesson to be
learned there.
Warmest,
Tony
From jwalbrid@indiana.eduMon Apr 1 01:07:09 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 17:39:26 -0500 (EST)
From: jwalbrid
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Guidance from the List Owner
I have observed in the last few days--at least when my malfunctioning
modem would allow me to do so--that the discussion has moved from
discussing a topic to discussing that discussion to discussion whether
discussing the discussion is useful. In my humble (but locally
authoritative) opinion, such recursiveness is excessive and unlikely to
be especially valuable. If you think a thread is not useful, then you
ought not to add to it. In the meantime, if some new topics could be
introduced, I would be grateful.
Your usually patient listowner,
John Walbridge
From 73043.1540@compuserve.comMon Apr 1 10:31:11 1996
Date: 01 Apr 96 08:37:53 EST
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: Bryan Graham
Cc: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Re: The UHJ, Men, & Secret Socieities (fwd)
Dear Bryan,
I was encouraged by your statements in a recent post. You wrote,
"Finally, I share you horror at the state of the world we live in. I also
share your frustration with the response of the Baha'i community to these
problems. Teaching and more generally becoming active and productive
members of our wider (not just Baha'i) communities seems in complete
accordance with our Teachings."
The whole point of debating things on Talisman is to learn how to become
better doctors to the sick patient of humanity. The point of teaching is to
create more doctors. Doctors are people who bring a scientific and disciplined
_understanding_ to a situation. They are not dogmatists. They continually
learn from experience and ask questions, always in the light of trying to
improve their effectiveness.
If the doctors themselves become sick, however, how will they be able to
cure the patient? If the sickness the patient suffers from is a lack of
applying scientific investigation and reasoning to a problem, and if the doctor
suffers from the same problem in the same degree, it is clear that the doctor
may not be able to even see the problem, much less cure it.
No faith can be a faith which leads to all truth if it does not
incorporate the spirit of science into its operative principles.
At the level of divine principle, the Baha'i faith talks about the
"harmony" of science and religion in the Real World, so to speak, which our
human subjectivities are striving to learn about. However, how does it
incorporate this principle into its functional operations? In the framework of
Baha'i institutions given to us ab initio, we have, not a Universal house of
Science, but a Universal House of Justice. Justice here, in my opinion, is
larger than just legal justice. It is, or includes, the use of intelligence to
balance and steer a process from beginning to completion in the light of rights
and responsibilities and the need to prioritize scarce resources.
Now, science is making rapid advances all over the world. It is a
decentralized flow of information and new ideas into the human system. Thus the
only Baha'i institution which ensures that this information gets absorbed and
used in the appropriate times and places is the semi-informal institution, or
rule, of general and complete consultation on the issues at hand. It is then up
to official groups, including the Universal House of Justice, to make decisions
based on the best facts and the best logic available to them, in light of the
Teachings, and these decisions are revisable and in the spirit of truth and
progress _must_ be revised as facts change and as new light is cast into the
application of principles. In this way the Faith becomes guided not only by the
spirit of Baha'u'llah in some possible personal sense but by that same spirit
embodied in a set of light-generating principles that He has taught us to put
into place as Baha'is so that the nescience of this world will become "light
upon light". This holds true of every Baha'i institution.
Discussions such as those in Talisman are thus part of the process of
general and complete consultation. Obviously there is room for improvement in
terms of their constructive quality. But first we have to get all the ideas out
on the table. Then we can look at them from various perspectives. Then we can
analyze, synthesize, and make judgments, draw up consenses, make
recommendations, etc.
Talisman also serves as a forum for discussing "difficult questions" and
cutting edge types of phenomena. It is a wonderful, divine addition to the tool
kit of the Baha'i community.
Sincerely,
John Dale
}
}
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
Last Updated 12-22-96
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu