Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 11/95 (6)
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduThu Nov 16 17:37:14 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:37:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: mfoster@tyrell.net
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Covenant-breaker? (fwd)
Hi Mark, thank you for forwarding Judy's letter on the Baha'i Discuss. I
see several things contradicting in her letter and i think she
misrepresents the Faith by her interpretation of things the same way she
accuses the Baha'is of doing. Do you think it would be appropriate for a
few deepened Baha'is on the Baha'i Discuss to consult and formulate a
response to send to her on the listserve that she wrote the message on?
One thing she said that i had a problem with among other things is that
she says something like, I have a problem adhering to a religion that
does not accept a homosexual expression of love. Well, Christianity does
not either!! Now, if Christian churches choose to 'interprete' the
doctrine in a certain way, fine but by whose authority?
Anyway, i would be interested in hearing what others thought of this
letter and how it should be addressed if at all.
Regards,
Cheshmak Farhoumand
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 16 17:51:16 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:52:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: G-Ethic List (fwd)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians -
FYI, the same person who forwarded me the note I posted yesterday
has sent me a new message dealing with the Baha'i Faith (see below) -
though written by someone else (not Judy this time). He asked me if I
would be willing to subscribe to the G-Ethic list and respond to some of
her arguments. (BTW, it was on *G-Ethic* not on Baha'i Discuss.) Would
anyone be interested in joining to this list in order to dialogue with
her and others? I am not on the list, personally. I *may* subscribe, but
I am already on about 15 or so other lists - including the one which I
co-moderate (Baha'i Announce) - and with my online work on CompuServe
and America Online, I am already spread a bit thin.
To subscribe, send a message to:
listserv@vm.temple.edu
The subscription command is:
subscribe G-Ethic Your Name
TTFN,
Mark
E >Dear G-ethic Members:
E >
E >I was one of the people who thanked Judy privately for her caveat
E >concerning the Baha'i claim to representing Truth with a capital
E >T and the Baha'i tendency to gently hijack and "Babize"
E >messengers and messages of other religions. I had begun a
E >response to Roxanne's and Dr. Coleman's notes but decided that
E >Judy had argued the point far more effectively than I could have.
E >In addition, mine is an outsider's perspective, though I have
E >investigated the Baha'i religion and its Shi'ite roots.
E >
E >I have studied the _Kitab-i-Iqan_ (Book of Certitude--a volume of
E >Baha'i scripture) and find it filled with a dangerous mixture of
E >notions--dangerous precisely because there is much that I applaud
E >(attitudes and teachings that could make ours a more loving and
E >peaceful word community) but at the cost of critical reason and
E >freedom of conscience. The sound parts might seduce readers into
E >accepting an ideology that is every bit as judgmental, exclusive,
E >and absolutist as the most fundamentalist and rigid branches of
E >the other religions of Abraham--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
E >As a Christian, I consider the doctrine of papal infallibility or
E >the idea of censorship offensive in Catholic Christianity; I find
E >scriptural literalism unacceptable in Protestant Christianity; I
E >have grave reservations concerning a narrow interpretation of
E >revelation; I believe that the insistence on One True Faith is
E >the greatest of all obstacles to world peace. Why should I then
E >applaud the emergence of yet one more exclusive creed whose
E >adherents want to convert the world to a single religion founded
E >by yet another ultimate savior/prophet?
E >
E >Instead, I want to celebrate the countless paths toward the
E >Divine and take delight in the ever-changing, expanding, open-
E >ended, multi-faceted human religious response to the Spirit of
E >Love and Surprise at the Cosmic Core. I want to respond to and
E >embrace the Second Axial Shift and help co-create the Noosphere
E >precisely by celebrating the wisdom ensconced in the diversity of
E >religions. The patronizing insistence that "all religion has
E >truth but only Baha'i has the final truth" is no more attractive
E >among Baha'i's than it is (to me) in my own Catholic tradition.
E >Baha'i clearly expects to become THE ONLY world religion. Give me
E >Ramakrishna instead who taught that many paths lead to God and
E >that each of us should and make our own journey in our own way.
E >The ends do not justify the means: the time has come for us to
E >transcend the old, absolutist mode of thinking and being; the
E >time has come for us to take the leap of faith into an open-ended
E >universe organized according to the principle of primal love
E >which reconciles opposites without levelling multiplicity into
E >sameness. This is what following Yeshua, Love Incarnate, at the
E >cusp of the 21st century of the Common Era means to me!
E >
E >Pax et Bonum, Ingrid (facshaferi@mercur.usao.edu)
From pmb@nur.win-uk.netThu Nov 16 17:52:20 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:42:35
From: Paul M Booth
To: 100745.3470@compuserve.com
Cc: bahai-discuss@bcca.org, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Transmutation Base Metal Into Gold
>Thanks! It occurs to me that if copper is going to be changed into gold, gold
>won't be worth much - in which case why is gold the standard for calculating
>Huquq???
Hi Andrew
Yes this also occurred to me. To get some more input, I am copying
this to Bahai-discuss & Talisman. I have no answers but a couple of
conjectures:-
Just because it can be done, it won't necessarily mean it can be
done cheaply. For years now (20 at least, so I believe) they have
been able to extract gold from seawater but the process is so
horrifically expensive it is not worth it.
Following the piece I copied to you, in which I argued that this
prophesy would have both a literal and figurative fulfillment, the
following was posted on "Discuss":-
>From: maeissin@capnet.ucla.edu
Actually, according to several people I've talked to, they've been
converting copper to gold at UC Santa Cruz and elsewhere for quite
sometime. It's only a few molecules at a time, but it can be done.
Let's not make excuses for the Manifestation. If He says that we'll
transmute one substance to another, then it will be possible. If we
think it's impossible, it's our limitation, not the Manifestations'.
> Michael Eissinger
It would be interesting indeed if this could be further
substantiated. Perhaps someone on "Discuss"/Talisman would know how
to go about this.
Assuming it is true, again, it is so expensive a process as to make
no difference whatsoever as to the price of gold. Anyway, is it not
the case that many commodities are kept scarce in order to maintain
value. If all the gold and diamonds that the mine-owners have were
suddenly to be released on the market, the price would plummet. At
least, come the "(r)evolution" we will know that in a Baha'i world
any such manipulation would be for the good of the world at large
and not just for the mine-owners.
Following our enquiry on Talisman, I received the following very
prompt response (for which thanks):-
>> Andrew & I also have another query namely where does it say that the
>> transmutation of base metal into gold is one of the signs of Man's
>> coming of age (or something to that effect)>
>
>This is from the notes in the Aqdas, but it involves the development
>of that Divine Philosophy part of which involves a *radical* method
>for the transmutation of elements. (Which I personally don't believe
>has occurred yet, but obviously read the section carefully).
>
Thanks for this D - As it was sent privately, for the sake of
netiquette I won't give name but he was from a Dept of Physics at a
University - (aren't we lucky to have a physicist on the case). Can
I be a pain and trouble you to be more specific with your
reference, I have just leafed through the "notes" but couldn't find
it (could well be my myopia).
>Big A (wishful thinking!)
Greetings, Big P (err 'praps not!!) Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Greetings
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' From Paul & the Cats
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Paul = pmb@nur.win-uk.net
(il).-'' (li).' ((!.-' Cats = Felines@nur.win-uk.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduThu Nov 16 17:52:44 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:59:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: pulp fiction
Dear Dave and All,
Just back from a Talisman hiatus and caught Dave's message.
I don't think it was a "miracle" but the more important
question is what was in the briefcase? Everyone saw the
glow but what the hec was it? (I am sure Burl has a theory.)
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times (or Tribune) thought
that Tarantino got it from an old movie the name of which
I have forgotten.
Anyway the movie was, to say the least, original - the
only thing I had a problem with was the tone ;-) An equally
good new movie, I think, is "The Usual Suspects".
take care,
sAmAn
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduThu Nov 16 17:53:01 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:26:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: G-Ethic List (fwd)
Hi Mark. Boy am i getting frustrated with these people. Where in the
Writings does it say that the Faith is THE TRUTH? i have never come
across this at all. In fact, in Gleanings Baha'u'llah talks about
consorting with the people of all religions in a spirit of harmony and
encourages that people of all Faiths open up dialogue. These individuals
are completely misrepresenting the Faith. Albeit that there are Baha'is
who assert that the Writings say the Faith is the TRUTH and that one day
all people will be Baha'is and then we will have a great world. But,
excuse me that is their interpretation and not the word of God.
I would like to subscribe but i already spend too much time on e-mail and
it is getting in the way of my studies but i will probably subscribe if i
know there will be other Baha'is who join who are more deepened and
knowledgeable that i who will be there to help out in the clarification
of these misinterpretations. If there are any other Baha'is who are
subscribing, will they please let me know.
Regards,
Cheshmak Farhoumand
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 16 17:55:16 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:44:24 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Cheshmak A Farhoumand , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: G-Ethic List (fwd)
Dear Cheshmak,
Re:
\\ Where in the
>Writings does it say that the Faith is THE TRUTH? i have never come
>across this at all.
Expressed THAT way, the Faith could never be the truth, or the standard of
truth, or whatever. The truth is not extreme. (& I am not soliciting a
"middle path" statement from our Buddhist friend Bruce Burrell, either!
The Faith has its own one of those!)
...drawing back from the tip of the limb,
Robert.
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caThu Nov 16 18:27:17 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 18:07:37 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, brburl@mailbag.com
Subject: Re: Buddha-Nature *Self*
Stephen Frieberg writes:
_______________________
The Nirvana Sutra says that \{the Buddha\} has already
foretold your destination, namely, that all the Beings are from the
beginning in Nirvana: from the beginning are they endowed with the
gift of immaculate wisdom.
_______________________
RESPONSE:
Around five years ago, I wrote a paper on the Buddha-Nature
*Self* for a Pure Land Buddhist priest turned academic. The text I
used was the *Nirvana Sutra*.
I consulted the extant Sanskrit fragments of the original
version, an English translation of the Chinese rescension, and a
couple of studies on the Tibetan version.
Synoptically, it was quite clear to me that the Buddha Nature
*Self* was as *positive* a teaching as one could possibly encounter in
Buddhism. I make no pretensions as to understanding its nature, but I
think it is profound when the Nirvana Sutra describes the Buddha
Nature Self as *Non-Empty* (= beyond Emptiness!).
Given the negative anthropology that surrounds descriptions of
the self as *Mystery* in Baha'i texts, I submit that some of the
apophatic notions of self in both Baha'i sources and in the Nirvana
Sutra exhibit certain common features--similar, though not equivalent.
After submitting a paper on some of the *positive* teachings
of Nagarjuna, to the surprise of some of my classmates, I received my
lowest mark of my Master's coursework (B+). I got the message: Don't
speak about any notion of *self* in Buddhism, and do not speak of
*positive* teachings, and dare not compare Buddhism with other traditions!
As I'm pressed for time, leaving for the American Academy of
Religion conference tomorrow (Linda, watch out for my pen-camera!), I
won't drag the paper out now. Suffice it to say that, in my
experience, dialogue is very testy with many Buddhists, because you
can never get past being *corrected* in order to get down to the
business of any real exchange of insights.
Bruce, I don't know you, but I respect your Buddhist training,
and would never presume to know more than you in this context. I simply
wish to point out that no dialogue is possible if the non-Buddhist
participants--who typically exert a far greater effort to understand
and accommodate Buddhist insights than the Buddhist participants do
(reciprocally, I mean)--are not given some kind of parity in the
dialogue and if their perspicuity is not also acknowledged.
BTW, have you read Eva Darguay's translation of the Tibetan
text that *proves* the existence of a Creator?
Respectfully,
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Nov 16 23:53:52 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:40:51 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Transmutation of Base Metal into Gold.
In respect of the transmutation of base metal into Gold . As I see that UCSC is
mentioned I had better explain as I am not doubt to blame for this , so you all can have
the precise facts as I have relayed them when ever this subject comes up . In 1988 I
had to make contact with a Professor at the Earth Sciences Building at UCSC in Santa
Cruz California . During the course of several visits I found out the type of projects
her department was working on . One of them involved taking the magma from the
Earth's inner core and subjecting this raw material to varying pressures .They were
drilling to some amazing depths in this programme . Depending on the pressure you
can get get a whole variety of things including copper and gold .I am sure the
scientists on Talisman can explain the reaction that is created to
cause the change
better than I , so I will stay with basic information . I ask the
obvious question can
you change the pressured material back into the orginal matter and
change it into
something else . The answer was yes we have been doing it for a few
years now . Like
copper into gold I asked , that resulted in a strange look and the
reply well you
wouldn't do it it costs too much. But can you do it I said . Yes you
can but it is too
expensive, was the response . Have you done it I asked , changed copper
into gold by
this method . Yes we have but it is too expensive to have commercial
value was the
reply.
As far as the extraction of Gold from seawater that does not fall into
the same situation
and was looked at as a future possibilty when the price of Gold went
very high in the
early eighties . There was speculation in the jewelery business that
gold would reach
$2000 per troy oz by 1990 , and alternative methods were being thought
of to obtain
gold .The collecting of gold from the tailraces , tailing pools and
mounds at working
, dormant and worked out gold and silver mines is an old business .
Collection of gold
from seawater is a possible modern extension for that business although
at present
does not make economic sense . The changing of elements which is one of
the signs of
the coming of age of Humanity belongs to a time in the future . I know
there was a
rather strange letter in the American Baha'i about two years ago
claiming this
happened in C1918 , the person was entitled to their view but I believe
any competent
scientist would disagree .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 16 23:54:18 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:35:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: G-Ethic List (fwd)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Cheshmak -
You wrote:
C >Hi Mark. Boy am i getting frustrated with these people. Where in the
C >Writings does it say that the Faith is THE TRUTH? i have never come
C >across this at all.
As Jesus was reported to have said to His disciples [my own attempt
at translation], "I have many things remaining to tell you, but you
cannot withstand then now. However, when He, the Spirit of Truth
[aletheia], has come, He will guide you to all truth [aletheia]."
Therefore, what I would say is that "Truth" or "Reality" is a
description of the Manifestations of Divinity, i.e., the Prophets of God
are, metaphorically, the Perfect Mirrors reflecting the Sun of Truth (or
God).
Then, by extention, all that God emanates/creates (including the
humanity of the Prophet), *through* the Manifestations of His Essence,
are the expressions of truth or reality. In fact, it seems to me that,
from a God's-eye perspective (revealed knowledge), illusion is merely
the want of truth, as, using the Master's analogy, darkness is the
absence of light. If, IMO, we can begin to see reality from the overall
viewpoint given by the Messenger of "all truth" (Baha'u'llah), the
futility of divisions will become apparent.
With loving regards to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 16 23:57:49 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 20:43:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Marian`s essay
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians -
It has been a while since I have posted anything from my late
friend, Marian Lippitt, Ph.D., the person who developed much of the
model I use for studying the Faith and for whom the Foundation for the
Science of Reality was founded. Enjoy!
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professionals and the Relationship to 5th Dimensional Realities
Marian C. Lippitt
Pyschologists, MDs and other professionals involved in human therapy - face a
big issue when they actually undertake to add the 5th Dimension to what they
know and earn their living at, because they deal exclusively in human
concepts (however inspired or enlightened). Their terminology is exclusive
to that of the human science in which they have been educated.
You see, until now the soul has been the "see-er" and what it has "seen" has
been accepted as reality. The human consciousness is aware of the "see-er",
and has accepted its ideas about the "the soul" or self (originally
designated as the EGO or "I") as the human reality. But it is NOT. What our
consciousness "sees" will always be only human concepts, all of which are
somewhat erroneous because of the limitations of our powers of perception:
Senses perceives only 3 dimensions of physical space
Rational Powers : perceives ony 4 dimensions that we know are fallible
because-
Reasoning - is only accurate when based on absolutely true assumptions.
Imagination- sees the unreal as readily as the real
Memory- is very limited in scope (tradition)
Inspiration- or intuition is often indistinguishable from imagination
Faith enables a person to believe in untruth as well as truth. It is only
dependable in the light of Divine Revelation, and what it sees then is
still only in terms of its own human concepts.
You see, this is what is perceptible in Time and Space and it may represent a
lot of enlightenment. The viewer - the scientist, pyschologist, doctor, etc.
- each pursuing his own purpose, finds his knowledge to be all he needs or
wants, though.
But once a soul moves up into 5th Dimensional consciousness, the whole scene
changes. There is no more evil or hell, because our Source is Glorious; and
so is what the Source manifests and creates, because it is all fulfilling
God's purpose. WE begin to FEEL the divine Purpose and Power, the Spirit
that animates us, the Will that over-rules the ego-will, the Word that
reveals and manifests REALITY, etc.
Children can be taught this and led very easily into that 5th dimensional
consciousness. But the human nature rebels against it. The scientist or
psychologist or MD, in his ego-consciousness, can't bear to see an error in
his own human concepts and rebels against that new dimension and viewpoint.
From dpeden@imul.comThu Nov 16 23:58:03 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 07:09:58+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Truth
Dear Mark and friends:
This is an interesting debate, whether the Baha'i Faith holds the absolute
truth or not, but a futile one, I feel. Of course it holds the truth...as
do the other revelations/religions/divinely inspired philosophies/etc. If
it comes from "God", it has truth. Baha'u'llah addresses this issue in, I
think, the Tablet of Wisdom. Please correct me on that if I am wrong. My
understanding of what he says is that what he offers is knowledge which not
only re-emphasises knowledge of past
messangers/prophets/manifestations/Buddhas or whatever handle you would like
to put on them, but expands upon it, corrects it where it has become
misconstrued, and adds a new dimension and depth to it. In that sense, it
is not NECESSARY to spend time studying all the teachings of the past,
because they are encompassed in His Revelation. However, it certainly does
not preclude that path if one wishes to use that approach. What mankind
decides to dress it as later with words and semantics usually leans towards
our own prejudices through our own interpretations.
The question is, if we are seeking to know truth from any perspective,
Baha'i, Buddhist, or the Great Cosmic Mushroom, we need to hone our
listening skills before we start refuting what we do not understand. That
goes for us on Talisman as well. Just before we join the fray, lets listen
carefully to the fear behind the words being said. I hear echoes of fear of
exclusivity and they also cause vibration in my own fears. Do I run to
allay her fears in order to quell my own trembling, or from compassionate
understanding of the fear and an true examination of the issue. Let's not
confuse issues with the fact that someone has echoed the fear and pointed it
at us from the top of a different mountain. Is it a challenge, or a
legitimate questioning? Please consider carefully how we respond, because I
suspect that we will have to do a lot of it in the near future as the Baha'i
Community becomes more visible globally.
I see from the members list of Ethics that Roger Prentice is a member of
this list. From what I know of Roger Prentice, he is a pretty capable
individual. If he sees something which he feels it necessary to respond to
in defence of the Faith, I suspect he will. Otherwise, I guess you guys
better sharpen your swords, mount your steeds, and ride off into the battle.
Nothing like a new windmill to tilt at.
In the meantime, if we (the Baha'i Community) are still harbouring and
communicating ideas of exclusivity (and we know we are), then we had better
get our own act together, wash the mud from our face and get on with putting
into practice what we preach. Then we won't have so many glass houses to
throw stones at.
As previously discussed on Talisman, there is a difference between the Cause
of God and the Community of God. If there is misunderstanding happening on
this other list, could mistaking the Community for the Cause be part of the
misunderstanding?
In questioning my own mind and motives, I have to ask myself what are we
doing to broaden the understanding what inclusivity might look like in our
own communities? What questions are we taking to the feast on a regular
basis which probe the minds and hearts of our community members to develop a
loving broad framework which invites participation from all spheres? I'm
sure there are many more applications of the knowledge and minds which are
so active and clear thinking on Talisman in your home communities than just
interesting debate on Talisman. It is something which, hopefully, is being
infused into your environment, including the Baha'i community.
And from the kitchen of Bev, please remember that Baha'is are the "yeast" in
the bread, and there a lot of other components necessary to actually make an
edible bread. For my part, yeast is pretty yukky on it's own.
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Nov 16 23:58:24 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:23:07 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 1 of 4 (Judy's paper on Babism) LONG!
1 of 4
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:17:21 -0600
Reply-To: The Global Ethic Project
Sender: The Global Ethic Project
From: "Ingrid H. Shafer"
Subject: Judy's Revised Babism Paper -- VERY LONG
This is Ingrid's decoding of Judy's Bah'ai paper. I couldn't
figure out what H9Crqalya (defined at one point as "the immediate
archetypal world of Sadra") is. It's possible that I missed a
few additional codes. This points out a real difficulty with
sending already existing text, especially text containing all
sorts of diacritical marks and/or international characters. Judy
did indeed convert her paper to ASCII. Unfortunately, in e-mail
multi-national characters and numerous symbols are not available.
The various embedded and invisible codes for unusual characters
and printer commands are simply converted to visible ASCII
characters which results in practically unintelligible text
unless one has access to a built-in decoder capable of stripping
some of those codes and using others for formatting. I also
fixed a few typos (the editor in me can't be put on hold).
Babism
by Judy Buck-Glenn
The precise point at which the movement which began in Islam as
Babism moved outside of Islam itself and became a new religion is
a vexed question which cannot readily be answered. Certainly the
formulations laid down by Baha'u'llah as he redefined Babism so
that it became Baha'ism marked the decisive and clear breaking
points. But the first fracture began before Baha'u'llah seized
the reins. I would argue that the key decisive break which took
the new movement outside of Islam, and from which there was no
turning back, occurred within Babism itself.
Babism was originally a movement that arose in 19th century Shi'i
Islam, out of Shaykhism, and it cannot be understood apart from
Shaykhism, which has itself deep roots in Shi'ite thinking. Thus
it is necessary to begin with the roots of Shaykhism as a
starting point, and then to trace, as best one can, the
successive evolutions of Babism as it passed to the edges, and
then outside, of Islam.
It is important to stress from the outset that there are serious
problems with the sources available. Although Baha'ism, in the
largest part the successor to Babism, is a modern religious
movement, dating from the middle of the last century, it has, to
a very great degree, written--and, apparently, rewritten, and
edited, and expurgated--its own history. Until very recently,
only a few non-Baha'is had made Babism and Baha'ism an object of
serious study. Thus much of the material available is frankly
partisan. Much of that which is not partisan is likely to be
hostile, and thus suspect in the opposite direction. However, the
writers of the hostile material at least serve to raise questions
and problems which may bear closer scrutiny. Certain scholarly
works are now being produced which attempt to approach the issues
as objectively as possible, but this raises problems when the
official Baha'i histories are seriously challenged by these
scholarly investigations. Since certain books are forbidden to
Baha'is, and great pressure is exerted to keep anything which
does not fit the official history from being published, many
Baha'is are unaware of most of these questions and problems.1
The problem of texts that tend to veer strongly to one side or
the other must be borne in mind in any discussion that follows.
And it is, of course, also important to remember the numbers of
untranslated and untranscribed Babi and Baha'i texts, as well as
those texts and documents which have been lost to history in
upheavals, persecutions, and other occasions of destruction.2
Shaykhism is a movement that arose in Imami, or Twelver, Shi'i
Islam beginning in the 18th century. Its roots are in Muslim
theosophical concepts which combine cosmology and ontology such
that the universe is hierarchically arranged, and the worlds, and
the realms between worlds, relate to the levels of being...(of)
matter, soul, and intellect. 3 To this basic theosophy was added
the schema of the 12th century mystic and martyr, Suhrawardi,
which mingled into Islam neo-Platonism flavoured with a soupcon
of ancient, pre-Islamic Iranian thinking.
In this schema, Suhrawardi placed the material world, which is
apprehended through the senses, at the bottom. The realm above
this material one of the gross senses is that of angels and the
human soul. This is an intermediary realm, a place of substances
of light. 4 This realm may be apprehended through the
imagination. And above this inter world is the world of Pure
Light Beings, which has neither materiality nor physicality and
can be known only through the intellect.5
To this schema, the philosopher Ibn cArabi later added the fourth
realm, that of divinity. It was also he who suggested that the
realm of the imagination is one in which that which the human
soul imagines is at least as real--or more so--than anything in
this material world. As he described it it seems to be a great
deal like Plato's world of forms, but having, perhaps, something
also in common with Jung's world of archetypes in the realm of
the collective unconscious. For Ibn cArabi, this world is entered
in dreams, visions, and meditation, and cannot be gained by
'rational abstractions and...empirical materializations.'.6 Thus
seekers who become awakened to this reality may ascend from this
plane to a higher state, closer to the realm of the divine--a
return to God. Spirit, imagination, and intellect are capable of
transcending the limitations and liabilities of human nature, and
end all alienation and doubt. 7 Further, this tramsmaterial world
was, for Ibn cArabi, the site of the resurrection. Since this
realm exactly reflected the material world, the body one
possessed in this realm was physical, since it was the exact,
ideal counterpart of the earthly one; but it was also spiritual,
because it was, of course, immaterial. 8 Not infrequently, Ibn
cArabi's thought has been condemned as monistic and pantheistic9,
and viewed as threat to the very fiber of Islam, but its
influence through the centuries has been incontrovertible.
Drawing on Ibn cArabi and Suhrawardi, among others, the great
Mulla Sadra Shirazi (died 1640/1050), taught that this
intermediate world of images is real, but not material . A kind
of resurrection occurs here, and the paradise and hell both to be
found there are real as well. But the spiritual body acquired
there is only an intermediate resurrection body. Beyond this
realm comes a greater resurrection, in the realm of the
intellect. Knowledge (cilm) is ultimately pure existence,
informed as it was by a fundamental premise of his philosophical
system, the identity of the intellect and the intelligible.
10(Emphasis mine) Texts--the Qur'an and the Hadiths--are
studied, not literally, as they are by the jurists and the
theologians, but interpreted through the use of hermeneutics, by
one with the insight acquired through science of the self. 11 And
what Sadra means by intellect is a mystical knowing of origin,
destination, and salvation--not just the simple, physical
resurrection and juridical knowing of orthodoxy.12 According to
Sadra, once the material body has been shed, it is never taken up
again. The movement in resurrection is unidirectional. And this
is according to the Qur'an, he says, in which it is said we
become ... A new creation, a new level of existence. 13
All of these ideas influenced Shaykhism's founder, Shaykh Ahmad
al-Ahas'i (1753-1826), although he was not especially fond of
being identified with Sadra.14 As a boy and young man growing up
in the Eastern Arabian province of al-Hasa, he claimed to have
had a series of dreams and visions in which some of the Shi'i
Imams, as well as the Prophet Muhammad, appeared to him and
instructed him. In 1790 he went to Iraq and studied there at a
time in which the question of religious authority dominated
Twelver debate. The Usuliyah held that the Shi'ah must follow a
living mujtahid on matters of faith and practice, while their
opponents, the Akhbariyah, argued that only the hidden 12th Imam
is infallible, sinless, and worthy to be followed. Thus the
Qur'an and the traditions are sufficient to guide Shi'ite
practice.15
According to the article in The Encyclopedia of Religion, because
of his mystical experiences, Shaykh Ahmad agreed with neither
school, but studied under teachers of both parties. However, in
The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam, Siad Amir Arjomand claims
that Shaykh Ahmad was, in fact, the champion of Akhbari
traditionalism and of 'irfan (gnostic Shi'ism).16 Since this was
a time of tremendous pressure on the Akhbaris, and because the
Shaykhi movement, made free use of dissimulation (taqiyya),17
Arjomand's conclusion does not seem outrageous. Since the victory
of the Usulis put great pressure on the Shaykhis, it is certainly
hard to conceive of Shaykh Ahmad taking a pristinely neutral
position between the schools, and indeed, the evidence of his
later life is one of opposition to the Shi'ite hierarchy.
However, the traditionalist, popular devotional wing of the
Akhbaris themselves had been concerned with stamping out gnostic
philosophy, and succeeded so well that it was rather easy for
orthodox Shi'ism to engulf what remained of the group. Thus a
movement like Shaykh Ahmad's, which revived the high Sufism and
elitist philosophy of the marginalized wing of the Akhbari
movement, put him at odds with these traditionalists as well, and
it is most likely that he walked tightropes in both camp.18
Ahsa'i seems to have been a man of impressive intellectual and
personal gifts. He quickly developed a reputation as a pious
scholar and drew a large following. In 1806 he went to Iran where
his following increased to include both wealthy merchants and
even members of royalty. However, as Said Amir Arjomand notes,
the great problem with gnostic Shi'ism, and that which had been
its early undoing, also dogged his movement, once his charismatic
presence was lost: such movements have great impact on the
literate and skilled artisans, and other such people, but cannot
compete with the qalandar mystagogues and thaumaturgists in
enlisting the masses.19 Thus such movements tend in the end to
become marginalized, and, eventually, extinguished, unless they
can gain and retain the support of those in power. For a time,
probably precisely because of this upper echelon support,
Shaykhism seemed to be doing well.
In Iran, Shaykh Ahmad wrote some of his most important books, and
he very soon began to draw the fire of some of the mujtahids.
Ahsa'i taught that God is unknowable, beyond human comprehension,
even beyond being, despite the Qur'anic teaching that God is also
nearer than the vein in the neck. The radical dichotomy between
the transcendence and immanence of God, Shaykh Ahmad said, can
only be bridged by the haqiqah muhammadiya--the primordial
Muhammadan reality which is the pleroma of the Fourteen
Immaculate Ones, which are Muhammad, Fatima, and the twelve
Imams.20 These intermediaries between God and human beings are
neither God nor human, but might be best compared to a kind of
demiurge, the causal and creative agents of the Primal Will.21 In
Shaykh Ahmad's schema, the Imams are the means by which God is
made known to persons, and through whom come the manifestation of
God's grace to human beings. They had merely taken on human garb,
as it were, to make themselves visible to human beings, and once
this garb was shed, they had resumed their original spiritual
bodies in H9Crqalya, the intermediate, archetypal world of Sadra.
The Shaykh believed that their physical bodies simply reverted to
their elements--decomposed--as opposed to the official view that
the bodies of the Prophet and the Imams were beyond physical
corruption.22
In H9Crqalya, the initiated adept is able to understand things as
they really are, and the soul is transformed through encounter
with the Imams. Here, too, final resurrection occurs, as one
moves by stages in a spiritualized ascent, which has begun with
the mineral, and progressed through the vegetable, animal, human,
and now, one hopes, spiritual. This spiritualized interpretation
of the Resurrection was offensive to some quarters of orthodox
Shi'ism, while others charged that it was possible to interpret
Ahsa'i's schema as divinizing the Imams. Furthermore, Shaykh
Ahmad's views denied the power of the mujtahids, who were then
just finally consolidating their power.
Ahsa'i held that, rather than the authority of the mujatahids,
there was instead a Fourth Support. It was his position that the
five bases of Shi'ism could logically be reduced to three, namely
the knowledge of God, the prophethood, and the Imamate.23 But he
taught that there will always exist the perfect Shi'ah--the
intermediary between Imams and believers. This perfect Shi'ah
receives the grace of the Imams through spiritual vision rather
than discursive Reason as the mujtahids do. Thus the perfect
Shi'ah are immune to error regarding religious truths.24 Since he
believed that the Hidden Imam does not live in occultation in
this world, but dwells instead in H9Crqalya, his manifestation
will not, in fact, occur in this world, but in H9Crqalya.25 Thus
the Fourth Support has a crucial role to fulfill in guiding
believers in this world.
Although Shaykh Ahmad made no specific claims to be this Fourth
Support, he certainly fit the profile as he drew it, claiming I
have derived what I know from the Imams of guidance, and error
cannot find its way into my words, since all that I confirm in my
books is from them and they are preserved from sin, ignorance,
and error. 26 He also claimed to have drunk the saliva of the
Iman Hasan and of the Prophet, thus appropriating their spiritual
power through direct transmission.
The absolute key to Shaykh Ahmad's thinking, and that which was
to have an influence in later Babism, is his Imamology. In Mulla
Sadra's system of progressive ascent, there had been three stages
of return to God, from matter to soul to intellect. In the world
of the intellect, The Imam, the pure intellect, stands next to
God, and is the only intermediary by whom human beings can reach
God.27 In Ahmad's system, there was, like Ibn cArabi, a fourth
stage, the realm of the deity, from which the 14 Pure Ones come
and to which they return. Thus in his system, these appear to be
pre-existent divine beings...the cause of creation, and of
everything that is not God. They fulfill God's wish. 'If it were
not for the Imams, God would not have created anything,' he
wrote.28 He argued that the 14 Pure Ones are the names and
attributes of the divine, and through them, as God's agents,
God's will manifests itself on earth.29 In short, the entire
cosmos exists because the thought of the Imam called it into
being, and it is his attention to it that keeps it going. If he
were to forget, for even a moment, everything that is would
disappear. But it is not that the Imam has a power independent of
God's, but one derived from it, just as an iron bar removed from
the blast furnace still sheds its heat. The Imams act, and
freely, because God made them that way. They possess all the
attributes of God, and all of God's actions are manifested
through them.. They are God's agents: Not the architects of
creation, but its contractors...30
In 1822 Shaykh Ahmad was accused of heresy,31 and despite--or
perhaps because of--the fairly broad appeal of his movement, and
the respect in which he was held, it became increasingly
difficult for him to remain in Iran. Soon thereafter, he left
Iran for Iraq, but controversy continued to swirl around him
there, so he set out for Mecca, but died en route in 1826.
parts 2,3,4 to be continued
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Nov 16 23:58:30 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:27:37 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 2 of 4 (Judy's paper on Babism) LONG!
2 of 4
=========================================================================
His appointed successor, Sayyid Kazim Rashti, enlarged the
movement and extended many of Shaykh Ahmad's ideas, producing a
doctrine of salvation history which asserts that there are two
ages to the dispensation of Muhammad. The first is that of
outward observance, during which the shari'a was perfected. The
second began in the twelfth Islamic century (18th century) and is
the period of inward realities and disclosure of esoteric truths.
This led to a sense of millennialst expectation among some
Shaykhis, who looked to the coming full disclosure of the inward
realities and esoteric truths either from the new perfect Shi'ah
or possibly even the long-expected return of the Hidden Imam.32
However, Peter Smith warns that Babi and Baha'i writers may have
exaggerated the millennialism of the Shaykhi leaders, since such
ideas do not appear prominently in their writings. However, he
adds that perhaps the combination of taqiyya and the gnostic
tendencies to limit truth to the inner circle might have led to
heightened millennialist expectations based on oral traditions.
He argues convincingly that the fact that so many Shaykhis
supported later millennialist movements should suggest that such
tendencies must have been very much a part of the movement, at
least among certain groups. 33
Sayyid Kazim died in 1843, in Karbala, without leaving clear
instructions about succession, and the movement fragmented into
several parties. One of these was the party of Sayyid
'Ali-Muhhamad Shirazi, otherwise known to history as the Bab
(Gate) and another was that of Haji Mulla Muhammad Karim Khan
Kirmani, of the city of Kirman, ancestor of the Aga Khan. The
Bab's party tended to focus on the part of Shaykhism which
emphasized inward reality rather than outward practice; Karim
Khan's group emphasized the continuing role of Muhammad and the
prophets and tilted toward the 'Usali' position on law.34 The
enmity borne by this latter group towards the former was so
intense that Shaykhis actually played a leading role in the
theological, judicial, and even physical attacks on the Babis. 35
The Bab was a young, obscure merchant, born Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad
Shirazi in 1819 in Shiraz, in southern Iran. His relationship
with the Shaykhis is a matter of some controversy. Certainly he
lacked the formal education for the role of Shaykhi leader, but
he had been exceptionally pious since boyhood, and had apparently
spent a year at the age of 20 travelling through the shrine
cities of Iraq. During this period he had attended some of Sayyid
Kazim's classes for a period of about seven months, and seems to
have been treated with some considerable attention when he did
so.36 Although Baha'is do not like to claim the Bab as a pupil of
Sayyid Kazim, and he certainly did not complete a course of
study, he himself wrote of Kazim, while the latter was still
alive, as my lord, support, and teacher, and in an early prayer
called himself one of the companions of Kazim. 37 Certainly he
was known to a number of the Shaykhis, though not, apparently, to
Karim Khan, and seems to have been held in some respect by them,
even in Karim Khan's accounts.38
After his year of travel and study, the Bab returned to Shiraz,
married, and seemed to his relieved family to have settled to his
career as a merchant. However, in 1843 and 1844 he had a number
of visions, in one of which he claimed he drank blood from the
severed head of the Imam Husayn, after which the spirit of God
took possession of his soul.39
Actually, the Bab did not come forward with a claim immediately
after Sayyid Kazim's death. For four months, a number Sayyid
Kazim's followers went into seclusion in Karbala, seeking divine
guidance. But one group appears to have become convinced that
before he died, Sayyid Kazim had given a number of intimations
that the advent of the Hidden Imam was momentarily expected. Thus
this coterie was in a fever pitch of eschatological expectations,
seeking signs and events that would suggest he was ready to
arrive. They became convinced that it was imperative for them to
leave Karbala in search of Sayyid Kazim's successor.
The one who led the exodus from Karbala was Mulla Husayn
Bushru'i. He may have been enroute to join Karim Khan Kirmani
when he arrived in Shiraz and met the Bab, who, during the night
of May 22-23, made his earliest claims, which were accepted by
Mulla Husayn. The Bab appears to have had considerable gifts,
some of which were the ability to turn out masses of verses for
hours in what is generally conceded to be rather ungrammatical
Arabic, but with elegant penmanship, and to answer very abstruse
and difficult questions in an exceptionally beautiful voice.
Apparently he exerted a magnetic attraction even on people
disposed to be hostile. Mulla Husayn was not so disposed, and
over a short period, other Shaykhis arrived and accepted the
Bab's claims, until he had named 18 so-called Letters of the
Living, or disciples, most of whom were young seminarians of
humble social standing,40 but also including the radical woman
scholar, Qurratu'l-'Ayn, who was appointed a Letter at a
distance, and who never met the Bab, though they corresponded.41
She was to prove a source of endless controversy for the new
movement. These Letters of the Living were sent out to tell the
people that the Bab l-Imam had arisen--though they were not to
give his name--and to announce that they should expect the advent
of the Qa'im very soon. 42
Though Baha'i sources tend to project the Bab's later claims back
to this earliest period, apparently what he claimed at this time
was less than what he claimed later.43 In this period he
described himself only as the bearer of the esoteric knowledge of
the Imams granted to Shaykh Ahmad and Sayyid Kazim, chosen [by
the Hidden Imam]...from among the peoples of Iran, and the
descendants of the Prophet, in order to protect the Faith of God.
44 At this point in his career, the Bab set himself out as an
interpreter of the Qur'an and required his followers to
faithfully follow all the strictures and duties set out therein,
saying that everything he had ever written was utter nothingness
when compared to one letter of the Qur'an or the words of the
people of the House of Purity [the Imams] . 45 At this time, too,
he also wrote that he did not seek to abrogate any part of the
sharia, saying that to neglect the least of the laws was to
neglect all of the laws.46 He made repeated references to the
imminent arrival of the Imam, and for the whole first year after
his original declaration the entire Babi movement was afire with
messianic expectations, which the Letters of the Living whipped
to a white heat by telling folk that the Imam would soon appear
in Karbala. Certain dates were declared to fulfill the ancient
prophecies of various Muslim groups, including certain Sufi
orders, as well as some Jews.
However in the winter of late 1844 came the first setbacks. One
of the Letters of the Living was sent to the Shah to declare the
Bab's cause, and one to the leading Shi'i cleric, Shaykh Muhammad
Hasan an-Najafi. The Bab, meanwhile, set out for Mecca to
announce himself and his claims to the Sharif. However, the
Letter dispatched to the Shah was unable to secure an audience;
the Letter with the mission to Shaykh Muhammad Hasan was brought
up before a joint tribunal of Shi'i and Sunni ulama and sentenced
to hard labour in the docks for spreading heresy; and the Bab got
absolutely no reaction at all in Mecca. Meanwhile the throngs
gathering in Karbala, many carrying weapons to wage Holy War on
the side of the Imam when he made his advent, waited in vain. The
crucial dates came and went and the Bab was still in Mecca.
Meanwhile the ulama began to step up their campaign against the
new movement, and the disgruntled abandoned the cause. By the
summer of 1845 the only followers the Bab left in Karbala were
those who were able to accept the Bab's changes in plans as bada.
This was a tiny fraction of his original contingents.47
In July, 1845, the Bab returned to Shiraz and was promptly placed
under house arrest because the city was in an uproar over the
addition of the name of 'Ali Muhammad--the Bab--to the call to
prayer by a Babi mujtahid.
In September, 1846, the Bab escaped from the city, and was able
to make some efforts to consolidate the new movement, since he
was at last out in the open. Though he was hampered in his
freedom of movement, he was able to hold audiences with visitors
and carry out a voluminous correspondence, as well as to issue
masses of revelatory writings recorded by several amanuenses.
Many new adherents were attracted to the movement, and in
Karbala, Qurratu'l-'Ayn arrived to rally the decimated Babis of
that city. Her assumption of leadership and radical views split
the Babi community in that city.
At this point, most of the Shaykhi leaders were firmly opposed to
the Bab's radical interpretation of Shaykhism, and several issued
broadsides at the movement. The Babis fought back with polemical
barrages of their own, and in some places, notably Karbala under
the leadership of Qurratu'l-'Ayn, disassociated themselves from
Shaykhism, considering unbelievers those Babis who still
considered themselves Shaykhis.48
The result was that non-Babi Shaykhism aligned itself with
orthodox Shi'ism. Meanwhile the gulf widened between Babism and
Shi'i orthodoxy, especially as the Bab's claim to direct access
to the Imam forced the ulama to either accept the Bab or to
oppose him. Some became Babis, but most opposed Babism, and
campaigns began against it in various areas, but these were
uncoordinated attacks and conditions for the new movement varied
from city to city. However, in various cities fatwas condemning
the Bab to death as an unbeliever were issued as early as 1845,
and although these had no immediate effect, they eventually were
invoked to give clerical support to the orders for his execution
on the part of the state.
In the beginning the state seemed to regarded Babism largely as a
religious, but not a civil problem. Originally, also, the Bab
seems to have seen the Shah as a potential ally, for he declared
that if he were to assist the Bab in establishing his authority,
God's blessings would be great. The Bab therefore sought an
audience, and in 1847 was offered one, but as he came to Tehran
he was seized on order of the Shah's chief minister and exiled to
Maku, a distant border-fortress. This embittered him greatly, and
he wrote letters denouncing the regime and predicting the Day of
Chastisement and the imminent death of the Shah. 49 Still, even
as late as 1848 when the Bab was ordered tried, he received only
the bastinado at the hands of the religious authorities.
Apparently, though the Bab endorsed the concept of jihad, and
called upon Babis to purchase weapons in anticipation of the Day
of Slaughter, when the unbelievers would die and the Imams and
host of heaven aid them, the jihad was never called, and indeed,
as noted, the Bab did not go to Karbala when the masses gathered
there in anticipation of just such a call. Although there are
those who say it was because he miscalculated the distances from
Mecca to Karbala and could not make it in time, 50 the Bab
claimed he did not go because he wished to prevent sedition.51
Whatever the case, it is true that while many Babis engaged in
non-violent missionary activity, others prepared for battle, and
some Babis began openly to wear weapons. Arjomand points out that
there had been a tension in Babism all along between more
moderate faction, among whom he tends to number the Bab, and more
extreme factions. With the imprisonment of the Bab, the control
exercised over the more chiliastic tendencies among the Bab's
followers was weakened.52
Apparently Qurratu'l-'Ayn played a big part in radicalizing the
movement at this juncture. She had been expelled from Karbala and
spent the spring and summer of 1847 riding around western Iran
proclaiming the Bab, finally returning to her home city of Qazvin
in the summer. Here she refused to have any relationship with her
husband, whom she regarded as a ritually impure unbeliever. This
outraged her uncle, the father of her husband and a very
powerful ulama. (It was he who had declared Shaykh Ahmad a
heretic in 1825.) He punished Qurratu'l-'Ayn for her
intransigence by having all the leading local Babis rounded up
and bastinadoed. Soon after, in October, 1847, he was murdered in
the mosque, and several local Babis were charged with the crime.
Though they denied it, they were executed for it anyway, and a
large-scale persecution was launched throughout the district.
Qurratu'l-'Ayn was carried off to safety in Tehran by her fellow
Babis; the upshot was that the reputation of Babis as violent and
dangerous enemies of the ulama was fairly sealed.53
In latter part of 1847 or early part of 1848, the Bab declared
himself, from prison, to be the Imam Mahdi, the promised Qa'im,
the inaugurator of the Resurrection, and the abrogator of the
Islamic holy law.54 This was the decisive breaking point, for the
Mahdi had been expected to be the one who would consolidate the
shari'a and reaffirm the Muhammadan order. 55 But the Bab clearly
was replacing the past Dispensation with a new order--a new
creation. 56 Concurrently, he revealed a new code of laws, the
Bayan, though this law book was not widely circulated, even among
his close followers.57
In the summer of 1848, as mentioned, the Bab proclaimed to the
tribunal of the Ulama that he was the Mahdi and was ridiculed and
bastinadoed. His followers, meanwhile, had gathered at Badrasht,
a isolated village, to make plans to free him, and this meeting
proved to be decisive for many. For some, hearing for the first
time at this gathering that Islamic law was abrogated was
devastating to their Babi faith; others interpreted it as
license, and a certain breath of scandal hangs over the meeting
among enemies of Babism, though it is not clear what, if any,
goings on took place. It is agreed by all, however, that
Qurratu'l-'Ayn appeared unveiled in public. This satisfied those
who saw antinominalism as a messianic act, as well as those who
like their symbolism strong and simple.58 Qurratu'l-'Ayn was the
first Persian woman in modern times who advocated unveiling on
her own initiative, and she seemed to be offering some sort of
nascent feminist challenge to the inferior position of women. She
had a circle of followers, especially women, but many Babis were
horrified. and outraged. 59
It has already been noted that the Bab was imprisoned for so long
that his disciples came to exercise considerable authority. This
was an understandable outgrowth, not just of the circumstances,
but of the Bab's theology. If the Bab were, not just the Mahdi,
but the manifestation of the Divine Will, then it was possible to
see the Letters of the Living as the return, in some way, of
Muhammad, Fatima, 'Ali, the Twelve Imams, and the Four Babs.60
This accounts for Qurratu'l-'Ayn's presence among the Letters--
she is Fatima--and, indeed, she appears to have claimed divine
status of some sort at the meeting at Badrasht, if not earlier,61
as did another Letter, Mulla Muhammad 'Ali Barfurushi, called
after Badrasht Quddus. Quddus seems to have claimed to be the
Qa'im--the nuqti-yi ukhra (Last Point of Revelation) after the
Bab claimed to be the nuqti-yi ula (The Primal Point), while
another Letter picked up the title Bab, since the Bab had dropped
it. It appears that all three of these disciples felt they shared
authority with the Bab, that the role of Qa'im was a role they
could perform, or an attribute to be transferred.62 Another
effect of the Bab's higher claims was that the more conservative
Babis left the movement. Those who remained tended to be the most
radical. This applied to those who were politically more radical
as well as those with radical religious convictions. If his
claims were accepted, the Bab now posed a direct challenge to
both secular and religious authorities. And when, on September 4,
1848, the Shah died, chaos ensued throughout Iran until the new
regime could secure control. Sometime in October, 1848, a group
of Babis who were going around the countryside proclaiming their
faith were set upon by the people of a town. A battle broke out
in which blood was shed on both sides, and eventually the Babis
were forced to barricade themselves in a shrine.
They were besieged in the shrine at Tabarsi for seven months.
Eventually about 600 other Babis made their way there to help
defend the shrine, many of them ulama and theological students
with a deep attachment to the Shi'i ideas of martyrdom. They were
not thinking in terms of practical objectives, in that sense, for
a heroic defense and martyrdom was not impractical in their
theological understanding. But they also may have hoped that
success would complete the proof and lead to general acceptance
of the Bab and establishment of the Babi theocracy. However, this
did not happen, and when the starved survivors finally
surrendered in a declared truce, they were massacred or taken
into slavery.63
Many of the Letters of the Living died at Tabarsi, as well as
other leaders. Leaders who were left in various areas were on
their own, and some reacted by pressing for continued fighting.
In July, 1850, the government, tired of it all, had the Bab
executed.
With this, the movement sustained a near-fatal blow.
parts 3,4 to be continued
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Nov 16 23:58:34 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:33:08 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 3 of 4 (Judy's paper on Babism) LONG!
3 of 4
=========================================================================
The Bab's apparent successor was not one of the Letters, but a
nineteen year old called Subh-i Azal. He was apparently of a
retiring--or gentle--or introverted--or cowardly disposition,
depending upon whose account is to be credited. Certainly the
loss of most of the leadership, and the Bab, and his own
inexperience created a very difficult situation for one so young,
and resulted in a very fragmented movement. The tendency to grab
for millennial titles still continued, a popular one being
Man-yuhiuh'u'llah: The One Whom God Will Manifest. Miller says
that this tendency to claim to be a manifestation of God was due
to a misunderstanding of the Bab's claims by some: they thought
the Bab claimed to be the Twelfth Imam, in which case it was
natural to look now for the coming of Imam Husayn. This
expectation was tagged onto the announcement by the Bab that
after him would come another, much greater, called
Man-yuhiuh'u'llah: He Whom God Will Manifest. But the Bab did not
claim to be the Twelfth Imam, but to be a Major Manifestation in
his own right. According to the Bab's own teachings, the next
Manifestation was not due for another 1511 years 64. However a
vague prophecy--in the year nine ye will attain to all good--
seems to have been sufficient for some, dating the year One from
the Bab's first declaration. It is on this interpretation that
the claim of Baha'u'llah is made, though Baha'ism recognizes the
Bab as a Manifestation of God as well. 65
At any rate, the movement was still reeling when a clumsy attempt
was made on the life of the new Shah by a group of Babis. The
result was the execution of many of the few remaining leaders--
Qurratu'l-'Ayn was supposedly strangled with a white scarf 66--
and Subh-i Azal was forced to go into hiding. 67 The movement was
now thoroughly demoralized, fragmented, and demonized. It seemed
to be, for all practical purposes, dead.
Amanat points out that the Babi theodicy guaranteed their
ultimate triumph, even if its realization meant the sacrifice of
the Bab and the annihilation of the entire community. 68 The
Babis were the heirs to the Shi'ite legacy of martyrdom and
sacrifice. They were also caught in a myth, or almost, a divine
play based on the past. Every action which took place was
correlated to the sacred play in which all were actors.69 For
this reason, as well as its insistence on militancy, this would
have been a religion almost impossible to institutionalize,
especially when one realizes that the Bayan was harsher, and
stricter, and more difficult to enforce than most of the existing
Shari'a. Further, it was the radical social critics who were the
most fiercely loyal to the end. Babism was the product of a
crucial juxtaposition in Persian history. It was a religion with
powerful ties to the past, and one which was also in a state of
unremitting resistance to the ruling elite.70 It was not
especially influenced by Western ideas, but grew out of the need
for a new paradigm in the face of encroaching Westernization.71
As Babism, however, it was nearly dead by the mid-1850's. The
quiet, reserved Subh-i Azal simply was not capable of satisfying
the needs of the devastated movement, used to charismatic
leadership with claims to very high status, especially since he
was forced to spend years in hiding and under an assumed name.
But with the appearance of a charismatic leader capable of
coherently reworking the doctrines of Babism so that the religion
continued on the trajectory set by the Bab, as the completion of
the millennial expectations of all religions, but without the
doctrine of militancy,72 a new chapter came to be written after
all. This leader was Baha'u'llah, half-brother of Subh-i Azal. He
had the toughness, charisma--and, say the Azalis, ambition and
ruthlessness--that his much younger half-brother lacked. In any
case, within two decades a quite unexpected result took place.
>From the ashes of Babism rose what now claimed itself to be a New
World Religion: the Baha'i Faith. But the first steps out of
Islam had already been taken years before: Baha'u'llah's mission
was to refine and redefine Babism so that it could survive and
even flourish, but it was not necessary for him to make the
decisive break with Islam. That the Bab had already accomplished.
part 4 (notes) to be continued
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Nov 16 23:58:43 1995
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:37:11 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 4 of 4 (Judy's paper on Babism) LONG!
4 of 4
=========================================================================
Notes
1. An account by Denis MacEoin is instructive in this regard:
Kalimat Press was a Los Angeles-based and Baha'i-managed press
which had published his survey of Baha'i literature fifteen years
earlier.
When the press approached MacEoin with the project of revising
and republishing the text, he agreed to do so. He made
corrections, added fresh information, and rewrote several
passages. For two years publication was mysteriously delayed.
Then he learned that American Baha'i authorities had banned
publication altogether, and that Kalimat Press had experienced
ongoing pressure from Baha'i authorities and the blacklisting of
several of its titles. (Denis MacEoin, The Sources for Early
B'abi Doctrine and History, preface, i)
2. Though into my hands came, too late for me to read it all,
though I have relied on it in sections, what seems to be a very
good book on the B'abis by Abbas Amanat, Resurrection and
Renewal, which is put out by Cornell University Press and seems
to have a very subtle and interesting grasp of the issues raised
in B'abism as a challenge to certain tendencies in both Shi'ite
theology and the encroaching modernization of Persia in the
middle of the last century. The book is sympathetic, but not
sycophantic, in its portrayal of B'abism, and would probably be
of interest to scholars interested in the general field, not just
B'abism.
3. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, et al, Shi'ism Doctrines, Thought, and
Spirituality, p. 94
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. ibid
7. ibid, p. 95
8. ibid
9. John Esposito, Islam, p.121. Ibn cArabi's thinking can
seemingly lead to a kind of ontological monism, since if the
fourth realm is God and the seeker is drawing closer and closer
to that realm, then it is easy to construct a world view in which
nothing really exists but God, God is coextensive with the
universe, and the unity with God is an ontological reality, not a
subjective experience. This may be one reason why Baha'is tend to
discourage speculation about the afterlife, since they have some
notion of a similar assent to God, which is largely only hinted
at.
One suspects that, once again, as is so common in mystical
speech, lack of an appropriate vocabulary may be, in part, the
problem. It might seem that the distinction may be that between
pantheism and what Matthew Fox in his Creation Spirituality has
popularized as panentheism. Admittedly, I am not sure that
drawing this distinction would be any more satisfying to the
legalists and traditionalists than his attempts have proved to
be.
10. Said Amir Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam, p.
149
11. ibid, p. 150
12. ibid, 151
13. Nasr, Shi'ism, p. 95
14. ibid
15 .Stephen Scholl, Encyclopedia of Religion, Shaykhiyah, pp.
230-232, Volume 13.
16. Arjomani, The Shadow of God, p. 252
17. Peter Smith, The B'abi and Baha'i Religions, p. 12
18. Arjomand, Shadow of God, p. 153
19. ibid, p. 155
20. Shaykhiyah, Ency. of Religion, Vol..13, 231
21. Peter Smith, The B'abi and Baha'i Religions, p. 11
22. Nasr, Shi'ism, p. 96
23. Since none of God's attributes can be denied by a believer,
the starting point is Knowledge of God. Thus God's unity and
God's justice are included in knowledge of God, while
resurrection is a consequence of both God's attribute of justice,
and belief in the Prophet and the truths of his teachings; the
centrality of the Imamate to the Shaykh's teaching are already
apparent. (see Denis MacEoin's article, Shaykhi Reactions to the
B'ab for a discussion of Karim Khan's exposition of Shaykhi
teachings on the three bases, and his own reworking of the
doctrine of the Fourth Support (p. 35).
24.Shaykhiyah, Ency. of Religion, Vol..13, 231
25. Nasr, Shi'ism, p. 97
26. Cited in Peter Smith, The B'abi and Baha'i Religions, p. 12
27. Nasr, Shi'ism, p. 98
28. ibid
29. ibid, p. 99.
30. ibid
31. My sources somewhat part company on the outcome, the
Encyclopedia of Religion stating that most of the 'ulama'
remained neutral or sympathetic, the main effect being that he
and his followers came to feel somewhat embattled, and
increasingly identified themselves as a separate school within
Shi'ism. In Denis MacEoin's article, Early Shaykhi Reactions to
the B'ab and His Claims, in Studies in B'abi and Baha'i History,
the flat statement is made (p. I) that Shaykh Ahmad , and his
successor, had been excommunicated. In The Shadow of God,
Arjomand states that Shaykh Ahmad and his followers were forced
to become a sect through expulsion from Twelver Shi'ism by the
triumphant Usalis, who emerged as the guardians of Shi'ite
orthodoxy. ( p. 252)
32. Shaykhiyah, Ency. of Religion, Vol..13, 231
33. Peter Smith, The B'abi and Baha'i Religions, pp. 12-13
34. Shaykhiyah, Ency. of Rel. p. 232
35. MacEoin, Shaykhi Reactions..., p. 11. One reason for this
enmity, quite aside from the dispute over succession, was the
fact that the B'abis were soon identified as insurrectionists.
This made the situation very dangerous for Shaykhis, since the
B'abis made clear their continuing attachment to, and linkage
with, Shaykh Ahmad and Sayyid Kazim, referring to them as the two
preceding Babs. The followers of Karim Khan wanted to be clearly
delineated in the public mind from B'abis, to avoid any untoward
incidents. Thus the rush to orthodoxy and participation in the
anti-B'abi movement. (ibid, p. 10)
36. Smith, p. 14.
37. MacEoin, Shaykhi Reactions, p. 15
38. ibid, p. 16
39. Smith, P. 14
40. Arjomand, The Shadow of God, p. 254
41. In The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam, Arjomand notes that
B'abism had a positively cabalistic focus on letters and numbers,
and points out the many similarities between them and the
Hurufiyya sect of the end of the 14th/8th century Iran. This
group taught that revelation from God occurs in cycles, and that
since words emanate from God, human beings, as God's vicars, can
gain knowledge of God through a scientific, cabalistic
interpretation of the letters of the alphabet in their various
combinations. They emphasized the human role as vicar of God,
placing in the Adhan the phrase I testify that Adam is the vicar
of God prior to the phrase about the prophethood of Muhammad. The
B'abis saw the Letters of the Living as the incarnation of
significant letters, and thus a sign of a new cycle of divine
manifestation. It is significant that the name Qurratu'l-Ayn was
also the name taken by the martyred daughter of the founder of
the Hurufi movement. (Arjomand, p. 254). Smith notes that the
B'abis also used talismans and other forms of occultism and
magic, though he insists that B'abi leaders de-emphasized
miracles when compared to the popular Shi'ism of the time, and
that their use of allegory regarding the Resurrection, for
example, tended to undercut some kinds of beliefs in
miracles.(Smith, p. 38.)
42. ibid, p. 15
43. Although Smith argues that the B'ab's later claims are
already hinted at in his earlier writings, and thus no secret to
his followers. He points out that even in his earliest works, the
B'ab laid claim to a uniquely high status, asserting that while
claiming to be the bearer and successor, he defined Babhood so
that to visit the B'ab was the same as to visit God on God's
throne; to follow the B'ab was the same as following God; to obey
the B'ab was the same as obeying God. To reject the B'ab was to
reject the only path to the Imam and was also rejection of
Muhammad and the Quran. Further, the B'ab claimed that his first
book was a descent of divine revelation, which again goes beyond
the status of the Imams. (pp. 14 and 15) However, MacEoin argues
that to read back the B'ab's later, more developed claims into
his earlier ones distorts the pattern of the B'ab's thinking.
MacEoin says that the B'ab did not claim to be other than the
bearer of knowledge, like Sayyid Kazim, and that he did not claim
to be the bearer of any other cause.
Furthermore, the B'ab goes on to say that the days of his
Proof were fast approaching--that is, that the hidden Imam would
appear.. He also claimed that some of his early writings were
sent to him in revelation from the Twelfth Imam, who had received
them from God. (MacEoin, Shaykhi Reactions, pp. 17-18) However,
MacEoin demonstrates that Karim Kahn was very early on able to
extract from the B'ab's writings, using logic and inductive
reasoning, a variety of claims, such as Imam, prophet, and even
divinity (uluhiyya) (p. 34.). MacEoin notes that it is ironic
that Karim Khan was able to detect these claims and condemn them
several years before the B'ab himself explicitly made them, for
although most of the B'ab's Shaykhi followers did not heed Kazim
Khan's warnings at this time, several years later, when the B'ab
elevated his claims, many of his Shaykhi followers abandoned him
on more or less the same grounds on which Karim Khan had
originally rested his condemnation. (pp. 34-35)
44. MacEoin, Shaykhi Reactions, P. 18
45. ibid
46. ibid., p. 19. This last was in a letter to Qurratu'l-Ayn, who
was very anxious to have the sharia abrogated, according to
MacEoin.
47. Smith, p. 16-17
48. ibid, p. 18
49. ibid, 22
50. MacEoin, Shaykhi Reactions, p. 32, says that this was the
theory of Karim Khan
51. Although MacEoin notes that at the time, the B'ab seems to
have said it was because God was angry, on account of unbelief
and attacks on God's messengers, and thus had ordered a
postponement of five years to let human beings increase in sin.
(Shaykhi Reactions, p. 23)
52. Arjomand, p. 255
53. Smith, p. 22
54. ibid, 23
55.Abbas Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, p. 376
56, ibid, p. 376-377. The Bab announced that the old cycle of
prophecy is ended (the yearning of fifty thousand years is now
fulfilled.) and that henceforth his followers were not to go to
mosques.
57. Smith points out that in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf,
Baha'u'llah claims never to have seen a copy. (Smith, P. 72.)
However, MacEoin notes in The Sources for Early B'abi Doctrine
and History that Baha'u'llah reported that a copy in the
handwriting of the B'ab's amanuensis survived, as well as another
in a different hand, and that he, MacEoin, has been able to
locate fifty copies of the manuscript by 1992, and is sure he
could double this number. (p. 84) This seems like a discrepancy,
and it is very odd to imagine that Baha'u'llah would never have
sought to see a copy.
In any case, at this point, the movement had gone beyond the
borders of Islam. It was now a new religion. Early B'abism had
emphasized Muslim orthopraxy to the point of pietistic
strictness. B'abis had to say extra prayers, abstain from
smoking, keep a three month fast, and so on. But when the Sharia
was abrogated and the B'ab introduced the Bayan, there were two
results. One was that some heard about the abrogation but not
about the details of the Bayan, and practiced antinomianism; the
other is that since there were few copies of the Bayan available,
it was difficult for it to be followed. In the Bayan the B'ab set
forth special B'abi prayer forms, defined ritual purity in terms
of physical cleanliness and spiritual purity, said that only
believers could live in B'abi states. Non-B'abi books were to be
destroyed. Contact and intermarriage with unbelievers was
forbidden. All B'abis were to marry at the age of eleven.
Polygamy was discouraged and divorce required a year of waiting.
(Smith, pp. 34-35)
58. The truth must be unveiled: that non-B'abis were no longer
Muslims, were ritually impure, and could no longer be consorted
with. Only those who could look at the naked face of truth were
the spiritually elite. (Sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes
pulled backwards through a knothole.)
59. Abbas Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, p. 304 Amanat points
out that Qurratu'l-'Ayn applied the concept of fatra--the period
between messengers--to her age, and thus saw it as necessary to
break the rules of both custom and devotion to grasp the signs of
the new Zuhar. (p. 304.) For example, she appeared on the first
of Muharram, 1845, the month of mourning for Shi'ite martyrs, in
colourful clothing, and unveiled for the feast, saying that they
should be celebrating the birthday of the Bab. (p. 305) She seems
to have been among the first to see the Bab's mission as being a
manifestation apart from Islam. (p. 306)
60. Joel Bjorling, The Baha'i Faith, p. 6, says: Baha'is insist
that the B'ab was only a forerunner of Baha'u'llah, who is
considered to be the major manifestation of God. It has been
admitted by Baha'is that the B'ab was a 'twin' Manifestation to
Baha'u'llah, but it seems evident from examining Baha'i teachings
that the purpose of the Bab was to provide the way for
Baha'u'llah's revelation. The B'ab did teach a further revelation
beyond himself, but as Miller, Wilson, and Whalen point out, this
Manifestation would not appear for 1511 to 2001 years after his
declaration.
61. Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal, p. 304. She saw herself as
the manifestation of Fatima, whose sight is purifying, and would
have the B'abis bring food from the market to her so that she
might purify it by gazing on it. (She had declared that food
bought from infidels--unbelievers--could not be consumed by her
people unless it had been purified.) (pp. 303-304)
62. ibid, 25 Smith also points out (p. 43) that it was possible
to see the Letters of the Living as, not just reenacting roles in
a dispensational drama, but as re-embodiments of former
personages. and this, he notes, is very close to the notion of
metempsychosis, a heresy not uncommon in heterodox Shi'ism.
63. ibid, 26-27
64. Miller, The Baha'i Faith, p. 78
65. Smith argues that it was the Azalis who interpreted the
coming of the Manifestation as a long way off, and that most
B'abis seemed to expect an early Messianic fulfillment. He points
out that the Bab also said that only God knew when he would
arise. A problem, of course, is why God would send two
Manifestations so close together, and have the second abrogate
much of the work of the first, but the Baha'i answer is that it
shows how important the manifestation is, and that the task of
the B'ab was to initiate the break with Islam; once this was
done, God's new revelation could be clearly presented to minds
receptive to it without the lingering cobwebs of Islamic thought
patterns and world view. The Azali answer is shorter: God didn't.
66. One is forced, with some regret, to agree with Smith's
assessment of her: less a feminist forerunner than a
dyed-in-the-wool religious zealot. (p. 47) One suspects her of
being rather more like Joan of Arc than anyone else.
67 Smith, p. 30
68. Amanat, p. 410
69. ibid, 409
70. However, Fischer points out, in The Baha'i Faith and Islam,
p. 33, that the B'abi movement was a mixture of progressive ideas
and initiatives and reactionary theocratic concepts--equality of
men and women, reduction of clerical powers, more equitable
distribution of land--and theosophically graded human beings,
ending in a pyramid with the B'ab, or Point, at the apex, a pure
B'abi land, seizure of land of unbelievers and an emphasis on
charity rather than radical redistribution of wealth to the poor.
71. Amanat, p. 413
72. What Baha'u'llah did was to domesticate the three themes of
B'abism: progressive revelation and a new dispensation,
conditional recognition of temporal authority, and the
this-worldliness of human salvation (one must act here to stand
with the forces of light, and resurrection begins here. To
recognize and work on the behalf of the manifestation of God on
earth was to enter the community of light here and now; Hell was
also here, for those who remain in the fire of their denial..
Thus one seeks and finds salvation and rebirth here.)( Amanat, p.
408. See also Fischer, p. 34, quoting Qurratu'l-'Ayn: Oh people,
there will be no resurrection except that resurrection which you
institute in the way of truth. Paradise and hell for you are in
this world.) The original Babi message is one of personal and
community regeneration, and unceasing activism and struggle and
the constant possibility of new revelation, to which one must
always remain open. But Baha'u'llah and his heirs were
revisionist, reformist, liberal. They abandoned Babi militancy so
completely that in these days Baha'is portray Babi militancy as
rare, aberrational, purely defensive, or, where it cannot be
denied, as in the attempt on the life of the Shah, as the product
of a few deranged minds unhinged by terrible persecution.
Thus, it was not difficult for later Baha'is to integrate
their movement into Western liberal religious and social ideas,
basically progressive, non-violent and non-political, emphasizing
in great part that theirs is a religion of ethical and moral
prescriptions, such as equality of the races and sexes, one world
language, world government, and so on. They became, as Fischer
describes them, Quietistic and syncretistic. (p. 35, The Baha'i
Faith and Islam) One can readily find Baha'i works which claim to
prove that Baha'u'llah and Baha'ism are the fulfillment of
Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc., as well as the
Abrahamic faiths. Furthermore, Baha'u'llah removed the risk of
new revelation by declaring it impossible for the next thousand
years that God would send a new Manifestation; as well, the next
500 millennia are regarded as the Baha'i Dispensation.
The Azalis sought for awhile longer to keep the spirit of
militancy alive long, to refuse to compromise, and to remain
activist, sometimes dissident, but they too moved in the
direction of European-style social criticism. and since they were
smaller and weaker, they are, at this point, practically a
footnote.
Bibliography
Amanat, Abbas, Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi
Movement in Iran, 1844-1850. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
1989.
Arjomand, Said Amir The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam:
Religion, Political Order, and Societal Change in Shi'ite Iran
from the Beginning to 1890. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1984.
Bjorling, Joel, The Baha'i Faith: A Historical Bibliography, New
York: Garland. 1985
Eliade, M.. Encyclopedia of Religion, Shaykhiyah, by Stephen
Scholl, Volume 13.
Esposito, John, Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 1992.
MacEoin, Denis The Sources for Early Babi Doctrine and History:
A Survey. Leiden, New York, Koln: E.J. Brill. 1992.
Miller, William The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings.
South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library. 1974.
Moayyad, Heshmat, The Baha'i Faith and Islam, Social Change and
Mirrors of Tradition, by Michael M. J. Fischer Ottowa, Asociation
for Baha'i Studies. 1990.
Momen, Moojan, ed. Studies in Babi and Baha'i History, Early
Shaykhi Reactions to the Bab and his Claims, by Denis MacEoin,
Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1982.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, et al, Shi'ism Doctrines, Thought, and
Spirituality, New York: State University of New York Press. 1988
Smith,Peter , The Babi and Baha'i Religions: From Messianic
Shi'ism to a World Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 1987.
Smith, Peter, The Baha'i Religion: A Short Introduction to its
History and Teaching, Oxford:: George Ronald, 1988.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 09:26 PST
From:
To:
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu,
Subject: Juan Cole's material
Thanks for sending Juan's material. Here are some comments.
I will send this to Juan Cole and my son in law
**********************************************************************
>. Friends: In my work on human rights in Baha'i scriptures and within
> the Baha'i Faith, I have gradually come to realize that there is no
> written-down legal code governing when and whether a Baha'i's
> administrative rights may be removed.
Trying to attempt a leagl frame work (particularly in terms of an
American model) is not a good idea. I believe that each case
needs to be given the necessary time and energy by LSAs and
NSAs by its members or appropriate staff. Removal of administrative
sanctions should be rare and effective when invooked and just.
**************************************************************
> The beloved Guardian disapproved of removing administrative rights
>. for any but the most weighty reasons. "If such sanctions were lightly
> used the friends would come to attach no importance to it, or to feel
> the NSA used it every time they got angry with some individual's
> disobedience to them." (Lights of Guidance, [hereafter LOG], p. 49).
There is very good wisdom in Guardian's reluctance to remove rights
for the very reason stated here. One has to take the energy and time
to unpoliticise the wrath of LSA members or NSA members. The case
in point is a rather recent event in our own LSA when we got very upset
at the Assistant to ABM for protection, but got couselled by Jaci Delahunt
that it was important to learn to work together and allow each unit to do its
job as it sees best, but express the concerns in an appropriate manner,
i.e.,
when cooler heads prevail.
**********************************************************************
> I have a list of Membership statistics from National date April, 1979,
> for the U.S. It shows 75, 448 Baha'is with administrative rights and
> 1,948 (nearly 2,000!!) without administrative rights. This is an
> expulsion rate of 2.5%. But note that Baha'is with known addresses
> were only 48,357, and the ones who were expelled ipso facto belonged
> to the group the NSA could find. So the true percentage of the active
> community expelled was more like 4 % or one in every 25 persons.
> Obviously, this is quite high. It would be like having 3,200,000 U.S.
> Catholics excommunicated. I do not know what the percentages are
> today.
Trying to analyze the data in this manner is a very poor way to look at
the problem. Being a young Faith in an alien culture such as the
American culture, it is not surprising at all that these numbers are
high. Trying to compare it with the Catholics is somewhat absurd in
my opinion bacause it compares apples and oranges.
****************************************************************************
> The problem is that many actions are frowned upon in the Baha'i faith
> in varying degrees. Smoking is frowned upon but not sanctioned. I
> know of no one who has has their administrative rights taken away for
> smoking. What about backbiting? Lying? These are prohibited.
> Should they be the grounds for removal of administrative rights?
>
> It is highly undesirable that this important matter remain so vague. It
> is very difficult to specify human rights if the law itself is unspecific.
What makes more sense to me is that the standards set by Baha'u'llah
should be known in no uncertain terms; not wishy washy - as an example
when there is an obvious violation of Baha'i law such as cohabitation, the
directives from the House of Justice are very clear - work with the couple
involved showing gentleness, firmness and love and concern all at the same
time and this is not easy to do. (Having a set of rules to work by is an
easy thing to do; you don't have to think but just look up chapter and verse
and throw the book on people; justice involves many characteristics blending
together - love, compassion, firmness, wisdom, image of the Faith etc.
****************************************************************************
************
> I would argue that administrative rights may only be taken away for
> specific acts contrary to Baha'i law in the Aqdas and its supplements.
> Some NSAs in the world have started employing the removal of
> administrative rights as a control mechanism, to silence Baha'is, which
> is a derogation of their right, guaranteed by the beloved Guardian, to
> declare their conscience and express their views.
> I'd like to see a legal code specifying actionable offenses. To that
> end, I have drawn up the following. Additions and comments are
> welcome.
> cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
Trying to having a legal code written presents some unique problems -
1. The documents can only be general principles, and not specific
details as the latter would compromise the confidentiality of the
relationship between the believer and the Spiritual Assembly (Local
or National)
2. It will fail to consider needs for the nurturing of individuals in
the family
of Baha'u'llah. As an example, in west we were not required to pay
Huquq'ullah for nearly 100 years, alcoholism in a predominantly native
American community by nature has to be dealt differently; cremation
would be big issue in oriental societies such as India, Japan, etc.
****************************************************************************
**************
> Grounds for Removal of Administrative Rights of a Baha'i
> I. General principles and agencies for removal of rights
> "Those who conspicuously disgrace the Faith or refuse to abide by its
> laws can be deprived, as a punishment, of their voting rights . . ."
> Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 128.
The operating words here are "can be deprived, as a punsihment";
> The right to decide who has the voting privilege is also ultimately
> placed in the hands of the National Spiritual Assembly...(Baha'i
> Administration, page 80)
> In Dawn of a New Day, page 111, Shoghi Effendi's secretary says that
> local assemblies 'should certainly never' be allowed to
> decide cases regarding the removal of voting rights because
> 'personal feelings might colour the Assembly's decision.'
> [Sen McGlinn commented that "The same naturally applies to the
> national assembly incases in which its members or the assembly itself
> are personally involved."]
> "If such sanctions were lightly used the friends would come to attach
> no importance to it, or to feel the NSA used it every time they got
> angry with some individual's disobedience to them." (LOG, p. 49).
These are areas where the National Assemblies need to gently educate the
friends as to take their responsibilties. In the last 5 months we faced
three
such cases and each case was resolved positively by the compassion
shown by the LSA; people involved ranged in ages from 17 to 55 and the
one who was least cooperative was the 55 year old one. This is where
there is a lot of room for NSAs to establish reliable and solid trainers to
develop people skills to handle various aspects of people's problems.
***************************************************************************
> II. Specific Infractions
> Prolonged and flagrant use of alcohol (Lights of Guidance, p. 39).
> Flagrant homosexuality disgracing to the Cause. (Lights of Guidance,
> p. 40).
> Blatant extra-marital relationships. (Lights of Guidance, p. 41).
> Being found guilty by a civil court of criminal offenses that
> conspicuously disgrace the Faith. (Lights of Guidance, p. 41).
> Marriage without the consent of parents. (SE, Directives, p. 40).
> Having a civil marriage only. (Lights of Guidance, p. 42).
> Taking a marriage vow contrary to Baha'i principles, such as, in a
> Catholic ceremony, promising to raise the children Catholic (Lights of
> Guidance, p. 42).
> Being party to a non-Baha'i religious marriage ceremony wherein one
> conceals or denies one's Baha'i faith. (Lights of Guidance, p. 42).
> Giving one's consent, as a parent, to a religious marriage ceremony in
> which one's child conceals or denies his or her Baha'i faith. (Lights of
> Guidance, p. 42).
> In case of divorce, marriage to a third party within the year of
> patience. (Lights of Guidance, p. 40)
> Refusal to dissociate oneself from political activities; acceptance
> political office (Lights of Guidance, p. 33).
> Refusal to dissociate oneself from [non-Baha'i] ecclesiastical activities;
> acceptance of ecclesiastical office. (Lights of Guidance, p. 33).
> Membership in Freemasonry (Directives, p. 26)
> Membership in Theosophical, Rosicrucian and similar societies.
> Membership in secret societies. (Lights of Guidance, p. 43).
> Refusal to accept election to an administrative post. (Lights of
> Guidance, p. 32).
> Repeated absence from Assembly meetings with no valid excuse.
> (Shoghi Effendi, Dawn of a New Day, p. 79).
> Incapacity by virtue of mental illness. (S.E., Directives, p. 42)
> An attitude of contempt for Baha'i law can prolong the sentence.
> (LOG, p. 50).
This certainly is a good start of a list of infractions. The key for the
Spiritual Assembly to find out is whether there was a flagrant disregard
to Baha'i standards or a naive belief that there are good things in many
organizations (the recent experience of many Baha'is around the country
belonging to Beyond War movement comes to mind - Baha'is eneterd it
to convert everybody!!). What is needed is get the point across that
Spiritual Assemblies have a dual purpose promologate new procedures
in a community and adminsiter justice. These bring different
responsibilities
and need to enkindle these responsibilities to the friends.
****************************************************************************
**************
> Recently in some Baha'i communities infractions such as "Making a
> false statement about an NSA member, even in private" [or a
> statement alleged by an NSA to be false] appear to have been added to
> this list. Do any of you know of particular cases that would expand
> the list to cover actual contemporary practice?
I could add here
child abandonment, or refusing to educate one's children, child abuse,
domestic violence, unwillingness to resolve difficulties, open challenge
of Adminsitrative instituitions.
******************************************************************************
> III. Consequences
> Consequences: Cannot attend Feast or other meetings for Baha'is
> only; cannot vote or hold Baha'i office; cannot contribute to the Fund;
> cannot be married in a Baha'i ceremony (LOG, p. 45, 50). *May* be
> buried in a Baha'i ceremony and may receive Baha'i charity (LOG, p.
> 46).
In addition the individuals may be shunned by Baha'is.
****************************************************************************
********
> IV. Terms for reinstatement of administrative rights.
> The Assembly should feel that the person is "truly repentant." (LOG,
> p. 49).
> "If the voting rights have been removed justifiably it is generally
> sufficient for the believer to take the necessary actions to have them
> restored; his application for restoration and compliance with the
> requirements of Baha'i law are sufficient evidence of repentance.
> However, if the Assembly sees that the believer does not understand
> the reason for the deprivation and has a rebellious attitude it should
> endeavour to make the matter clear to him. If his attitude is one of
> contempt for the Baha'i law and his actions have been in serious
> violation of its requirements, the Assembly may even be justified in
> extending the period of deprivation beyond the time of the rectification
> of the situation--but such cases, by their nature, are very rare."
> (LOG, p. 50).
> [Some NSA's have begun asking for "personal, public apologies" to
> NSA members as a requirement for reinstatement of rights. This does
> not appear to be justified by the Guardian's guidelines.]
I do not have the quote here, but in the Assembly Development Program
developed during the 70's by Dan Jordan and Staff, there were several
sections concerning judicial fucntions; I will quote these at a later time.
*******************************************************************************
******************************
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduFri Nov 17 01:15:29 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 01:09:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: bahai-discuss@bcca.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: G-Ethic List
Dear friends, Allah-u-Abha. One of the Baha'is who is on the G-Ethic
List wrote me a note today asking me to pass on the following message to
the friends on Talisman and Baha'i Discuss.
she asked that i reassure the friends that there are several Baha'is on
the G-Ethic list who are lovingly and patiently addressing the issues
brought forth by the other members of the list. Also, she asked that
none of us try to respond to those posts either directly to the person
notr indirectly through the G-ethic list unless we join the list and
spend some time in trying to understand teh context within which these
comments have been made.
It appears that the friends on the G-Ethic list are addressing the issues
through consultation with the auxiliary board and answering the questions
that people may have, so perhaps this is suffiecient at the time.
Warmest Regards
Cheshmak FArhoumand
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Nov 17 09:57:43 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 01:14:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Zen & Baha'i
"From the exalted source, and out of the essence of His favor and
bounty He hath entrusted every created thing with a sign of His
knowledge, so that none of His creatures may be deprived of its share
in expressing, each according to its capacity and rank, this
knowledge." - Baha'u'llah
Literally, this says that from the exaltation of pure magnanimity and
the sublimity of unalderated generosity, He reposited a sign--of
mystical insight into Himself (ayih-'i `irfan-i khud)--in all visible things,
so that no thing should be deprived, each according to its plane, of
mystical insight into God.
`Irfan in Sufi and Shi`ite mysticism is mystical insight. Baha'u'llah here
says that every existent in the cosmos is endowed with the sign of
mystical insight into the Absolute Truth. I find this diction very
interesting and challenging. Insight is a type of knowledge; this
knowledge *is present* in all things. And it is present not as a thing or
essence or capacity but as a *sign*. A sign is that which points to
something else. The Greek is semeia. The study of signs as systems
of communication is called semiotics. Baha'u'llah is saying that the
cosmos and everything in it is theo-semiotic. It sign-ifies mystical
insight into the Absolute Truth.
It seems to me that, as Stephen Friberg rightly says, this idea is
analogous to Dogen's Zen notion that all things, not just sentient
beings, but all things are Buddha-mind.
"In Dogen's understanding, the Buddha-nature is not a potentiality,
like a seed, that exists within all sentient beings. Instead, all sentient
beings, or more exactly, all beings, living and nonliving, *are*
originally Buddha-nature. It is not a potentiality to be actualized
sometime in the future, but the original, fundamental nature of all
beings." - Masao Abe, *A Study of Dogen*, p. 42
But if whole-being is Buddha-mind, if each of us is a semiotic device
pointing toward the Absolute Truth, then is not everything perfect?
A dialogue between a Zen master (Roshi) and a student may help
clarify here:
Student: "Last night I said to myself, "Fortunately I don't have to
strive for enlightenment, because I am already enlightened."
Roshi: "While it is true that innately you are a Buddha, until you have
concretely perceived your Buddha-nature you are speaking in
borrowed phrases when you speak of enlightenment. The purpose of
your practice is to lead you to this experience." - Kapleau, Three
Pillars of Zen, p. 130.
Human beings must struggle against a sort of false consciousness,
generated by their self and passion, that prevents them from *seeing*
that they are Buddha-mind; or that, in Baha'i terms, they are theo-
semiotic.
(This last is a Rinzai Zen sentiment, linking striving to satori or
enlightenment; it contrasts with Dogen's Soto teaching that practice
and enlightenment are unrelated, that enlightenment strikes suddenly,
unexpectedly, and is not to be "striven for." Both attitudes have their
own truth, obviously.)
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From CMathenge@aol.comFri Nov 17 09:58:25 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 01:17:27 -0500
From: CMathenge@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: cmatheng@sonnet.ucla.edu
Subject: Spiritual Crises
Dear friends,
Jack McLean's book *Dimensions in Spirituality* says (Chapter 1, p. 1):
"The person who takes the spiritual vocation seriously will sooner or later
find moments of crisis, what mythologist Joseph Campbell calls 'moments of
original experience' when the familiar laws and teachings that we have lived
by no longer seem to apply."
I went through one of those periods myself. Actually the "moment" lasted, I
would say, at least a good three years, and the impact is still ongoing nine
years later. The experience left me with a fascination for knowing more
about how other people have experienced these things--some of you have
described such, and I wonder if others might be interested in some further
conversation about these experiences.
In my own case, I had a childhood which left me almost without a personality
of my own, because I had been so focused on trying to please my only parent
who couldn't be pleased no matter what I did. And then I had moved into a
marriage in which there wasn't much interaction and had been in it for 20
years at the time this thing began. I tried hard to be a good Baha'i, wife,
mother, employee, but I had a consistent nagging feeling that something
important was missing. I didn't have many friends--somehow I was simply
unable to engage with other people on any deep level, and my experience in
the Baha'i community, although I made consistent efforts, remained at a
fairly superficial level. The crisis experience itself involved a
complicated series of outer and inner events which I won't describe in detail
(did I just hear a meow of relief from the Talisman mascot aka Sherman, who
probably finds computers boring as they have no feathers?), but it triggered
a period of intense search and prayer; eventually I went to meetings of
Codependents Anonymous regularly for about 2-1/2 years, and then did some
intensive work with creative journaling, and eventually came out knowing a
great deal more about who I am and what is important to me. Now I find it
relatively easy to develop relationships, and I feel I have become more
creative, and am much better at teaching--(not great, but much better; that
means nobody has broken down my door trying to get hold of a declaration
card, but every once in a while I at least manage to get somebody to come to
a fireside.) Oh, and I've finally started a long-overdue year of patience.
Well, I didn't mean to go into all that, but somehow it got on the screen, so
I guess I'll leave it. One of the hazards of computers. :-) Anyway, I
wonder if anyone else would like to share something about their "spiritual
crisis" experiences?
With loving Baha'i greetings,
Carmen
From brburl@mailbag.comFri Nov 17 10:00:43 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:41:48 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
Juan,
> "I'm always happy to see your pugnacious postings, and think it is
wonderful that you take time to dialogue with us." <
Pugnacious? I don't think so, but wonderful? Of course.
> "But I have increasingly gotten the feeling that you are not interested
in a dialogue or in exploring together so as to find new insights, so
much as you are in telling us what's what." <
Well, if I am simply just telling what's what it may be in response to
being, for years, told by Baha'is what is supposedly what about
traditions of which they have no real knowledge. Of course I am willing
to explore, but I always felt it somewhat important to understand what
it is we are looking at before we start making conclusions.
> 'But it would be so much more useful to have a real dialogue in
which we are open to the specific spiritual insights of your
Buddhist tradition, and you are open to Baha'i spiritual insights (or have
you decided that the Baha'i Writings have none?)' <
Of course, but then I also think before we can do this we need to have
some clarity as to what "my" Buddhist tradition is saying, and I think I
gave a nice example concerning selflessness in my immediately
preceding missive, opening a huge door for dialogue and exchange. It
looks like the Buddhism and Baha'i are rather far a part, but are they?
Have I decided if the Baha'i writings have no spiritual insights? What
I am questioning is the claim of insight into the supposed unity of
religions. Such an insight seems to me less than obvious.
> "Such a dialogue takes work. For instance, it would be nice if you
had actually read some key Baha'i works aside from Momen's book.
You once gave evidence of not even having read Some Answered
Questions. Have you read Gleanings?" <
And this has been my criticism of Momen's book. He simply has given
no evidence of having done the work before committing him self to
publishing. I do not know of what you are speaking about concerning a
lack of evidence. I have read SAQ and Gleanings and a number of
others, albeit years ago. I do not have these texts at hand, but as such
I do not see that it invalidates my observations.
> "My current project is *not* to define what Buddhism is or is
not."<
But that is happens by what you choose to quote a text to support your
position. This is not a criticism, just an observation, for we all do that
in how we present the other side. As I have said here before -- I'll say
it again -- I stand to be corrected on anything I do say about anything.
And my point in my criticism of Momen and of the Baha'i subsumption
of Buddhism in general has been that it redefines Buddhism in ways that
are not necessarily in agreement with what Buddhism understands itself
to be.
> "It is to see how we might gain a different understanding of *Baha'i*
texts by looking at them in the context of Zen ideas. I should have
thought the idea of Baha'is trying to learn from Buddhism rather than
the other way around would meet some of the concerns you have
expressed in the past." <
But that was not at all clear to me that that was what you were doing.
I obviously missed your intent. Please accept my apologies. If I am
going to learn from Baha'i in Buddhist terms, it is important to me that
the Buddhist terms be carefully understood.
I am not trying to shut down dialogue or to beat up Baha'i, but I am not
going to easily accept the Baha'i notions of unity -- however it is
presented and approached --without good reason.
> 'But to be quite frank, this becomes way too complicated if the
discussion becomes a three-way one, between Theravada, Zen and
Baha'i. So could we please stick with the relevant texts; if you want to
quarrel with something I have said, fine, but it should be a quarrel from
a Zen point of view, not a Theravadin or some kind of generic
"Buddhist" one.' <
You are correct that a three way discussion would get too complicated,
but what is a Zen point of view, what the relevant texts, whose Zen,
which period of Zen? Zen cannot meaningfully be separated from its
Buddhist context, and that was the point I was trying to make in pointing
out that even though Sino-Japanese Buddhism may show an influence
from Taoism in the presentation of emptiness, that does not supersede
the broader Buddhist contexts of the Zen notion of emptiness. Zen
monks still chant the Heart Sutra, study and revere the Diamond sutra
and point to the Lankavatara as an foundational text.
Again, whose Zen? Should we look at Dogen, or how about the
wonderful Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh? Which Zen?
> "And, by the way, I think you are on *very* shaky ground in trying
to critique Dumoulin, who knows Sanskrit, Chinese and Japanese and
has devoted his life to the study of Zen." <
Unquestionably as historical studies his works are very good, but they
are rather less than good when he talks about Indian Buddhist doctrine,
not at all unlike T.V.R. Murti. This is a conclusion I came a number of
years ago, and it has since been confirmed over the years in talking with
a number of Buddhologists with Indo-Tibetan and Sino-Japanese
specialties. His latest work on the basic tenets of Buddhism is really
rather awful, especially compared to any number of other works
available.
Bruce
From brburl@mailbag.comFri Nov 17 10:01:59 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:44:42 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Positively Buddha-nature
Christopher Buck,
> "I got the message: Don't speak about any notion of *self* in
Buddhism, and do not speak of *positive* teachings, and dare not
compare Buddhism with other traditions!" <
I won't speak to comparisons with other traditions, and I'll pass on the
supposed positive teachings by Nagarjuna, but if you were using as
source the _Nirvana Sutra_, you should speak about "positive"
teachings, for it is a _tathagatagarbha_, or more commonly Buddha-
nature, text in which Buddhist notions are very deliberately recast into
positive terminology. Here is a little something just for your interest I
had from a discussion elsewhere from Paul Williams' excellent
MAHAYANA BUDDHISM.
-- Pre-eminent among those traditions for whom the tathagatagarbha
[buddha-nature] teachings were to be interpreted was (and is) the
dGelugs pa school, sometimes known in China and the West as the
Yellow Hats, founded by Tsong kha pa in the late fourteenth century.
This is, incidentally, the tradition to which His Holiness the Dalai Lama
belongs. According to Tsong kha pa (following the Lankavatara Sutra
and Candrakirti) the difference between the tathagatagarbha doctrine and
the Self or soul teachings of non-Buddhists lies in the Buddha's intention
in giving the tathagatagarbha teaching. If this doctrine were taken
literally it would indeed be no different from the non-Buddhist Self
theory. The Buddha, however, taught the tathagatagarbha teaching for
a purpose, he did not intend it to be taken as it stands as a literally true
doctrine. Rather, through his compassion, he intended it as a means to
introduce non-Buddhists to Buddhism. Moreover, when the Buddha
spoke of the tathagatagarbha what he was really referring to, the real
truth behind his teaching, was none other than emptiness, _sunyata_ (see
translation by Thurman 1984: 347-50). After all the tathagatagarbha is
said to be that within sentient beings which enables them to attain
Buddhahood. This is emptiness, absence of inherent existence,
which enables sentient beings to change into Buddhas. Understood
correctly, in this way, there is _then_ no problem in taking
Tathagatagarbha texts as teaching the final truth.
-- The tathagatagarbha is not just any emptiness, however. Rather it is
specifically emptiness of inherent existence when applied to a sentient
being's mind, his (her) mental continuum. ... When the mind is defiled
in the unenlightened state this emptiness is called tathagatagarbha. When
the mind has become pure through following the path and attaining
Buddhahood so emptiness is referred to in the dGe lugs tradition as the
Buddha's Essence Body (_svabhavikakaya_). The Buddha's pure mind
in that state is his Gnosis or Wisdom Body (_jnanakaya_), while the two
taken together, the Buddha's mind as a flow empty of inherent existence,
is what the tradition calls the _dharmakaya._ ... This also means that the
tathagatagarbha itself is strictly the fundamental cause of Buddhahood,
and is no way identical with the result, _dharmakaya_ or Essence Body
as the case may be, except in the sense that both defiled mind and
Buddha's mind are empty of inherent existence. --- Paul Williams
MAHAYANA BUDDHISM, pub by Routledge. Pg 106-7.
Tathagatagarbha stuff certainly takes work not fall into a reification of
the concepts it employs.
> "Bruce, I don't know you, but I respect your Buddhist training,
and would never presume to know more than you in this context. I
simply wish to point out that no dialogue is possible if the non-Buddhist
participants--who typically exert a far greater effort to understand
and accommodate Buddhist insights than the Buddhist participants do
(reciprocally, I mean)--are not given some kind of parity in the
dialogue and if their perspicuity is not also acknowledged." <
I think I understand what you are saying, but rather than to presume to,
please clarify.
> "BTW, have you read Eva Darguay's translation of the Tibetan
text that *proves* the existence of a Creator?" <
No, but what can you tell me about it?
Bruce\'1a
From mfoster@tyrell.netFri Nov 17 10:07:01 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 06:18:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Truth
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Don -
I enjoyed reading your posting. Thank you for it.
IMHO, "Truth" is God manifested (the Station of "the divine
Appearance and heavenly Splendor" - inseparably connected to the
Prophet's rational soul). Therefore, whatever the Prophet says or does,
informed as it is by the manifested Reality of the Divine Essence, is
also "truth."
The Revelation, as I see it, is love (the Covenant/Will/Law of God)
and truth (reality). Well, actually, there is no essential difference
between love and reality. They are, from a God's-eye viewpoint, in
at-one-ment as the fruit of the spirit. As the spiritual travelers that
we are, during our brief sojourn through the lower kingdoms of creation,
we relate to these qualities as names - placing them into the context of
what we experience with our senses and our minds as two of life's
greatest tests, matter and time.
The Baha'i Faith (the recognition/knowledge of, and obedience to,
the Will/Love/Covenant of God in this age) is the central *conscious*
emanation of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. From my POV, it is correct,
then, to say that the eternal religion of God is *truth.* However, since
all knowledge comes from God, truth is also universal. So, the arts and
material sciences, mediated to us by the holy souls in the spiritual
Kingdom beyond, are also revealed truth. IMHO, *whatever* God manifests or
creates, in all the conditions of existence, is truth.
Blessings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From belove@sover.netFri Nov 17 10:07:12 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 07:26:15 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FW: Re: UHJ, Patriarchy, etc.
On Wed, 15 Nov 95 10:06:52 CST Milissa wrote:
>Hi LuAnne--
>
>Alright! I also believe that the next Manifestation will be a woman!
>Yea! But then I also believe there have already been some female
>Manifestations.
>
>And I bet she will be considered uppity......:)
>
>Sincerely,
>Milissa Boyer
>mboyer@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
Hi Milissa,
Is Ukans that sameas KU?
Please, Milissa, some of us guys might in fact recognize her and be
quite joyful and relieved.
On the otherhand, maybe You're suggesting this as an attribute, as
in, verily, thou are the uppity...?
Finally, if a guy thinks a she is being uppity, would that mean that
he considers uppityness a good quality, as in verily thou art the
Most Uppity.
;-)
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/17/95
Time: 07:26:16
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieFri Nov 17 10:07:46 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:39:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: HICKC89
To: Talisman@indiana.edu, Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Subject: re: Re: infallibility
Hello,
I guess since I didn't get it that I only posted my reply to
Sen, for which I apologise, but I no longer have it.
Anyway, I don't feel Sen is being particularly clear here at all.
(Naturally I may be thick, or we have different speech norms or
something). At any rate let me assume he means that the word 'error'
is in some way ambiguous, which I admit, given the numerous things to
which it could apply, it is.
Fundamentally, I suppose that "freed from all error" implies that
the UHJ always makes *decisions*,announcements, etc. that are the best
possible for the Faith (and therefore [bit of an extrapolation] the
human race as a whole). Hence I suppose 'Abdu'l-Baha's other phrase
in W&T that the House of Justice is a "source of good".
If I have utterly missed your point Sen, I apologise.
D.
> for clarification (following Darach's posting), I am not
questioning that the
> Universal House of Justice is 'free from all error'. The question
is, what is
> meant by 'error'. Clearly it does not mean factual mistakes about things of
> this world, so we have to broaden our minds a little about the contents of
> this mysterious black box called 'infallibility'. That it exists is not in
> question. But what is in it?
>
> Sen
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Darach Watson
Dept. of Exp. Physics
UCD, Dublin
Ireland.
From JBuckglenn@aol.comFri Nov 17 10:08:31 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:46:40 -0500
From: JBuckglenn@aol.com
To: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu
Cc: burlb@bmi.net, talisman@indiana.edu, mfoster@tyrell.net
Subject: Re: Covenant-breaker? (fwd)
Dear Burl:
You are quite mistaken: That was not word-for-word copy from anyone else's
"sincere ex-Baha'i E-mail". I have never in my life read a piece of
ex-Baha'i E-mail, or a piece of ex-Baba'i anything. I wrote it, fresh, and
out of my head, the other night, as a reply to a letter from a Baha'i. My
point in replying to the letter was to suggest that, contrary to the
letter-writer's expectations, Baha'ism is NOT the Faith of the Future because
you cannot overcome the problems that serious scrutiny of the roots of the
faith bring to light, that the author was refusing to allow Buddhism its own
self-understanding, to which I was objecting strenuously.
When I was a Baha'i I DID read the texts seriously and study the history
seriously and to immerse myself in the faith, but I began to be troubled with
questions--like what happpened to Shoghi Effendi's will?--that I could not
suppress. I wanted to beleive, but I could not honestly do so any longer, and
left.
In my letter, I did not get into Baha'ullah's claims or the proofs of his
mission--or lack thereof--because that was not the point of the letter. The
claims are irrelevant to my point, which is basicially your presentation to
non-beleivers.
I did not condemn either Buddha or Mohammad to hellfire as false prophets in
my letter! I said nothing of the kind, and don't think that, either. I have
no idea why you added that.
Sincerely,
Judy
PS: I was a Baha'i in a small New England state in the late 1970's. My last
name then was different. I was not aligned with any of the various
"Covenant-breaker groups." I don't feel like identifying the circumstances
more clearly than that because some of you are beginning to sound a little
crankish to me, quite frankly.
From brburl@mailbag.comFri Nov 17 10:37:53 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:41:48 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
Juan,
> "I'm always happy to see your pugnacious postings, and think it is
wonderful that you take time to dialogue with us." <
Pugnacious? I don't think so, but wonderful? Of course.
> "But I have increasingly gotten the feeling that you are not interested
in a dialogue or in exploring together so as to find new insights, so
much as you are in telling us what's what." <
Well, if I am simply just telling what's what it may be in response to
being, for years, told by Baha'is what is supposedly what about
traditions of which they have no real knowledge. Of course I am willing
to explore, but I always felt it somewhat important to understand what
it is we are looking at before we start making conclusions.
> 'But it would be so much more useful to have a real dialogue in
which we are open to the specific spiritual insights of your
Buddhist tradition, and you are open to Baha'i spiritual insights (or have
you decided that the Baha'i Writings have none?)' <
Of course, but then I also think before we can do this we need to have
some clarity as to what "my" Buddhist tradition is saying, and I think I
gave a nice example concerning selflessness in my immediately
preceding missive, opening a huge door for dialogue and exchange. It
looks like the Buddhism and Baha'i are rather far a part, but are they?
Have I decided if the Baha'i writings have no spiritual insights? What
I am questioning is the claim of insight into the supposed unity of
religions. Such an insight seems to me less than obvious.
> "Such a dialogue takes work. For instance, it would be nice if you
had actually read some key Baha'i works aside from Momen's book.
You once gave evidence of not even having read Some Answered
Questions. Have you read Gleanings?" <
And this has been my criticism of Momen's book. He simply has given
no evidence of having done the work before committing him self to
publishing. I do not know of what you are speaking about concerning a
lack of evidence. I have read SAQ and Gleanings and a number of
others, albeit years ago. I do not have these texts at hand, but as such
I do not see that it invalidates my observations.
> "My current project is *not* to define what Buddhism is or is
not."<
But that is happens by what you choose to quote a text to support your
position. This is not a criticism, just an observation, for we all do that
in how we present the other side. As I have said here before -- I'll say
it again -- I stand to be corrected on anything I do say about anything.
And my point in my criticism of Momen and of the Baha'i subsumption
of Buddhism in general has been that it redefines Buddhism in ways that
are not necessarily in agreement with what Buddhism understands itself
to be.
> "It is to see how we might gain a different understanding of *Baha'i*
texts by looking at them in the context of Zen ideas. I should have
thought the idea of Baha'is trying to learn from Buddhism rather than
the other way around would meet some of the concerns you have
expressed in the past." <
But that was not at all clear to me that that was what you were doing.
I obviously missed your intent. Please accept my apologies. If I am
going to learn from Baha'i in Buddhist terms, it is important to me that
the Buddhist terms be carefully understood.
I am not trying to shut down dialogue or to beat up Baha'i, but I am not
going to easily accept the Baha'i notions of unity -- however it is
presented and approached --without good reason.
> 'But to be quite frank, this becomes way too complicated if the
discussion becomes a three-way one, between Theravada, Zen and
Baha'i. So could we please stick with the relevant texts; if you want to
quarrel with something I have said, fine, but it should be a quarrel from
a Zen point of view, not a Theravadin or some kind of generic
"Buddhist" one.' <
You are correct that a three way discussion would get too complicated,
but what is a Zen point of view, what the relevant texts, whose Zen,
which period of Zen? Zen cannot meaningfully be separated from its
Buddhist context, and that was the point I was trying to make in pointing
out that even though Sino-Japanese Buddhism may show an influence
from Taoism in the presentation of emptiness, that does not supersede
the broader Buddhist contexts of the Zen notion of emptiness. Zen
monks still chant the Heart Sutra, study and revere the Diamond sutra
and point to the Lankavatara as an foundational text.
Again, whose Zen? Should we look at Dogen, or how about the
wonderful Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh? Which Zen?
> "And, by the way, I think you are on *very* shaky ground in trying
to critique Dumoulin, who knows Sanskrit, Chinese and Japanese and
has devoted his life to the study of Zen." <
Unquestionably as historical studies his works are very good, but they
are rather less than good when he talks about Indian Buddhist doctrine,
not at all unlike T.V.R. Murti. This is a conclusion I came a number of
years ago, and it has since been confirmed over the years in talking with
a number of Buddhologists with Indo-Tibetan and Sino-Japanese
specialties. His latest work on the basic tenets of Buddhism is really
rather awful, especially compared to any number of other works
available.
Bruce
From HGEYER@KENTVM.KENT.EDUFri Nov 17 10:56:29 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 09:46:09 EST
From: theo
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Standpoint epistemology
Some of us think slower than others, thus allow my delay to be no
hinderance to this nascent discussion. Juan filled a gap in conceptual thought
which he termed "standpoint epistemology". I'll throw my agreement behind
Mark in finding this a "good descriptive term", and like i mentioned to Juan,
it is in line with other ideas he has had as he has prepared commentaries on
some Tablets of Baha'u'llah. NOw, lest Robert label me a flaming Juanist,
let me assert that i adamantly support Juan's ideas, even though i may not
agree with them all, and unequivocally do not agree with some of his stances
or attitudes or beliefs (although i must speculate about this last term, i can
imagine there is something going on besides simple belief, as his position in
academia and peer acceptance may have an impact here). Let me expound.....
In Juan's "Commentary on the Sura of the Sun", he mentions this:
"But the point i want to make here is that Baha'u'llah envisions these
various planes or stations of reality, whether they be metaphysical or
psychological, as sites of discourse."
These "sites of discourse" seem like a precursor to the notion of his
"standpoint epistemology", unless i am naive here. For the sake of discussion,
let us asume this to be so. "People have grown weary and impatient of rhet-
oric and discourse, of preaching and sermonizing." Keeping this in mind, let
me proceed:
In my studies since embracing the Baha'i Faith, and my historical read-
ings in early religious history, there seems to be one trend, an archetypal
pattern which reappears in every dispensation. My reading of this history
informs me that there is a definite perceived threat *within* religious systems
by intellectuals and/or mystics, especially by those *within* the administrat-
ive aspects of these beliefs. Now, as i assert this, some of you may request
proof, and i will offer this.....read it yourself to see if it exists or not.
I am no historian, but the tension stood out for me when i read it, and as a
Baha'i it seems very apparent. I will grant that this threat comes not so
much from intellectualism, per se, but from the approach of some intellectuals,
from the lack of understanding of some believers, and the emotional component
of "faith". Since i view things more psychologically than socio-historically,
i can see dynamics behind these stances and respect them for what they are.
When Juan asserts: "Within Nasut, the cosmos can be understood as
self-consistent and governed by laws discoverable by reason, without any
necessity of referring to outside, supernatural agency. Material/cultural
causation on the one hand, and Divine Teleology on the other, are like two
sides of a coin. You can onl look at a one side at a time, and while you are
doing so you cannot see the other side." This seems to me to be sound, but
within its sphere, from a "nasut" point of view, and even though i would not
label this as "materialistic", it seems Deistic. And yet, it does not seem
to me that Juan is asserting this to be anything other than a POV "within
nasut", and an attempt to offer Baha'is something to grasp with, to fill what
he sees as an intellectual gap, because he says: "Most Baha'is, for all their
liberal principles and the ocean of Revelation they have to draw on do not
actually seem to have any useful answers to the division in the modern world
between faith and reason." Reading this closely, it seems that he expreses it
cogently enough to thwart a materialistic reading, for the "ocean of Revelation"
would not fit if it were so. It also rings of Heisenbergs uncertainty prin-
ciple applied to theological hermenutics, framed by the heirarchical view of
the five metaphysical planes referred to in the Tablet of All Food. And i
wonder how much of this is influenced by Gregory Bateson's ideas.
If there is to be a continuation of the discussion of developing a
"Baha'i" scholarship, it seems that Juan's post adds much to it.
"It is clear to thine Eminence that all the variations
which the wayfarer in the stages of his
journey beholdeth in the realms of being, proceed
from his own vision." (The Seven Valleys, page 18)
Standpoint epistemology, like the term theo-semiotics, may serve us
well in this pursuit, if we keep in mind that, even though many "...scientists
...have waged a 200-year-long battle to carve out a space for the operation
of reason on empirical evidence", that,
"Effort must be made that slumbering
souls may be awakened, the heedless become vigilant, and
that the divine teachings, which constitute the spirit of this
age, may reach the ears of the people of the world, may be
propagated in the press and set forth with brilliance and
eloquence in the assemblages of men."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 223)
"The people, therefore, must be set completely free from their old
patterns of thought, that all their attention may be focused
upon these new principles, for these are the light of this
time and the very spirit of this age."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 253)
"Divine teachings constitute the spirit of this age, nay rather the sun of
this age."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 310)
Standpoint epistemology would allow us to assert that this "spirit
of the age" is not one sided:
"The spirit of the age, taken on the whole, is irreligious. Man's outlook
on life is too crude and materialistic to enable him to elevate himself into
the higher realms of the spirit."
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, page 86)
And, in thinking of this, let us ponder "in our hearts", the unfolding
of progressive revelation, the expansion and development of consciousness, the
interplay of the forces of light and dark, the phenomenological nature of
experience, the intensity of Divine Revelation, "the like of wich mortal
eyes have never witnessed". Development of any new position, like a "Baha'i
scholarship", needs to attain an equilibrium unlike that of our contemporaries.
"The world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating
influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's
ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this
unique, this wondrous System - the like of which mortal eyes have
never witnessed." (Synopsis of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 27)
"We delude ourselves with the thought that we know much more about
matter than about "metaphysical" mind or spirit, and so we overestim-
ate material causation and believe that it alone affords us a true
explanation of life. But matter is just as inscrutable as mind. As
to the ultimate things we can know nothing, and only when we admit
this do we return to a state of equilibrium." (Jung, ibid. below)
"The spirit of the age cannot be fitted into categories of human reason. It
more a bias, an emotional tendency that works upon weaker minds, through the
unconscious, with an overwhelming force of suggestion that carries them along
with it. To think otherwise than our contemporaries think is somehow illegit-
imate and disturbing; it is even indecent, morbid or blasphemous, and there-
fore socially dangerous for the individual. ...Just as formerly the assumption
was unquestionable that everything that exists originates in the creative will
of a God who is a spirit, so the nineteenth century discovered the equally
unquestionable truth that everything arises from material causes. Today the
psyche does not build itself a body, but on the contrary matter, by chemical
action, produces the psyche. This reversal of outlook would be ludicrous if
it were not one of the unquestioned verities of the spirit of the age. It is
the popular way of thinking, and therefore is decent, reasonable, scientific,
and normal. Mind must be thought of as an epiphenomenon of matter. The same
conclusion is reached if we say not "mind" but "psyche", and instead of
"matter" speak of "brain", "hormones", "instincts", and "drives".To allow the
soul or psyche a substantiality of its own is repugnant to the spirit of the
age, for that would be heresy.
We have now discovered that it was an intellecutally unjustified presumption
on our forefathers' part to assume than man has a soul; that that soul has
substance, is of divine nature and therefore immortal; that there is a power
inherent within it which builds up the body, sustains its life, heals its ills
and enables the soul to live independently of the body; that there are incorp-
oreal spirits with which the soul associates; and that beyond our empirical
present there is a spiritual world from which the soul receives knowledge of
spiritual things whose origins cannot be discovered in this visible world.
But people who are not above the general level of consciousness have not yet
discovered that it is just as presumptuous and fantastic to assume that matter
produces mind, that apes give rise to human beings, that from the harmonious
interplay of the drives of hunger, love, and power Kant's *Critique of Pure
Reason* should have emerged, and that all this could not be possibly other
than it is.
.......As I have said, the irresistible tendency to explain everything on
physical grounds corresponds to the horizontal development of consciousness
in the last four centuries, and this horizontal perspective is a reaction
against the exclusively vertical perspective of the Gothic Age. It is an
**ethnopsychological phenomenon** and as such cannot be treated in terms of
individual consciousness......
If we were conscious of the spirit of the age, we should know why we are so
inclined to account for everything on physical grounds; we should know it is
because, **up to now,, too much was accounted for in terms of spirit.**"
(Jung, CW vol. 8, para. 653-657)
Our mission, should we accept it, is to foster the development of
a new methodoligical approach to scholarship which synthesizes and leads
beyond, which moves souls from the plane of "there is no God", to that of
"but God", as the Master stated.
just my ideas,
theo
P.S. Juan....what are the demarcation limits of scientific pursuit that you
adhere to? What is your S.E.?
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Nov 17 10:58:51 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:35:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
Bruce:
Fair enough. In our subsequent dialogue I will try to be bound by your
very reasonable requests.
First, I do not wish to "subsume" Buddhism as a historical religion under
the Baha'i Faith. We will discuss things on the epistemological level of
Nasut/ordinary human understanding accessible to us all. My current
discussions are anyway not about what Baha'is call progressive
revelation, but are an exercise in comparative religions. While each is
unique and should be understood in its own particularity, context, and
developmental stages, surely each is not completely incomprehensible to
people of other traditions. And if each is comprehensible, then there
may be structures of thought and perception which, if they cannot be
identical, are nevertheless similar or analogous. It is such analogues
that I wish to discuss as between Zen and Baha'i texts. Of course, I may
misunderstand one or both traditions and so may stumble into a false
analogy. The point of posting these preliminary observations is to get
feedback.
One of my motives for all this is that I feel that the American Baha'i
tradition has on the whole become so fixated on administration,
committees, and vague future utopias, that it has lost sight of the
strong emphasis in Baha'i texts on `irfan or mystical insight. I had a
very powerful experience of `irfan when I was 19, while reading the Book
of Certitude. It was a mixture of ecstasy and ineffability, and when I
returned to ordinary consciousness a sublime certitude had settled over
me. I have in subsequent years had further such "peak experiences" as
Maslow called them. One was provoked by Beethoven's violin concerto.
Except in Omaha, I don't get a sense that such experiences are at the
core of most Baha'is' lives. I think that a tradition like Zen, which
focuses on their analogues, has a great deal to teach us about
spirituality. Ironically, as we learn more of the Baha'i texts in their
original languages and contexts, the Sufi or `Irfan emphases in them
become more and more clear and it seems obvious that the American Baha'i
community in particular has simply missed the boat here. So, I want to
appeal to Zen to "bring out" certain aspects of our own tradition, which
are much more difficult to see if one only approaches them from the point
of view of conservative Protestantism).
As for the issue of which Zen, surely this can be handled by simply
specifying that such and such an idea is especially stressed by Dogen or
by Hakuin or is in the Mumonkan koan collection but not elsewhere.
Academic scholars usually make such distinctions, and I will try to,
where I know enough to do so. An example was my earlier discussion of ku
or the Japanese Zen conception of emptiness, which I explicitly
attributed to the influence of Taoism and which I was careful to
distinguish from S'unyata in South Asian Buddhism; I have read Nagarjuna
quite a lot, and do not need to be told that in many ways "Ku" reverses
the South Asian idea. But it is Ku that I was discussing, and I made
that clear. And I do think that "Ku" resonates with the Sufi and Baha'i
conception of the divine Void, `ama'. That is not to say that the two
are the same or equivalent, only that there is some use in thinking about
them in the same frame.
cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduFri Nov 17 15:27:22 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:55:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: theo
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Standpoint epistemology
Theo: I thought that a very insightful reading of what I was trying to
say and do.
Human beings are very complex. We increasingly understand that the Left
brain, with its language center in the Broca area and its mathematical
abilities, thinks differently from the Right brain, with its intuitions
and its closer connection to the emotions. Of course, the two are
connected by the corpus collosum. But each is modular and thinks
differently.
What I was calling Nasut broadly corresponds to left-brain thinking,
which is what dominates academic discourse. To give an example, from
this point of view the decline of monarchy is intimately related to the
rise of capitalism and then industrialization, creating a powerful
bourgeoisie and new working classes, all of whom demanded participatory
government.
When Shoghi Effendi in *Promised Day is Come* speaks of the monarchs
being cast down by the winds of the Will of God, he is speaking the
language of the Right brain, of a purposive cosmos and divine
righteousness working itself out in history. This is the plane of
malakut or jabarut.
In order to be whole human beings, we must acknowledge and satisfy both
halves of our brains (which are sites of discourse and consciousness that
enable different spiritual faculties to be expressed). But I do not
think we can usefully synthesize the two. I think they should be kept
separate, because they are fundamentally incompatible. They have to
coexist and each must be acknowledged, but they are like bifocals; you
can only look through one set of lenses at a time, and which you look
through will depend on whether you wish to read or look out on a
landscape, in other words, it will depend on your particular purpose at
that moment. Sometimes, as when I write academic historiography, I have
left-brain, nasut purposes. Sometimes, as when I write Baha'i theology,
I have right-brain malakut/jabarut purposes. Baha'is who insist that
there is ether because `Abdu'l-Baha uses the word are like someone trying
to read a close-up book from the top lenses of his bifocals. It just
blurs everything.
My insistence that the two cannot be completely synthesized has some
basis in the scientific literature. When persons have had their corpus
callosums severed, experiments have shown that when shown something the
left brain (right hand) has drawn, the right brain (left eye) often
cannot comprehend it and makes up a symbolic story to explain it away.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From caryer@microsoft.comFri Nov 17 15:27:38 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:00:56 -0800
From: caryer@microsoft.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: lua@sover.net, MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: RE: Re: UHJ, Patriarchy, etc.
I have always assumed that there have been female Manifestations in the
past, or at the very least, androgynous ones, but that assumption is based
on an intuitive leap and not on scholarship. A similar leap led me to think
that many "gods" and "goddesses" of very ancient cultures are remembrances
of long gone Manifestations and holy ones, perhaps even from preceding
cycles. Many of the figures are so archetypal and universal that it hardly
seems a stretch. However, I wonder if anyone has thought about this in depth
and might comment. Is there anything in the Baha'i writings that explicitly
refutes this? My curiosity in this area is intense.
Your gender-dysphoric colleague and friend,
Cary (C.H.R.)
========================
"'Where do you get your ideas?' has always been the question I'm most
confronted with . . . I'm afraid the answer is much more mundane: I don't
know where my ideas come from. I will admit, however, that one key
ingredient is caffeine." -- Gary Larson (FarSide)
----------
From: Milissa[SMTP:MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 November, 1995 8:06 AM
To: LuAnne Hightower
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: UHJ, Patriarchy, etc.
Hi LuAnne--
Alright! I also believe that the next Manifestation will be a woman!
Yea! But then I also believe there have already been some female
Manifestations.
And I bet she will be considered uppity......:)
Sincerely,
Milissa Boyer
mboyer@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
From burlb@bmi.netFri Nov 17 15:29:56 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 09:00 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Standpoint epistemology
>
Juan & theo -- have you kids read "The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Janes? Sherman, tiny turban and
all, got quite a kitty kick out of it so I hear.
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduFri Nov 17 15:30:52 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:09:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hijack?! (& Typology of Interfaith Dialogue)
Allah'u'abha! Mark forwarded part of a posting to G-Ethic to the list
(which has given rise to a discussion of claims of "Truth"). I was
particularly taken aback by the message's characterization of Baha'is as
"hijacking" Messengers and Revelations. Aside from its representing a
probable misunderstanding of Baha'i teachings regarding Progressive
Revelation and Baha'u'llah's fulfillment of various prophecies of
"return," this message also requires us to look at the nature of inter-
faith dialogue.
> E >I was one of the people who thanked Judy privately for her caveat
> E >concerning the Baha'i claim to representing Truth with a capital
> E >T and the Baha'i tendency to gently hijack and "Babize"
> E >messengers and messages of other religions. ..............
Because we as Baha'is believe that all religions are in fact one, and
because we believe that Baha'u'llah fulfills prophecies of earlier
Messengers, we study and try to understand other religions in that light.
This is not "hijacking," any more than efforts within a religious tradition
to come to fresh understandings of text, teachings, and Teachers are. It
is in my understanding fundamental to Baha'i beliefs to attempt to understand
previous Revelations and Messengers in a single context. Also, keep in mind
that all Baha'is come from (and/or are immersed in societies with dominant)
religious traditions that do not recognize most or all of the Divine
Messengers, so the Baha'i teachings enable them to come to accept and love
all of them. Far from "hijacking," this is wonderful. (Even those who
attempt to disprove the claims of Baha'u'llah sometimes research texts
etc. from religions other than their own to try to strengthen their
arguments ... the Baha'i faith apparently has the effect of mitigating for
religious unity even among its opponents!*)
As for the notion that Baha'is "Babize" the many Manifestations of God, I
find the term puzzling. Baha'is do understand all Messengers as equal and
in a sense identical. All precede Baha'u'llah temporally, as Baha'u'llah
precedes Another who will come several centuries from now. If "Babize"
was intended to convey "diminish in importance" (the opposite of how a
Baha'i would read it), then the poster is mistaken. Baha'is understand
earlier Messengers in the same context in which They place Themselves:
as Manifestations who promised a Return or the Advent of a Promised One.
The message to which I am responding (as well as an earlier G-Ethic
posting to which it refers) bring up the issue of how people approach
dialogue among different religions. A couple of months ago I had a
conversation with a Christian colleague who related a brief typology of
positions/orientations with regard to other beliefs which one brings to
interfaith dialogue. There are three:
1. One believes one's religion has the truth and the others are at best
misled and in any event somehow spiritually doomed.
2. One accepts that all religious teachings have some of the truth, but
believes that one's own religion has a larger share of the truth, or some
special characteristic that puts it above the rest.
3. One takes the relativist position that each religion is right for the
society in which it arises and leaves it at that.
Since my friend was not very familiar with the Baha'i faith, he asked where
Baha'is might fit in the above schema. I had to say that in principle we
have a different and novel position/orientation:
4. One believes that all religions come from the same source in accordance
with a Divine plan (i.e., progressive revelation), so we accept that all
have a share in a single evolving truth.
Furthermore, I had to admit to my friend that although the Baha'i teachings
explicitly tell us associate with followers of ealier revelations in
fellowship, and to respect other religions even more than we do our own
(I'm sorry I don't have the references), we have to guard against sliding
into the second position/orientation he described.
Perhaps communication from Baha'is on that second level prompted the above
posting on G-Ethic? Or perhaps there is simply a misunderstanding of Baha'i
dialogue on the fourth level? Either way, it behooves all involved in
dialogue among faiths to examine what approaches we are taking into that
dialogue. Certainly we Baha'is must take care how we present the Faith and
its teachings--and especially to accord other religions the proper respect,
but non-Baha'is dialoguing with us must for their part try to understand
that by its very nature, the Baha'i faith will always understand their
religions in a way that is at first unfamiliar and perhaps challenging
to them.
Hope this is helpful... Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Michigan State University
* In the same way, the strong emphasis in Baha'i teachings on race unity
sometimes bring racist & race separatists from different races together, as
illustrated in a memorable event in Florida a couple of years ago where the
KKK and Black Nationalists came to demonstrate against a Baha'i-sponsored
race unity rally.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Nov 17 15:31:26 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 12:11:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: The Bab's reference to 1511 and 2001 years
Howdy to All,
Judy's paper made a reference to the fact that the Bab
seems to have set the date of the advent of "Him Whom
God shall make manifest" many years in the future.
The following is an exerpt of a article posted by
Kamran Hakim to soc.religion.bahai in December of 1993 -
the descriptions in the brackets are Kamran's explanations
of the quotes and desginated by KH.
-------------------------------
Let us now examine and see that in what context do the
concept of 1511 and 2001 years, appear in the Babi Scriptures.
In the Persian Bayan, three references are made to these two
dates, which will be quoted here for examination;
"For only God knows how long it will be from the beginning
of a Manifestation [i.e. coming of a Messenger. KH] until
another, but if God please, it will not be more than the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
number of MUSTAGHATH [i.e. The numerical value of this
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
term is 2001 accoding to Jafr terminology, Abjad notation
or Gematriot. KH]. And in the cycle of the Qur'an, the
beginning and return of that was the name of Aghfar
(Most Forgiven) minus the name Huwa (He) [i.e. This
calculates to 1000 years based on Gematriot. KH]. And
there is no test by which to judge of this matter, which
only God knows, for between the Gospel and the Qur'an the
number of years did not even reach 1000 [It was 621 years
to be exact. KH]. And in every case the Tree of Truth
[i.e. Manifestation of God. KH] regards the capacity of his
people: whenever He sees that they are ready for the
Manifestation in the mirrors of their [i.e. people's KH]
hearts, He reveals Himself."
The Persian Bayan 7:10
Furthermore, it is revealed in the Persian Bayan:
"Should He [i.e. Him Whom God shall make manifest. KH] come
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
in the number of GHIYATH (1511) all men shall enter in, not
one shall remain in the Fire; and if he comes to MUSTAGHATH
(2001) all men shall enter in, not one shall remain in Fire."
The Persian Bayan 2:17
Yet in another verse He says;
"O people of Bayan! ... If any soul is patient for an instance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
beyond 2001 years without doubt he is not in the religion of
Bayan, and shall enter the Fire, unless the Manifestation of
God shall appear. My heart is not content that even one should
then remain in the Bayan, [i.e. remain a Babi by the year
2001. KH].
The Persian Bayan 2:16
A note of clarification: References made to Fire in the
quotations above mean agonizing fire of separation from God
and His Manifestation. This Fire is not be taken as literal.
Please note the verses of the Bayan are CONDITIONAL terms,
"Should He come ...", and "If He comes...". Furthermore, He
affirms that only God decides when people are ready for a new
Manifestation. None of these quotations fix the date of the
manifestation of "Him Whom God shall make manifest" at 1511
or 2001 years! Numbers 1511 and 2001 could only be time
limits before which "Him Whom God shall make manifest" must
appear.
The Bab has clearly fixed, thourghout His Writings, the timeline
for the appearance of "Him Whom God shall make manifest" to be
19 years from the time of His own decelaration at 1844 A.D.,
(i.e. 1863). Following is one of the Tablets of The Bab to
"Him Whom God shall make manifest" (The Promised One of
Whom the Bab spoke, Return of Christ):
"He is the Most Glorious. He is God, no God is there but Him,
the Almighty, the Best Beloved. All that are in the heavens
and on the earth and whatever lieth between them are His. Verily
He is the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. This is a letter
from God [i.e. An allusion to the Gate Himself. KH], the
Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, unto God [i.e. An allusion
to the Returned Christ. KH], the Almighty, the Best Beloved, to
affirm that the Bayan and such as bear allegiance to it are
but a present from me unto Thee and to express my doubting
faith that there is no God but Thee, that the kingdoms of Creation
and Revelation are Thine, that no one can attain anything
save by Thy power and that He Whom Thou hast rasied up
[i.e. The Bab. KH] is but Thy servant and Thy Testimony,
begging to address Thee by Thy leave in these words:
"Shouldst Thou dismiss the entire company of the followers
of the Bayan in the Day of Latter Resurrection by a mere
sign of Thy finger even while still a suckling babe, Thou
wouldst indeed be praised in Thy indication. And though no
doubt is there about it, do Thou grant a repite of nineteen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
years as token of Thy favor so that those who have embraced
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
this Cause [i.e. He is referring to the Babis. KH] may be
~~~~~~
graciously rewarded by Thee. Thou art verily the Lord of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grace abounding. Thou indeed suffice every created thing
and causest it to be independent of all things, while nothing
in the heavens or on earth or that lieth between them can
ever suffice Thee. Verily Thou art the Self-Sufficient, the
All-Knowing; Thou art indeed potent over all things."
cit. Selections from the Writings of The Bab pp. 6-8
The term "RESPITE" means: A short interval of rest or relief.
This prophetic declaration of the Bab came into fulfilment in
the year 1863 A.D. (19 years after the declaration of The Bab
in 1844 A.D.) when Baha'u'llah proclaimed His Mission as being
"Him Whom God shall make manifest", as well as the fulfillment
of the prophecies of all Scriptures.
--------------------------------
> Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:18:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: Juan R Cole
> To: "Eric D. Pierce"
> Copies to: talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: Judy's paper on Babism
>
>
> This paper is an unremarkable scissors-and-paste narrative dependent on a
> few secondary sources. Very large numbers of important works are absent
> here, possibly because it must have been written in 1989, when Amanat's
> book was first published, and so it does not take account of subsequent
> volumes of, e.g., Studies in Babi and Baha'i Religions (Kalimat).
...
> Why the problematic
> of this slight scissors-and-past job should be whether the Babi movement
> broke from Islam rather puzzles me.
>
>
>
> cheers Juan Cole, Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of
> Michigan
>
From Member1700@aol.comFri Nov 17 15:43:27 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:36:04 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: JBuckglenn@aol.com, PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu
Cc: burlb@bmi.net, talisman@indiana.edu, mfoster@tyrell.net
Subject: Re: Covenant-breaker? (fwd)
First of all, can't we change the title of this thread? It is rather ugly,
don't you think?
I am very glad that Judy herself intervened to confirm that she no only
exists, is not a Covenant-breaker, and has not copied anyone elses
letter--but that she is willing to discuss these things with other Baha'is.
I think that SOMEBODY owes her an apology, and I don't mean Sherman.
It seemed to me that her letter rang true from the beginning. In fact, I
agree with her! I believe that her letter was an excellent and intelligent
summary of the problems that a naive and vulgar application of Baha'i
teachings have with regard to other religions. We have discussed this very
problem here on Talisman, with regard to Buddhism. It is quite surprising
that some of us would think that non-Baha'is would not notice the same things
that we as Baha'is are objecting to.
I would add that all of us should take the objections that Judy has
raised very, very seriously. They are the same objections that any informed
and educated person would raise to a "fireside version" of the Baha'i
teachings with regard to the other major religions of the world. And we will
have to get A LOT more sophisticated, if we intend to attract such people to
the Faith and keep them. Otherwise, they will become Christians or
something else. (No, Burl, all Christians are not stupid bigots who condemn
the billion Muslims of the world to hell fire.) In fact, if I thought that
Baha'is were required to believe the things that Judy has outlined in her
letter, I would become a Christian, too. Since clearly those propositions
are false, as Judy has pointed out quite eloquently.
Unfortunately, it appears that during her Baha'i experience she was never
exposed to believers who could offer her a more sophisticated understanding
of the Baha'i teachings, or answer her questions about the unpleasant details
of Babi and Baha'i history. Too bad. But, at least that should be a warning
to the rest of us of what will happen if we try to cover this stuff up--or
insist on a funda--oops!--a literalist reading of Baha'i scripture.
Warmest,
Tony
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Nov 17 17:27:05 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 12:41:20 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Whirling Dervishes the saga goes on . Let Linda go to the Mystical conference.
My dear Burl
I am truly amazed at the things you and I have discovered about Linda over the last
few months . To think dark secret forces on Talisman thought of her as a dominant
blue stocking Bloomsbury Intellectual . Instead she is a Dairy Queen heart throb , a
frequenter of Sports Bars , tobacco chewing and spitting good old boy in a skirt ,
possessor of the mighty right hook and left upper-cut , television and tabloid junkie
, steak guzzling cat hater and dog lover . By the way she recently acquired a silver
miniature spittoon cup it was a gift from an ME admirer we must not mention this in
case John finds out the truth . So no more Styrofoam cups for our Linda.
I do wonder though did John know what he was getting into when they got married.
Is he aware of the bizarre happenings when she leaves the cloisters of the Walbridge
Mansion. I do think you made an important breakthrough by getting dear Linda to
face her problems bashing people in public is slightly wrong . Although important
powerful and influential sources definitely suppressed and squashed inform me from
fourth hand so therefore absolutely reliable that : It was a'cross dressing' Jesuit ,
one Southern Baptist'alternative lifestyle 'evangelist and a Mormon Jewish Rabbi
that Linda decked at the Fort Lauderdale Fish Carbuncle and Well-Drilling and
Rolling competition in 1994. The crux of the differences relating to the real
understanding of Snicker bars in a religious context . As far as the question of
rights are concerned because the rights were held in a car trunk and therefore hidden
. It has become an urgent matter for our dear friend Christopher Buck to produce a
commentary on : the Gnostical aspects of the Hidden rights of Linda from a neo-
platonistic view with overtones suppression and rebellion , shaped with
considerations of a cup of human socks and straws with a direct relationship to
Socrates. This will be the subject of a 750 page work to be published by Kalimat 4
in 1997 . The long awaited volume will clear the way for a true understanding of
how to develop intolerance and misunderstanding in the 21st century . Volume two
will explore how suppression of cheese and steak has caused pop-tarts to zoom at
Baha'i meetings . Yours and my dear friend ,the old grape-stomper himself Juan
Ricardo Cole will write the introduction . In respect of Linda's religious dancing
we are inviting her to attend and teach this as a part of a new course I am developing
on Community disfunctionality how to create and keep it. I am sure my dear friend
Terry in Omaha will be relieved to find that Linda is finding her feet again after all
these years . Sitting on Sport Bar stools is bad for your dancing skills.
Singing the three onenesses as you propose should take the community to new
levels. My reading of Linda's postings is that it is a heart felt appeal for her to be
allowed to come to the Mystical Conference . Well Burl I for one say it is okay . I
know there are many powerful and influential people try to stop her but I appeal to
my fellow Talismanians LET LINDA COME to the MYSTICAL CONFERENCE it
is simply unfair she is not allowed to come . Your dear Cat Burl gave it's life so that
you could go to ABS . What can be done to help Linda ? Come on folks please post
and let her come.
Sherman tells me despite Linda's many uncalled for insults he still
loves her and she
should bring treats and her sweet little love bird who Sherman promises
to love to
death . Is there actually a place called South Jersey . I have heard of
Jersey cows , a
jersey that one wears to play a variety of sports . New Jersey which
parts of are
close to New York. , Jersey the Island close to France but British .
Is this the secret
Cote Dump of the East Coast ?
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut.
PS Sherman would never wear a turban
From Dave10018@aol.comFri Nov 17 17:27:21 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 16:28:04 -0500
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: jrcole@umich.edu, brburl@mailbag.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
It is interesting in this context to note that the most successful Baha'i
visual artist to date, the only one with an international reputation to
explicitly refer to the Faith's importance for his work, Mark Tobey, spent
several months at a Zen Buddhist monastary in Japan and was known as a
proponant of Zen.
cheers!
Dave Taylor
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduFri Nov 17 17:28:22 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 16:34:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Geocitizen@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Both/and thinking (was a revolution of reconciliation)
Kevin,
Thanks for your recent posting, to which I would like to respond with a
brief treatment of the subject of "both/and" logic, which may be seen as a
means towards "a revolution of reconciliation."/1
You wrote:
>As I reflect on the recent flow of events on Talisman, part of the role that
>Baha'i scholarship, and the Baha'i community in general, will have to play in
>shaping humanity's future is becoming more clear to me. I think it lies in
>the revolutionary reconciliation of seemingly irreconcilable opposites. This
>may seem too abstract for some, but I take refuge in Baha'u'llah's statement
>that "the reality of man is his thought."
>
>This aspect of the revolutionary nature of the Baha'i Faith was brought back
>to me not long ago by someone's pointing out that Baha'u'llah commands the
>Baha'is to be both tolerant and righteous -- two qualities that modern
>Western society sees as utterly incompatible.
In the posting on tolerance & righteousness I mentioned the context of
"both/and" as opposed to "either/or" thinking. Indeed, Western society has a
tendency to work in the latter mode and dichotomize. Much in the Baha'i
Writings seems to require us to use the former mode of thinking, which among
other things dmits the possibility of paradox.
>In fact, I seem to recall that the Guardian at one point provided a list of
>pairs of "irreconcilably" opposite traits, and stated that only "the spirit
>of a true Baha'i" could successfully reconcile these qualities. (I've lost
>the reference on this, and would appreciate it if anyone finding this would
>please let me know where it is).
I'd be interested in this reference also. It is interesting also to note that
in the social sciences, such as I study them (only on the periphery), there is
increasing recognition of the limitations of dichotomization.
Although studying neither philosophy nor the history of ideas, I have in my
studies encountered references to Western tendencies to reduce things to
dichotimies, i.e. to see things in terms of black and white, or of polar or
"Manichaean" opposites. (Indeed, one Friend told me that an anthropologist
named Nichols developed an Axiological Matrix which categorizes certain traits
of various cultures--it categorizes the logic of Western Europeans (and their
decendent cultures) as Dichotmous).
One recent example is an interesting study of American attitudes towards
Africa,/2 for instance, shows how those attitudes tend to cluster around
extreme views: Africa as the "Dark Continent," primitive and dangerous vs.
Africa as an idyllic vision of harmonious traditions and happy people. The
complex realities that lie inbetween these imaginary constructs are largely
ignored.
I've also encountered numerous characterizations of contrasts between Western
and non-Western (esp. Eastern and African) thought. For example:
linear vs. cyclical
analytic vs. synthetic
monochronic vs. polychronic
"either-or" thinking vs. "both-and" thinking
Of course these look a lot like dichotomies too - but hopefully ones that
reflect a reality and help to clarify thought. Dichotomies are not in and of
themselves a problem, only their misapplication.
Norman Uphoff, in a book I would suggest as a must read for all Baha'is
interested in the foundations of thought in social science and/or involved in
development,/3 discusses the tendency to dichotomize in terms of "either-or"
thinking. "Either-or" thinking is in turn the basis for "zero-sum" analyses of
social situations (i.e. someone has to lose something in order for someone else
to gain) which have tended to dominate most analyses in Western social science.
He contrasts "either-or" approaches with "both-and" thinking, which he finds
much more prevelant in the East (he worked a long time in South Asia, esp. Sri
Lanka, where the irrigation scheme that was the subject of his book is
located). "Both-and" thinking allows for the possibility of complexity and
overlapping realities - it also makes it easier to conceive of "positive-sum"
outcomes of social situations. Paradoxically, however, "both-and" thinking
does not preclude use of "either-or" logic when it is required.
How the West came to rely so much on "either-or" thinking or reducing
complexities to dichotomies is an interesting question. Perhaps it has its
roots in the dichotomy between heaven and hell in Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, or perhaps it is more because during the era in which the West grew
in power and wealth, this type of thinking facilitated its growth (thus
becoming self-reinforcing).
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Dept. of Resouce Devt. (Ph.D. student)
Michigan State University
1. Part of this posting was originally posted on Noble-Creation in July 94.
2. Dennis Hickey and Kenneth Wylie. 1993. _An Enchanting Darkness: The
American Vision of Africa in the Twentieth Century_. E. Lansing: Michigan
State University Press. It would be interesting to examine this hypothesis
in the light of the Most Challenging Issue here in the U.S.
3. Norman Uphoff. 1992. _Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for
Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Science_. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduFri Nov 17 17:29:06 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 17:06:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & UHJ: Reframing the Question
Allah'u'abha!
Since the subject of the Universal House of Justice membership has
come up again, I am prompted to tend to neglected correspondence on a
previous thread....
By the way, I find LuAnne's idea quite interesting. Maybe part of the
reason the House of Justice membership is all men is to cause us to explore
all the various possible reasons why--thereby testing our reason as well as
our faith ... (Who knows what we'll do with all the other proposed reasons at
such time as the real reason becomes apparent.)
David wrote:
>Briefly, such "practical" reasoning as you suggest leads to the suggestion
>that all-male consultative bodies must be superior in some practical terms.
True. They must also be equal or inferior in other practical terms.
>You cannot, by definition, design a research project that would show some
>reason why only the Universal House of Justice should be all-male. What would
>you use as a control group? ................................................
My thought was that 1) existing research on the functioning of groups of
different gender composition indicates differences,* 2) research on groups of
different gender composition who use Baha'i consultation methods may duplicate
these results or show something else, and 3) one may infer from #1 or
(preferably) #2 that some strength(s) of an all male consultative group are
advantageous in some aspect(s) of the functioning of the House of Justice
(perhaps an aspect that we have not yet seen). One would not have to use a
control group as one would be comparing different groups, observing behavior,
and drawing inferences based on those observations and study of the role of
the House of Justice in the community and the world.
>.......................... To see this as a practical matter means to see it
>as a symbolic statement about men and women which contradicts our belief in
>women's rights and capacity as well as many explicit statements in the
>writings. .................................................................
The point I was trying to make was not that women have any less capacity than
men to make decisions on the highest level (because they are certainly equal
in this respect), but that all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender groups
function differently, and that the possibility that a relative strength/
weakness of an all male consultative body (or a relative strength/weakness of
a mixed or all female body) may be significant for the work of the Universal
House of Justice should not be overlooked. I am not talking about either
individual men and women, or about men and women in general, but about small
groups of between five and nine members which in their functioning are more
than the sum of their parts.
>To say that the House must be all-male because of some practical need owing
>to some unique factor of the House's deliberations is a kind of mystical
>statement which does --not-- follow logically from the House's authority
>and in fact contradicts Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of the duties of the
>members of the House, which emphasize the same qualities of detachment
>and rational processes as required of members of other Baha'i administrative
>bodies. ....................................................................
The reason for the House of Justice being composed only of men is not
explained in the Writings. It is not even clear that the reason would derive
solely from the Writings. It is only said that the reason will eventually be
clear as day. The Guardian's descriptions of the duties of the individual
members of the House of Justice would not treat any aspect of group dynamics.
Part of the reason I think it would be interesting to study the functioning
of groups of different gender composition using Baha'i consultative methods
is to see if use of those methods have any effect on the differences...
>....... This kind of mystical assertion, of which Ahmad's "seed of creation"
>statement is another example, comes down to saying that the House must be
>male in order to follow a magic formula for revelation! If that is the case
>why couldn't the formula be different and what does it mean? To insist on a"
>practical reason" really implies that there must be a meaning for the
>all-male rule which limits the role of women or, at least, of women and men
>together, which runs counter to the teachings of the faith. Such a "practical
>reason" does in fact function as a symbolic statement of a most disagreeable
>kind! ....................................................................
Actually, I did not insist on a "practical reason," only that possible
practical reasons had not been exhausted as long as the issues of (1) how
groups of different gender composition function differently, and (2) whether
there are shortcomings** in a body claiming infallibility in matters of Faith
being of mixed-gender composition, have not been fully treated. Perhaps they
have already, but if not, any thorough consideration cannot dismiss them.
The Writings are clear on the equality of men and women, but they also point
out areas of difference (e.g., Abdu'l-Baha's stating that women are the equal
of men in sciences, math, and arts but the superior of men in compassion--
pardon the inadequate paraphrase). More to the point, the Writings do not
(as far as I'm aware) deal with small groups, where science tells us there are
other differences (which do not negate the fundamental equality of men and
women).*** Nor for that matter does our Western culture and thought give
great attention to small groups (outside of families, and teams in contexts
of sports, the military, and industry--the focus is generally on the
individual &/or society). It may seem as disagreeable symbolism, but if
there were a practical reason, could we ignore it?
>..... My modest proposal is to consider the symbolic statement of the male
>House as not referring to relations of women and men at all! That the rule
>does not derive from what you call practical considerations,but has symbolic
>derivation and purpose is a proposition I find both logical and in harmony
>with my understanding of the harmony of science and religion as well as my
>understanding of the development of symbolism in the last 5000 or so years
>religious history, especially the patriarchal monotheism of the Middle East of
>which is the heritage of the Western world as well as the heritage of Islam.
>In this context the rule can be understood without reference to magic but
>with reference to the idea of progressive revelation and historic continuity
>and as well the idea that not everything in the faith is derivative of
>practical common sense, because the Revelation is the Representation of the
>Divine to humanity. And the question of representation is one of iconography
>having nothing to do with how women and men work together, requiring us to
>accept practical disadvantages for the sake of ancient symbolism. ........
Your proposal is interesting. By suggesting that it was premature to dismiss
"practical reasons" I did not mean to dismiss your well thought out ideas.
>................................................................. The kind
>of symbolism which misreads the rule as a statement about men and women is
>precisely what has led to such symbolism being used to justify the oppression
>of women in the past, and efforts by Baha'is to provide a "practical" reason
>for the all-male House have taken the form of all manner of speculation about
>what amounts to ideas of limitations on women and women and men in
>interaction which cannot be justified by anything in the Writings or practice
>of the Faith, praise be to God. .......................................
This is part of our (humanity's) growth process, in any case. The rule, as
we may abbreviate it, could conceivably also be in some ways an acknowledge-
ment of practical differences in the ways groups of different gender
composition function. There are most certainly limitations of all-female
and mixed-gender groups, as there are most certainly of all-male groups.
IF there is a practical reason for the all-male composition of the House
of Justice, it may be that the relative strengths vs. weaknesses of an all-
male group somehow match needs (at this stage in humanity's history) which
we haven't yet seen or perceived. If we understand the House of Justice not
as the highest body to which one could aspire, but rather as a body serving
a particular function in the community and world, perhaps this is easier to
understand. In any event, it is also very true that we must guard against
any implication (whatever the ultimate reason for the rule is) that a men
only House of Justice (any more than many Manifestations being men) confers
any greater status or priviledge on men.
>............................... In order to make real for ourselves the
>concept of the equality of men and women we must be able, since we cannot do
>away with patriarchal symbols, understand them abstractly, as referring to
>the nature of the Godhead. Here in the US Christian men ("promise keepers")
>as well as Mr. Farrakhan with his million men (Muslims, not to be confused
>with Moslems) are trying to revive male participation in the sacred circle of
>life by priviledging every man in marriage as patriarch of his home, ruling
>his wife. Seeing the patriarchal symbolism in the Faith as upholding God
>Alone as Ruler, as King, is an advance in abstract conceptualization and
>justice which demands that men as much as women submit to the will of God.
>Why retain patriarchal symbolism at all? For reasons of history and heritage
>and so that we may finally get it right, as referring to God not to men. As
>human thought evolves we disentangle symbolism referring to the divine from
>the practical sphere of human behaviour. This can have salutary practical
>effects.
On the other hand, a change of the patriarchal symbolism would have been
powerful symbolism of the end of the old world order.
BTW, a few years ago there was an article in, I believe, _World Order_,
which as I recall also approached the subject of the all-male membership of
the House of Justice from a perspective of symbolism. A fundamental problem
of human society is how to keep men involved, e.g. in family etc., when it is
women who give birth. In the evolving New World Order, as I recall, the
rule is a way of keeping men involved, or something like that.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
* Is anyone familiar with the social psychological research on groups of
different gender composition who can provide some more info on the topic?
** Including perceptions of non-Baha'is with whom the Baha'i community will
be interacting increasingly. Here, symbolism of a different kind comes
into play.
*** For instance, Deborah Tannen's popular book on men and women in
conversation gives examples of differences in communication styles of the
genders.
--
--
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduFri Nov 17 17:33:45 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 17:06:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & UHJ: Reframing the Question
Allah'u'abha!
Since the subject of the Universal House of Justice membership has
come up again, I am prompted to tend to neglected correspondence on a
previous thread....
By the way, I find LuAnne's idea quite interesting. Maybe part of the
reason the House of Justice membership is all men is to cause us to explore
all the various possible reasons why--thereby testing our reason as well as
our faith ... (Who knows what we'll do with all the other proposed reasons at
such time as the real reason becomes apparent.)
David wrote:
>Briefly, such "practical" reasoning as you suggest leads to the suggestion
>that all-male consultative bodies must be superior in some practical terms.
True. They must also be equal or inferior in other practical terms.
>You cannot, by definition, design a research project that would show some
>reason why only the Universal House of Justice should be all-male. What would
>you use as a control group? ................................................
My thought was that 1) existing research on the functioning of groups of
different gender composition indicates differences,* 2) research on groups of
different gender composition who use Baha'i consultation methods may duplicate
these results or show something else, and 3) one may infer from #1 or
(preferably) #2 that some strength(s) of an all male consultative group are
advantageous in some aspect(s) of the functioning of the House of Justice
(perhaps an aspect that we have not yet seen). One would not have to use a
control group as one would be comparing different groups, observing behavior,
and drawing inferences based on those observations and study of the role of
the House of Justice in the community and the world.
>.......................... To see this as a practical matter means to see it
>as a symbolic statement about men and women which contradicts our belief in
>women's rights and capacity as well as many explicit statements in the
>writings. .................................................................
The point I was trying to make was not that women have any less capacity than
men to make decisions on the highest level (because they are certainly equal
in this respect), but that all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender groups
function differently, and that the possibility that a relative strength/
weakness of an all male consultative body (or a relative strength/weakness of
a mixed or all female body) may be significant for the work of the Universal
House of Justice should not be overlooked. I am not talking about either
individual men and women, or about men and women in general, but about small
groups of between five and nine members which in their functioning are more
than the sum of their parts.
>To say that the House must be all-male because of some practical need owing
>to some unique factor of the House's deliberations is a kind of mystical
>statement which does --not-- follow logically from the House's authority
>and in fact contradicts Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of the duties of the
>members of the House, which emphasize the same qualities of detachment
>and rational processes as required of members of other Baha'i administrative
>bodies. ....................................................................
The reason for the House of Justice being composed only of men is not
explained in the Writings. It is not even clear that the reason would derive
solely from the Writings. It is only said that the reason will eventually be
clear as day. The Guardian's descriptions of the duties of the individual
members of the House of Justice would not treat any aspect of group dynamics.
Part of the reason I think it would be interesting to study the functioning
of groups of different gender composition using Baha'i consultative methods
is to see if use of those methods have any effect on the differences...
>....... This kind of mystical assertion, of which Ahmad's "seed of creation"
>statement is another example, comes down to saying that the House must be
>male in order to follow a magic formula for revelation! If that is the case
>why couldn't the formula be different and what does it mean? To insist on a"
>practical reason" really implies that there must be a meaning for the
>all-male rule which limits the role of women or, at least, of women and men
>together, which runs counter to the teachings of the faith. Such a "practical
>reason" does in fact function as a symbolic statement of a most disagreeable
>kind! ....................................................................
Actually, I did not insist on a "practical reason," only that possible
practical reasons had not been exhausted as long as the issues of (1) how
groups of different gender composition function differently, and (2) whether
there are shortcomings** in a body claiming infallibility in matters of Faith
being of mixed-gender composition, have not been fully treated. Perhaps they
have already, but if not, any thorough consideration cannot dismiss them.
The Writings are clear on the equality of men and women, but they also point
out areas of difference (e.g., Abdu'l-Baha's stating that women are the equal
of men in sciences, math, and arts but the superior of men in compassion--
pardon the inadequate paraphrase). More to the point, the Writings do not
(as far as I'm aware) deal with small groups, where science tells us there are
other differences (which do not negate the fundamental equality of men and
women).*** Nor for that matter does our Western culture and thought give
great attention to small groups (outside of families, and teams in contexts
of sports, the military, and industry--the focus is generally on the
individual &/or society). It may seem as disagreeable symbolism, but if
there were a practical reason, could we ignore it?
>..... My modest proposal is to consider the symbolic statement of the male
>House as not referring to relations of women and men at all! That the rule
>does not derive from what you call practical considerations,but has symbolic
>derivation and purpose is a proposition I find both logical and in harmony
>with my understanding of the harmony of science and religion as well as my
>understanding of the development of symbolism in the last 5000 or so years
>religious history, especially the patriarchal monotheism of the Middle East of
>which is the heritage of the Western world as well as the heritage of Islam.
>In this context the rule can be understood without reference to magic but
>with reference to the idea of progressive revelation and historic continuity
>and as well the idea that not everything in the faith is derivative of
>practical common sense, because the Revelation is the Representation of the
>Divine to humanity. And the question of representation is one of iconography
>having nothing to do with how women and men work together, requiring us to
>accept practical disadvantages for the sake of ancient symbolism. ........
Your proposal is interesting. By suggesting that it was premature to dismiss
"practical reasons" I did not mean to dismiss your well thought out ideas.
>................................................................. The kind
>of symbolism which misreads the rule as a statement about men and women is
>precisely what has led to such symbolism being used to justify the oppression
>of women in the past, and efforts by Baha'is to provide a "practical" reason
>for the all-male House have taken the form of all manner of speculation about
>what amounts to ideas of limitations on women and women and men in
>interaction which cannot be justified by anything in the Writings or practice
>of the Faith, praise be to God. .......................................
This is part of our (humanity's) growth process, in any case. The rule, as
we may abbreviate it, could conceivably also be in some ways an acknowledge-
ment of practical differences in the ways groups of different gender
composition function. There are most certainly limitations of all-female
and mixed-gender groups, as there are most certainly of all-male groups.
IF there is a practical reason for the all-male composition of the House
of Justice, it may be that the relative strengths vs. weaknesses of an all-
male group somehow match needs (at this stage in humanity's history) which
we haven't yet seen or perceived. If we understand the House of Justice not
as the highest body to which one could aspire, but rather as a body serving
a particular function in the community and world, perhaps this is easier to
understand. In any event, it is also very true that we must guard against
any implication (whatever the ultimate reason for the rule is) that a men
only House of Justice (any more than many Manifestations being men) confers
any greater status or priviledge on men.
>............................... In order to make real for ourselves the
>concept of the equality of men and women we must be able, since we cannot do
>away with patriarchal symbols, understand them abstractly, as referring to
>the nature of the Godhead. Here in the US Christian men ("promise keepers")
>as well as Mr. Farrakhan with his million men (Muslims, not to be confused
>with Moslems) are trying to revive male participation in the sacred circle of
>life by priviledging every man in marriage as patriarch of his home, ruling
>his wife. Seeing the patriarchal symbolism in the Faith as upholding God
>Alone as Ruler, as King, is an advance in abstract conceptualization and
>justice which demands that men as much as women submit to the will of God.
>Why retain patriarchal symbolism at all? For reasons of history and heritage
>and so that we may finally get it right, as referring to God not to men. As
>human thought evolves we disentangle symbolism referring to the divine from
>the practical sphere of human behaviour. This can have salutary practical
>effects.
On the other hand, a change of the patriarchal symbolism would have been
powerful symbolism of the end of the old world order.
BTW, a few years ago there was an article in, I believe, _World Order_,
which as I recall also approached the subject of the all-male membership of
the House of Justice from a perspective of symbolism. A fundamental problem
of human society is how to keep men involved, e.g. in family etc., when it is
women who give birth. In the evolving New World Order, as I recall, the
rule is a way of keeping men involved, or something like that.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
* Is anyone familiar with the social psychological research on groups of
different gender composition who can provide some more info on the topic?
** Including perceptions of non-Baha'is with whom the Baha'i community will
be interacting increasingly. Here, symbolism of a different kind comes
into play.
*** For instance, Deborah Tannen's popular book on men and women in
conversation gives examples of differences in communication styles of the
genders.
--
--
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Nov 17 17:35:56 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 23:05:08 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: infallibility
Darach,
my fault I think: we've discussed infallibility at great length
on Talisman, and I've been thinking about it for a long
time, so I tend to cut corners to get to the bit I'm interested
in, which is whatever model I'm fiddling with at the time.
The first steps of the argument go something like this:
Infallibility, as regards the Universal House of Justice and
the Guardian, can't mean always factually correct, for
reasons we've discussed. In looking for other alternative
meanings, many people on Talisman have looked at Islam,
where infallibility refers to immaculacy, or freedom from
sin. I've rejected that model (as regards the UHJ and the
Guardian) because the Guardian himself says that he is not
a 'stainless mirror' (it's in the 'the Administrative Order'
section of 'The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah'). Of course it
could be that immaculacy applies to the Universal House of
Justice, while the infallibility of the Guardian resembles
that which is claimed for the Pope, and for the body of
believers as a whole in both Islam and Christianity, i.e., in
the Baha'i case, the Guardian would be 'free from mistakes
in questions of doctrine and the interpretation of the
scriptures'. This is possible, but I distrust it because it
supposes two quite different types of infallibility for these
twin institutions. I've shelved it while looking further for
other possibilities.
Another model proposed here was operational - that
infallibility is a short-hand equivalent of the possession of
authority. I.e., that the Guardian and/or the Universal House
of Justice are not actually free from error (however defined)
in every case, but since they are the highest authorities in
their respective spheres, and our unity is our own highest
good, we treat them as if they are. This doesn't satisfy me
because I have a theological bent: I like to ground things in
the divine nature, rather than in exigencies. This model
may tell us what the practical significance of infallibility is
(but I don't think so, authority doesn't require infallibility)
but it does not say what it is - to me.
So I've ruled out or shelved for now 1) not being wrong, 2)
not doing wrong, and 3) being beyond questioning, right or
wrong. At this point one option would be to go for a
symbolic interpretation, according to the rule that, if the
literal meaning of a verse is impossible (the stars falling to
earth, for example) a symbolic meaning must be intended.
I'm shelving this too, because I'm not satisfied yet that the
words cannot have any direct meaning as they stand,
because this kind of interpretation should specifically not
be applied to the Aqdas, and because no remotely plausible
symbolic meaning occurs to me. However I do note that the
phrase 'source of all good and freed from all error' is
hyperbolic: there are certainly good things which do not
come from the Universal House of Justice, so perhaps the
second part of the phrase is also an example of the rhetoric
of 'exaggerated emphasis'?
Now in the Will and Testament I notice that it says:
"the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the
Universal House of Justice ... are both under the
care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the
shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One
(may my life be offered up for them both).
Whatsoever they decide is of God."
And the coincidence of the link between 'unerring guidance'
and 'protection' and infallibility led me to think that
infallibility may be a relationship with God which is
absolutely secure. So in 'free from error', the 'error',
naturally enough, is turning away from God. What error
could be greater, and besides this error, what other could
have any significance? At this point it doesn't matter so
much what the practical effect of this never-failing
guidance may be, in fact we can leave that up to God. The
type and degree of guidance doesn't matter - it could be as
little as the gentle reassurance that life means something
which any one of can receive in prayer and daily life. If it
is never-failing, absolutely reliable, then that is already
supernatural since (as someone else noted today), that
'ordinary' guidance can certainly not be relied on to arrive
daily at the doorsteps of ordinary mortals. And this is
roughly what I meant with what I called model 33B. The
phrase 'never losing contact with the ground of Being' was
an attempt to rephrase this for those more comfortable with
less anthropomorphic language.
Anyway, model 33B was a couple of days ago, and I've a
new suggestion now. In the Will and Testament it says:
All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of
the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that
turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous
error.
Maybe these two institutions are 'free from error' in the
sense that anyone who is in the house of faith and looks to
anyone else for guidance is in error? A sort of vermin-free
zone? (But NOT implying that everyone outside of these 10
people are vermin!)
You suggested this interpretation:
I suppose that "freed from all error" implies that the
UHJ always makes *decisions*,announcements, etc.
that are the best possible for the Faith (and therefore
[bit of an extrapolation] the human race as a whole).
Hence I suppose 'Abdu'l-Baha's other phrase in
W&T that the House of Justice is a "source of
good".
This is good, in so far as it gives equal weight to 'source of
all good' and 'freed from all error', and I think that's a
weakness in all the models I've suggested above. But I'm
not happy with 'best possible': it would mean that choosing
a solution/announcement/decision which is very good but
not the best possible option would be an error. This is quite
an expansion of the meaning - from 'free from error' to
'guaranteed 100% best', and I am anxious if possible to
locate a minimum assured meaning for the term
infallibility. This would not mean that infallibility
CANNOT mean more than that, or that the Universal
House of Justice can never have a greater measure of
guidance ('God does what God wills'): I just think it would
be useful to find some minimum, so we (or I) can say,
'whatever infallibility *might* mean, at the very least it
means this.'
Also I note that you apply infallibility broadly to decisions
and announcements. Shoghi Effendi in 'The Dispensation of
Baha'u'llah', in the section on the Administrative Order
which is largely an interpretation of the Will and
Testament, sets out a two-spheres model, in which "the
Universal House of Justice has been invested with the
function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in
the teachings." Now since the *authoritative* sphere of the
Guardian (but not his *authority*) is limited:
The interpretation of the Guardian, FUNCTIONING
WITHIN HIS OWN SPHERE, is as authoritative
and binding as the enactments of the international
House of Justice, ...
I have assumed, by analogy, that the Universal House of
Justice speaks and acts authoritatively (which seems in
Shoghi Effendi's writings to be synonymous with
infallibility) only within its own sphere. Of course the
Universal House of Justice does a lot of things apart from
legislating - it runs busy offices and supervises building
projects and deals with governments. In fact legislation is a
very small part of its functioning. This is really another
question, just to note that all of my models of what
infallibility might *mean* assume that it *applies* only to
the House in its legislative function, and not to
administrative, judicial or other functions.
I trust this explains more clearly where I am at now. If you
want a collection of emails on this I could gather it
together for you (the Infallibility Files - now we have the
title we'll just get Burl to throw together a script :-)).
However I think I did this for someone a couple of months
ago, and I hope they will offer it to you, 'cause I'm rather
busy between now and Christmas (it's hard to get good
help, and we've had a bad bout of Dutch Elf disease, and
the price of nosebags and sleighbells!).
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
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 . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------\'1a
From caryer@microsoft.comSat Nov 18 11:24:00 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:18:43 -0800
From: caryer@microsoft.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dogfood :-(
Please forgive in advance the use of this bandwidth............
As Rich Schaut, my fellow Microserf, explained recently, our employer has a
practice of requiring us to "eat our own dogfood." That means that we use
our own products to get our work done, in particular, testing them before we
unleash them on an unsuspecting world.
I was recently upgraded to a new email client, still in Beta. I really like
it but there is a tiny little glitch now and then. The effect of that glitch
is that some of you aren't receiving my offline email replies. Some of them
actually are received but more often than not, I get long machine-written
messages explaining that my email didn't go anywhere. Now, that's actually
good in theory, given that it saves so many electrons and thereby slows down
entropy and thus prolongs the life of the entire Universe. Therefore, I see
a bright side to this glitch.
The negative side is that some people have asked for my snail mail address
but never received it. So, please forgive my waste of bandwidth but if you
asked for it and never received it, here goes: Cary E. Reinstein, c/o
Microsoft Corp., Bldg. 26S, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, CA 98052-6399.
Thanks, we're trying real hard IN THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE, of course to
get our stuff right before we ship it!
C.H.R.
Other email addresses for me:
enochsvision@seanet.com
CaryER_ms@msn.com (Microsoft Network)
=====================================
REQUIRED DISCLAIMER: This email is for your information only. Nothing here
even remotely suggests that my employer may hold any of the opinions
expressed here. However, if they ever asked me, incredibly unlikely though
that event may be, I'd be happy to tell them what to do.
From shastri@best.comSat Nov 18 11:24:25 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 23:19:48 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Scarlet Letters
Dear Talismans,
Regarding the question about the law in the Kitab-i-Aqdas
and the fine for adultery etc
an interesting thought I've heard is that it is a law that may never
be carried out, but is rather intended to show a point ...
(Just like the law permitting bigamy but making it conditional
upon impossible conditions!)
For practical purposes:
1) How is a Local House of Justice ever going to find out?????
Have cameras???? Confession of sins is forbidden to anyone
except God, a Local House of Justice is not quite that same
as private confession to God, so letting an LHJ know and volunteering
to pay 19 mithqals of gold would be considered confessing.
2) There may very well be in the New World Order conditions where
people just would not committ adultery just by fear of God alone ...
if many Bahai youth (and Mormon youth and probably lots of other youth)
are able just by the sheer fear of God able to control their impulses
in this worst of all times in history, with all the TV messages, movie messages
etc, how much easier is it going to be at a time of history when
all this isn't such a big deal?
Anyway just two thoughts.
Lv
Shastri
From mfoster@tyrell.netSat Nov 18 11:24:54 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 17:25:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Both/and thinking
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Don -
Your fascinating posting on either-or contrasted with both-and
thinking (or is that a dichotomy, too? ) reminded me of recent posts
here on Talisman which appear to bifurcate science from religion, the
left hemisphere of the brain from its right hemisphere, or spirituality
from materiality. From my perspective, all such divisions are completely
artificial and unneccessary.
Seeing things from a God's-eye viewpoint enables us to reconcile
apparent contradictions in the light of reality. Therefore, East and
West, heart and mind, faith and works, religion and science, feminine
and masculine, etc. can now, in the cycle of fulfillment, been perceived
in light of the Baha'i metaphysic of unity in diversity.
Certainly, the Central Figures of our Faith and the Guardian did not
encourage polarized thinking; and the Universal House of Justice, in its
approach to the issue of Baha'i scholarship, encourages the believers to
seek out new ways of bridging the gap between Western academic
scholarship and a revelatory perspective. For instance, in the letter
written to me on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, it states
that living with ambiguity is an inescapable feature of process of
investigating reality.
Ultimately then, we have no way of knowing whether references to ether
in our teaching are alllegorical, literal, or some combination of these.
Saying definitely that it is one or the other is, IMV, premature. We
will know when we will know. What we can be certain of, I think, is that
references to ether, or to anything else in the science of reality (the
progressive divine teachings), are not imaginary. And, IMO, even if ether
were to be found to be a literal substance of some sort, it would still
be symbolic in the sense that all of nature is a facsimile of the inner
world of spirit.
Warm regards to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSat Nov 18 11:25:38 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 9:01:58 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Subject: Zen and anti-intellectualism
Dear Juan:
As you know, Zen Buddhism is anti-intellectual and anti-scholarly,
so one should be wary of thinking of it as a model for community
advancement. Monastic, elitist, and enjoying special privileges
through its cultivation of contacts with those in authority,
it is typically oriental in its rejection of personal freedom
and democratic institutions.
But, I know that you are thinking of it as an embodiment of the
oriental mystical creative spirit, with powerful techniques for
cutting the Gordian knot that intellect uses to blindside creativity
and spiritual openness. In this, it is worthy of study.
Many have attempted to cordon off reason and spirit into separate
realms, denying the possibility of a reasoned spirituality, or a
spirited intellectualism. It as if the two somehow will contaminate
each other. Fear of irrationality and superstition on one hand, or
materialism and intellectual aridity on the other, has kept the two
apart. Conventionality is the policeman that enforces these modern
"property rights".
Zen, in a way that is particularly attractive to artists and
craftspeople, academics and physicists, offers the "way" to break
apart the cordoning walls!
It is no secret that much of the marvelous artistic, poetic, and
even electronic expression of Japanese culture has been stimulated
and molded by Zen's particular merits.
Will it stimulate us, too? Maybe. Will it open our hearts and minds
to mystical truth? We can try and see!
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From richs@microsoft.comSat Nov 18 11:27:44 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:50:41 -0800
From: richs@microsoft.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: RE: Baha'i bill of rights/ criminal code
Dear Juan and Friends,
I want to thank Juan for going through the trouble of
bringing these ideas together. I have but a few remarks,
and I'll try to be brief.
First, I'm not sure what we can infer from the statistics on
the number of cases where administrative sanctions have
been applied. However, caution is warranted. The
institutions can apply only partial sanction depending upon
circumstance. One can get an errant impression without
knowing the full circumstances of each case.
Secondly, the use of the word "excommunicated" in the
context of administrative rights isn't exactly accurate. The
friends are free to associate with those who have had their
administrative rights removed, and these people are free,
and, in fact, obligated, to continue to teach.
As for a list of actions which are subject to sanction, it
should be remembered that a number of Baha'i laws are
between the individual and God, e.g. daily prayer and
the fast. In addition, some laws are not applicable to
Baha'is in the west (and those aren't uniform throughout
the "west" if the "west" includes some eastern European
countries).
The most complete compilation of the current status of
Baha'i law (at least for Baha'is in the US), the principles
that govern the application of this Law, and the various
responsibilities of the institutions can be found in
Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities: Guidelines
for Local Spiritual Assemblies. Any attempt to outline
and/or codify a Baha'i bill of rights should start with a
full understanding of the ideas it contains.
I'll close with another note of caution. If we attempt
to preclude instances of institutional injustice by
curtailing the discretion these institutions can
exercise, we also curtail their discretion to make
the right decisions in these cases.
"Fostering the proper functioning" of local and national
spiritual assemblies is a goal of the Three Year Plan.
This rather implies that they are not functioning properly.
If we are not satisfied with the decisions of these
assemblies, the issue can be greatly muddled if we
don't understand what "proper functioning" means.
I've posted the paper from the Research Department
of the Universal House of Justice on "Issues Concerning
Community Functioning". I rather strongly encourage
a study of this paper in addition to a study of the
Guidelines mentioned above. If people want a copy,
I'd be more than happy to forward one.
Warmest Regard,
Rick Schaut
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comSat Nov 18 11:28:14 1995
Date: 17 Nov 95 19:59:14 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Nigerian Human Rights
Dear Talismanians,
Just thought you should see this:
Nigeria Reportedly Arrests Rights Activists to Thwart Protest Plans
Reuters News Service
17 November 1995
Lagos, Nigeria--Security forces have arrested nine members of a
human rights group out of fear they were going to demonstrate
publicly over the hanging on nine minority rights activists, a
group official said Thursday.
The European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, said despite the
international furor over last week's hangings, it had been informed
Nigeria was planning to execute 17 other people condemned to death
"merely for defending the environment in their country."
Jiti Ogunye, secretary general of the Committee for the Defense of
Human Rights, or CDHR, said two student leaders from Benin City and
seven committee members from Lagos have been arrested in the past
week. "All of them are detained in Lagos police headquarters, but
we have been denied access to them," Ogunye said.
Nigeria's military rulers, under fire for a poor human rights
record, provoked international outrage last Friday with the hanging
of prominent author Ken Saro-wiwa and eight other minority rights
activists on charges that many observers said were trumped up.
Ogunye said the CDHR believed that its members were arrested
because of the "military's phobia that we would demonstrate
publicly against the hangings."
General Sani Abacha, Nigeria's military ruler, accused foreign
powers of interference in his first reaction to the international
furor over the hanging of the rights activists, local newspapers
reported.
"In recent times the international community has made absolute and
deliberate efforts to interfere in our national and internal
affairs," the majority government-owned Daily Times quoted Abacha
as saying. "We will do everything possible to maintain our unity,
stability and security and preserve our integrity and sovereignty
as a nation."
------------end of report/30---------------
Love,
David
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Nov 18 11:29:24 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 95 20:32:39 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Scarlet letters, etc.
Having packed my Skoal, my blue stockings, and my sterling silver, filigree
spitoon (a gift from an ayatollah), - oh, yes, and my paper, I am ready to
leave in the morning for Philadelphia. I will not indulge myself in a diatribe
against Sherman's scribe. Mostly because I don't have time right now. But,
also, I am sure it is clear to all on Talisman how badly I am treated. I am
sure by now all of you want to come to my defense. Does anyone on Talisman
recall the Talisman policy of genuflecting when the listowner's wife's e-mail
address flashed on the screen?. Yes, all of you were expected to either
genuflect or perform a low bow or curtsey. It was the policy. I helped write
it myself. I'll have John post it again, but, I must say, he is being awfully
beligerant these days. If you don't recall this, Robert, I am sure, can fill
you in on the details.
Now, with regard to adultery. I am no expert on this subject, however, I do
believe that Shastri has a very good point. Sexual relations are something
that a religion has to address and regulate if a society is going to be at all
orderly and peaceful. If there were no proscriptions against adultery, how is
it going to be controlled? On the other hand, it is one of those things that
is generally a private matter. I believe that the real effect of such a
"punishment" is more psychological than anything else. It allows us to know
where we as a religious community stand on an issue. It is not an invitation
for us to be peeking into fellow believers windows and checking on one another.
I also think Tony is correct in his assessment of Judy's letter. There are
postings about how open we should be to other religions and we talk about this
"oneness" business, but the Baha'is are not going to be spiritually
transforming the world alone. If there is not this sort of dialogue, if we
become so insulated from others opinions and perspectives, then how do we work
out all the knotty problems of building somekind of "oneness." It will take a
little more than Derek singing the "Three Onenesses" song - which I flatly
refuse to sing, by the way. Dreadful thing.
I think that the discussion on Buddhism does raise interesting problems.
Religion is not just theology. It is a living force. It is an entire world
view. Differences among religions are not trivial, frosting types of things.
Religious perspectives are very deeply rooted. They make us see the world
through lenses that are hard for those raised outside the tradition to see
through. I often think that it is hardly worth my time to study other
religions. This may seem shocking, but it takes so long to absorb the true
nature of a religion - that religious experience - that I think it does a
disservice to another's religion to simply read a few books and think we have
some sort of understanding. I feel truly comfortable with three religious
traditions: The Baha'i Faith, Shi'i Islam, and Catholicism. I know about
other religions. I've read about them, talked to people about them, but I have
not "experienced" them in a deep, meaningful way. I think Bruce's criticism is
that we are trying to see Buddhism through the lens of another tradition that is
really quite an alien one. It is, after all, for the most part Judeo-Christian
Baha'i (though certainly Juan and Moojan have a far, far broader perspective
than that.)
Once again, Burl and Derek, I have no recollection at all of this brawl that I
was supposed to be in with some cross-dressing priests, but if it did occur, it
would have been at the log rolling contest, which was held in the massive
Baptismal Font when not in use for its original purpose.
The only thing that would draw me to the Mysticism Conference would be the
promise of seeing Sherman in his little turban and satin robe. If he refuses
to where them, what could possibly be the attraction. Sorry you won't all be
in Philadelphia this weekend. I am very tired, which is why I am a bit
incoherent and punchy. Talk to you all when I return. Love, Linda
From CMathenge@aol.comSat Nov 18 11:29:49 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 20:35:05 -0500
From: CMathenge@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Confusion about Congregational Prayer
Dear Talispersons,
I've just gone back to reading Jack McLean's *Dimensions in Spirituality*
which I started back when it came out and got sidetracked from somehow.
After the previous discussions on Talisman regarding KIA 12 and the
prohibition on congregational prayer, I thought I had finally got it
straight: it's not congregational prayer per se that is forbidden, but the
saying of the *obligatory* prayers in congregation.
But I see that Jack McLean, in Chapter 2, footnote 58, and on pp. 116-117
unequivocally states that congregational prayer is forbidden, prayers are not
to be recited in unison, no simultaneous bodily movements are permitted, etc.
If this is an error, as I think it is, it appears to be one that is widely
accepted by the Baha'i Community. I think I once had the temerity to suggest
that we recite the repeated verse in the long prayer for the fast together
and was vociferously pounced upon by virtually everybody present. This
belief on the part of most Baha'is of course precludes most of the sort of
thing Terry is doing in Omaha . . .surely, Terry, you must have had people
show up and tell you that you can't do those things--how did you handle it?
Has anyone called the attention of the House to this problem? It seems to
me the only way to solve it would be for them to issue a clarification. And
even then we would have to carry the letter around on our person for a few
years . . .
Wondering,
Carmen
From CMathenge@aol.comSat Nov 18 11:30:07 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 21:09:42 -0500
From: CMathenge@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman Mysticism Conference
Dear David,
In a message dated 95-11-14 14:50:15 EST, you write:
>Also, I thought it would be wonderful to designate Saturday night as the
>time when we gather, pray, dance and celebrate the remarkable
>life and work of Darvish Sidq-Ali.
Sigh! In the interest of the possibility that there may be some other
Talismanian (at least a lowly lurker) who was as mystified by this paragraph
as I was but is afraid to ask,
"Huh?"
Love,
Carmen
P.S. What kind of help do you need?
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSat Nov 18 11:30:44 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 14:14:18 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: All Kidding Aside
Dear Friends:
I have been tickled by some of the very funny stories and jokes
that have forwarded to Talisman. But when they focus exclusively
on one or a few individuals, they become less funny. Might we
tone this down a bit, making them less frequent?
One of my reasons for this is partly selfish. The person who is
the butt of many of the stories pleasantly replies in kind. To be
frank, however, I would much rather read her apt and well-targeted
comments about issues under discussion. Come to think of it, I
would also rather that the story tellers be contributing more to
the discussion, as I know and appreciate their insights.
Am I off-base in making this recommendation?
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSat Nov 18 11:31:02 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 14:21:21 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Dave10018@aol.com
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu, brburl@mailbag.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
> It is interesting in this context to note that the most successful Baha'i
> visual artist to date, the only one with an international reputation to
> explicitly refer to the Faith's importance for his work, Mark Tobey, spent
> several months at a Zen Buddhist monastary in Japan and was known as a
> proponant of Zen.
>
> cheers!
>
> Dave Taylor
>
Dear Dave:
Another successful Baha'i artist who is almost an icon in Japan, and arguably
one of the most significant figures in the arts and crafts movement in the
20th century is Bernard Leach, the famous potter. Did he teach the Faith
to Mr. Tobey? Anybody know what he or Mr. Tobey said about Zen?
Stephen R. Friberg
From brburl@mailbag.comSat Nov 18 11:32:18 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 00:22:44 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Zen anti-intellectualism
Stephen R. Friberg,
> "As you know, Zen Buddhism is anti-intellectual and anti-scholarly,
so one should be wary of thinking of it as a model for community
advancement. Monastic, elitist, and enjoying special privileges
through its cultivation of contacts with those in authority,
it is typically oriental in its rejection of personal freedom
and democratic institutions." <
Is this an unqualified statement?
Bruce
From sindiogi@NMSU.EduSat Nov 18 11:33:27 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 23:44:23 -0700 (MST)
From: "S. Indiogine"
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Bruce Burrill , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
Dear Juan Ricardo Cole:
You mention a 'peak experience' while listening to a Beethoven violin
concerto. I wonder whether it was the Concerto for violin and orchestra
in D major opus 61. I am listening to it now. I am very moved myself by
it. I am profoundly moved by the second movement of the third sympony.
Interestingly the two most popular symphonies of Beethoven are the 5th
and the 9th. The end of his life overlaps with the beginning of the Twin
Manifestations.
Just some curiosities and personal musings.
Eric Indiogine (sindiogi@nmsu.edu), Las Cruces, New Mexico
## True loss is for him whose days have been ##
## spent in utter ignorance of his self ##
-* Baha'u'llah, Words of Wisdom #21 *-
From dpeden@imul.comSat Nov 18 11:34:04 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 09:31:36+030
From: Don Peden
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Truth
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>Hi, Don -
>
> I enjoyed reading your posting. Thank you for it.
>
> IMHO, "Truth" is God manifested (the Station of "the divine
>Appearance and heavenly Splendor" - inseparably connected to the
>Prophet's rational soul). Therefore, whatever the Prophet says or does,
>informed as it is by the manifested Reality of the Divine Essence, is
>also "truth."
>
Dear Mark:
I think we agree on this point, as it is verified in the Tablet of Wisdom.
> The Revelation, as I see it, is love (the Covenant/Will/Law of God)
>and truth (reality). Well, actually, there is no essential difference
>between love and reality. They are, from a God's-eye viewpoint, in
>at-one-ment as the fruit of the spirit. As the spiritual travelers that
>we are, during our brief sojourn through the lower kingdoms of creation,
>we relate to these qualities as names - placing them into the context of
>what we experience with our senses and our minds as two of life's
>greatest tests, matter and time.
Again, we agree. All revelations have been love/truth. Please, lets keep
in mind our time scale in this great unfolding. This point can also present
the temptation of putting us into a sensless conflict over demanding that
others view truth through the name we wish to impose on it. Baha'u'llah
relieves us of this conflict when he tells us that He (being a Manifestation
of God) possesses and reveals truth, and that we need not be forced to delve
into the dispensations of the past (an impossible task as Linda has pointed
out) for that truth. He does not negate the fact that truth also lies in
the dispensations of the past. He offers us a door to those truths through
Himself and His teachings. If we ignore this point, we close the door to
meaningful dialogue, and to adherents of other religions/traditions ever
being able to explore the Writings of Baha'u'llah. If we insist that truth
only enters the world through Baha'u'llah, are we not doing the same things
as those who insist that truth can only be known through their chosen or
inherited tradition? A basic premise of the Baha'i Writings is a real
recognition of the truth of all dispensations of past, present and future.
The point is not to diminish Baha'u'llah's station, but also not to create a
barrier of that station for others. The thing in question is not whether or
not Baha'u'llah is the voice of truth for today, but how to convey that in
language usage which do not confuse, alienate or belittle the perspective of
others. If we fail in this, we slam the door in their faces and put a big
"sign" up, "Exclusive Property, by Invitation Only". That way we get to
"let in" only those who agree with us. Cosy, don't you think? But a bit
incestuous.
The question in my mind still remains. How do we, as individuals and as a
community, develop an awareness and a language which reflects the love and
committment we feel to Baha'u'llah and the Cause of God, and in the same
breath not create barriers with that language and close doors to our fellow
human society?
There will always be those who disagree and challenge the station of
Baha'u'llah. If we are firm in our own beliefs, we should be able to accept
their disagreement and challenge without getting flustered, heavy handed, or
self-righteous. Just because someone tells me that Baha'u'llah is a false
prophet doesn't make it so...it simply means that they haven't seen that
facet of truth. How do I give them the opportunity to see that truth
without being patronizing, arrogant or unintentionally superior in my
attitude and words? Otherwise, how do you carry on a dialogue without the
ego rushing forward to tilt at the windmill? Don Quiote has quite a bit to
teach us all...also a facet of truth. We must pay attention to our
spiritual practice. Otherwise, all the words revealed in the world will be
of little use. It isn't enough to know them, to say them. We have to BE
them. Nothing else will suffice. That is our challenge as Baha'is.
>
> The Baha'i Faith (the recognition/knowledge of, and obedience to,
>the Will/Love/Covenant of God in this age) is the central *conscious*
>emanation of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. From my POV, it is correct,
>then, to say that the eternal religion of God is *truth.* However, since
>all knowledge comes from God, truth is also universal. So, the arts and
>material sciences, mediated to us by the holy souls in the spiritual
>Kingdom beyond, are also revealed truth. IMHO, *whatever* God manifests or
>creates, in all the conditions of existence, is truth.
Hakuna mutata! Everything is but a reflection of truth. Who we are and
what we do is all but a facet of truth. We agree. We are all
mirrors...even those of other faiths who, in our humble opinion, are not
pointed to the right source of light...but wait a minute! What about all
that light bouncing around the room reflecting off walls and such...they
must be getting some light from somewhere! Could it be...?
Baha'u'llah revealed teachings for mankind...not just the Baha'is. Do you
think there are things afoot in the world...divinely inspired...that happen
to move the Cause of Unity along? I don't get the impression that we are
the only players in God's plan. His Will be done in spite of us, if not
because of us. The Baha'is certainly didn't form the United Nations...we
were catalysts, but not cause. There are events in God's plan which the
Baha'i Community may parallel, but not cause...the fall of the Monarchies is
one example. We are offered the bounty and grace of playing a role in this
unfoldment because of God's love for us. We are given the tools of the
Faith because we believe. But we are not the only players. How do we see
the Friend in every face? How do we see the beginning and the end as one?
How do we see events and actions in this light as being part of God's plan?
Is each and everything part of God's plan? Is Talisman part of God's plan?
(Now theres a thought!) If the Baha'i Faith will have the impact of
religions such as Christianity and Islam on the development of mankind and
the development of the world, what role will our Institutions have to play?
What will they need to develop to that end? I don't claim any answer to
these questions...I sit at but one point on the medicine wheel. My goal is
to move around the medicine wheel and view truth from as many positions as I
can.
The philosophy of the Medicine Wheel is one worthy of some attention. It
could be a great key in our teaching efforts...it also is truth.
>
Love,
Bev
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
>*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
>*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
>*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
>*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
>* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
>*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
>*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
>*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
>* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
>* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
>* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>___
>* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
>
>
>
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduSat Nov 18 11:38:45 1995
Date: 18 Nov 95 00:00:29 U
From: Dan Orey
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: All Kidding Aside
Reply to: RE>All Kidding Aside
Stephen asked, "Am I off-base in making this recommendation?" I reply "yep" .
Because the atmosphere of controversy, creativity, scholarship, and play is so
unique here, consider Sherman a princiapl lead in a Broadway play here in
Downtown Talisman (Cats?) . . . . just a thought.
- Daniel (the unoffical mayor of the gay ghetto in Talisman City)
From think@ucla.eduSat Nov 18 11:39:29 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 02:29:07 -0800 (PST)
From: SAFA SADEGHPOUR
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Standpoint epistemology
On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
>
>
> My insistence that the two cannot be completely synthesized has some
> basis in the scientific literature. When persons have had their corpus
> callosums severed, experiments have shown that when shown something the
> left brain (right hand) has drawn, the right brain (left eye) often
> cannot comprehend it and makes up a symbolic story to explain it away.
>
Also, an interesting result of the dissection of the corpus callosum is
the inability to pursue even the simplest kinds of conflict resolution
between the two hemispheres. It is not rare to find patients who spend
no less than an hour every morning just tyring to decide what to
wear! Maybe what we just need is a cable connecting the
two spheres of epistemology to obtain some sort of reasonable
conflict resolution.
One question, if we follow the notion of nasut being represented by
reason, and the jabarut/malakut by holistic emotinal comprehension,
then what type of epistemology would arise from lahut. Of course,
hahut, as always, remains well beyond our comprehension, or at least,
that's what we think.
Take care.
Safa
>
>
> cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
>
From Dave10018@aol.comSat Nov 18 11:41:41 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 10:04:09 -0500
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu, brburl@mailbag.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen, Buddhism and Mark Tobey
Stephen,
Juliet Thompson taught the faith to Mark Tobey in New York. Mark Tobey taught
for several years at a private school in England.(Dartington Hall? Memory is
fuzzy on this point) and knew Leach and may well have taught him the faith. I
have some books on Tobey I can consult and will post some more information,
including Tobey on zen in a few days. Tobey's story is interesting from many
points of view.
David Taylor
From tan1@cornell.eduSat Nov 18 23:58:31 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 04:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: new scholarly paradigm
My mailbox did not work for about three days; any mail sent to me
during that time was lost....I never saw it. So, please forgive
me if I am merely repeating what others have said.
Juan R Cole replies to Steven Phelps:
Subject: new scholarly paradigm
j>If reason is excluded, then all we are left with is
j>scripture, and in the absence of autonomous reason, we are even
j>left with no choice but to adopt a literalist approach to
j>hermeneutics.
Dear Juan, I think you are picturing a dichotomy that need not
exist. The Baha'i scriptures encourage us, indeed command us,
to use our intellect. Therefore, if all we are left with is
scripture, this scripture itself tells us not to discard
reason. To exclude the use of reason is to exclude certain
plainly worded passages in the scripture; thus to turn away from
reason is equivalent to rejecting the divine and unerring nature
of the scripture. As to a "literalist approach", that too is
explicitly rejected in many passages in the Writings, notably in
the Kitab-i-Iqan.
I'm not sure what you mean by "autonomous" reason. I suggest
that while reason is of fundamental importance, it is best used
within the guiding lines set forth in the sacred Writings.
s> Word of God is the infallible Balance
j>If this has to do with *values*, then this is unexceptionable.
Unexceptional?? I think it is extraordinary in this day and age.
The idea that healthy values are properly defined by the Writings
of the Manifestation of God, as contrasted with values defined
by human fashion or whim....this idea is very exceptional in
the world I experience.
j>If it has to do with all propositions stated in the Writings,
j>then it begs the question. Are we stuck with ether and
j>rejection of Darwin just because these things show up in
j>`Abdu'l-Baha's talks?
First, this problem of the ether is a chestnut. In Some Answered
Questions, Abdu'l Baha plainly says that the ether is an
intellectual reality, not a physical reality. Therefore the fact
that experiments show there is no *material* ether only confirms
part of what Abdu'l Baha said. The question of ether is a non-
problem.
The Baha'i teaching on evolution is not clear to me. I
have never read anything in the sacred Writings that plainly
contradicts the theory of evolution. It is true that Abdu'l
Baha says that humans were always distinctly human, never
animals. But it is possible that Abdu'l Baha was talking about
the spiritual reality, the inner essence, of human beings, and
not about the physical body, which we cast off after a few
decades. My understanding of Abdu'l Baha's statements about
evolution is that human beings may have once had bodies that
were animal in appearance, but that humans have always had
a distinctive human soul, even if the capacities of that soul
were latent. Since it is the soul, not the body, that makes
us human, the fact that we have always had a soul different
from that of animals (if they have souls), means we have always
been human, not animal, regardless of what human bodies looked
like in ancient times. This is what Abdu'l Baha is saying,
in my opinion, and this idea in no way contradicts the
theory of evolution, which is concerned only with physical
reality.
I believe *all* the propositions in the sacred Writings are
true; I think most of them are meant in a spiritual sense, a
metaphorical sense, not in a literal, materialistic sense.
A proposition whose only valid meaning is concerned with
the physical world is of less importance than a proposition
which is true about the spiritual world. This is because
we live in the physical, literal world only a brief time,
then we leave it and go on to a kind of life so different
from this life that we cannot adequately picture it. Since
we all leave the physical world to go to the spirit world,
therefore spiritual truths are more important than physical
truths.
Seen in this way, there is nothing in the Writings that
opposes science or the use of reason.
s> validity of the scientific method
j>In other words, observation, hypothesis, testing,
j>empirical verification, development of theory. What if this
j>process leads in an opposite direction from propositions
j>embedded in scripture?
The scientific method has to do with discovering things about
the material world. Most spiritually true principles
are not verifiable by empirical means, in my view. Science has
little to say about spiritual matters because the world of
spirit is, for the most part, outside the realm of the scientific
method. If a proposition in the Baha'i Writings appears to
contradict the consensus of the scientific community, then
in my opinion, several things are possible:
1. My understanding of the sacred Text could be wrong
or could be too superficial. That is, the proposition
may not mean what I originally thought.
2. The meaning of the passage in the Writings may be
symbolic, not literal. In this case, the contradiction
between the Writings and scientific findings does
not show that the Writings are wrong; it simply
confirms the principle that science is about the
phenomenal world, while the divine revelation
is not limited to the material world.
3. The scientific community could be mistaken. This is not
the most likely possibility, but it has happened in the
past, though not often. After all, the scientific
community once denied the possiblity of action at a
distance (e.g. magnetic force), and once believed in
the spontaneous generation of life from non-living
matter (how did all those maggots get in the garbage?).
What is NOT possible is that the sacred Writings, or the writings
of the Guardian or House of Justice, are wrong. Statements from
a divinely guided source are always true and wise, sometimes in a
material sense, more often in a moral or spiritual sense. And
it is moral, spiritual truth that is most important. It is
material science, not divine guidance, which is limited to the
phenomenal world. To describe guidance from God as wrong, or
"confused", or "silly", merely because it disagrees with material
science, or with passing human fashion, is to misunderstand the
nature of divine guidance. This is my understanding.
s> harmony of science and religion, faith and reason
j>At some points there is a fork in the road and you have
j>to choose one or the other.
I suggest there is a fork in the road *only if you believe
a fork is necessary and inevitable.* There doesn't have to be a
fork at all. In other words, it is possible to understand faith
and reason in such a way that you don't have to discard one in
order to accept the other. Baha'u'llah has counselled us to
use both faith and reason. It would be unjust of God to tell
us to use both, then to construct a reality which forces a person
to use only one and to reject the other. In my opinion, the
truth is that faith and reason, properly understood, do not in
fact contradict one another. Note: I do not claim they *should*
not contradict one another, rather I claim the reality is they in
fact *do not* contradict one another. In regard to the phrase
"properly understood" a few lines above. No, I do not properly
nor fully understand faith or reason. But since both are from
God, it is therefore not possible that they are incompatible
when correctly understood. All divine principles are necessarily
in harmony, since they are from the same Source.
j>How do you adjudicate competing truth-claims? For instance,
j>the Bab, Baha'u'llah and the Guardian thought that the outbreak
j>of plague or cholera in Shiraz in 1845 was a direct result of
j>the imprisonment of the Bab. How would you reconcile
j>this idea with scientific approaches to epidemiology, which
j>usually do not include etiologies deriving from the
j>imprisonment of holy figures?
All creation, and all events, are in the hands of God, therefore
it is quite easy to believe what the Bab, Baha'u'llah and the
Guardian said. I admit it is very difficult to understand the
biological "mechanics" of how this happened, but the idea that
events in this world are sometimes spiritually tied directly to
other events...that is easy (for me) to believe. Certainly I
would not make this claim in the presence of materialistic
scientists, because they may not accept the same epistemological
methods that Baha'is accept. Namely, a physician may not accept
that something is true on the grounds that Baha'u'llah said so.
That is a limitation, not of the sacred Text, but of the
materialistic view of the universe.
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From mfoster@tyrell.netSun Nov 19 00:00:37 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 17:26:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Both/and thinking
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Philip -
I am not sure if this posting will make it to Talisman or not.
Nothing has come through from the list all day - including the message I
posted at 3:30 this morning . Therefore, I will both send it to
you and cc Talisman. Sorry if there is any duplication.
You stated that you liked part of my message and disliked other
parts. It is often good not to agree on certain points. It helps to make
life more of a learning experience, doesn't it ? Therefore, I hope
that disagreement on such non-essential points as these will continue,
and that, at the same time, we will continue to be able to draw on each
other's understandings of reality.
You wrote:
B >I agree that "seeing things from a God's eye viewpoint..etc.
B >I disagree that "all such divisions are completely artificial and
B >unnecessary. " Not sure what to make of that second phrase.
B >Tools are artificial, but hardly unnecesaary. These divisions are,
B >IMHO, tools.
Certainly, one's perspective on existence will result in differences
in perception. For purposes of illustration, I think that we might be
able to map reality, as it has been revealed to us in our teachings, as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Purpose and Power* (Spirit):
This dimension of reality is "seen" with the eyes of faith and intuition.
(High Gear)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin ------> Life Pattern -----> End Objective
This dimension of reality is "seen" with the eyes of the intellect.
(Middle Gear)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Acts and Attributes
This dimension of reality is seen with the five senses.
(Low Gear)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I see it, the higher dimension of perception incorporates the
lower one or ones. Therefore, IMHO, if one can see reality from third
gear, one can also see it from first and second gears. Now, certainly,
one may attempt a phenomenological reduction or epoche, i.e., to
bracket, for instance, one's (high-gear) spiritual awareness and examine
a particular object, such as the revealed words of the Prophet, *only*
from low or middle gear. However, it seems to me that the House of
Justice has been discouraging that type of approach to the Revelation.
You wrote:
B >I want to take you've thought about either/or and both/and thinking
B >and run it through the model of standpoint epistemology, named by
B >Juan Cole and found in the Tablet of All Food.
Yes, certainly. As I wrote in a recent message, I do not disagree
with the concept of a "standpoint epistemology" itself, only with the
particular application summarized on Talisman. IOW, I tend to favor the
both-and approach to the either-or approach. From my POV, the latter
commits the logical fallacy of bifurcation (also called the
black-and-white fallacy) and is a profoundly second-gear mode of
perception.
Again, let me qualify, second-gear does not, as I am using the term,
mean _rational_. Rather, it refers to a mode of thinking which uses
rationality apart from faith and intuition (inner vision). As the Master
said to Laura Clifford Barney, the human spirit (the purposeful power of
rational accomplishment), unless assisted by the spirit of faith (the
purposeful power of conscious knowledge and good deeds), will never
"become acquainted with the divine secrets and heavenly realities."
You wrote:
B >1. I think that Standpoint Epistemology is another word for Semiotic.
Well, I do not want to put words into another subscriber's virtual
mouth - especially one who is as profoundly capable of representing
and explaining his own viewpoint as Juan - but I agree that a cojoint
use of the term "standpoint epistemology" with a Wittgensteinian concept
of "language games" would appear to point to semiotics.
Actually, for the most part, I concur with much of what has been
said. I consider myself as, among other things, a structuralist and
would argue that a collective "narrative framework" is identical with a
group's social structure and that one's individual narrative framework
is synomymous with one's mental structure. However, to use the above
terms, I think that we need a new "language game" which would
incorporate all epistemologies through the Baha'i metaphysic of unity in
diversity.
You wrote:
B >As I recall the philosophical debate on semiotics, it was said that
B >this tools arises because our mind can't take in everything at once
B >from all perspectives. The Human mind can't achieve a -- to use your
B >word's Mark -- God's eye view.
I agree that the human mind cannot achieve that on its own. However,
what I mean by seeing from a God's-eye viewpoint is, using high gear
perception, to look at existence using the model of reality given in the
Baha'i teachings, which, IMHO, may be hinted at with the the reality map
I sketched above.
You wrote:
B >St. Thomas, I remember, talked about this saying that reality and God
B >were ultimately simple and One, but for us to think about it, we had
B >to make it more complex. We had to break it up into manipulatable
B >pieces. Because that is how our mind works.
Yes. It is a shame that we all need so many words to describe what
is really quite simple. However, as the Master said to Dr. Forel, "The
mind comprehendeth the abstract by the aid of the concrete ...." It is a
casuality of living in the world of outward appearances.
You wrote:
B >In the science and religion conversation, we are talking about
B >"explanations" and whether those explanations can be simultaneously
B >mapped onto both the Religion Grid and the Science Grid.
Precisely. And I feel that the investigation of reality (the
Master's definition of *science* and Baha'u'llah's definition of
*justice*) is, ideally, a holistic enterprise. According to my
understanding, the science of reality or divine science (religion) and
the material sciences are, from a God's-eye perspective, dimensions of
oneness.
You wrote:
B >We have to use semiotics. As humans we can't attain the God's eye
B >viewpoint, but might know it is there. We don't currently have
B >semiotics that recocile the apparent contradictions. The divisions,
B >like tools, are artificial, but are necessary.
Philip, IMHO, the new language exists in the divine teachings -
especially in `Abdu'l-Baha's letters and talks to Western believers. It
is in these communications, I believe, where He instructs us in the
language of the Kingdom - a higher level of "speaking in tongues" than
was previously possible.
The Master explains the degrees of spirit and their manifestations,
the nature of the soul, the worlds of God, and the dynamics of individual
and social transformation. My three dear friends, all now in the Abha
Kingdom - Elizabeth Thomas, Marian Lippitt, and Henry Weil - spent years
studying the nature of reality as it has been revealed to us in this
great Day of God. From my standpoint, all of it is there for the taking.
Loving greetings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Nov 19 00:00:47 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 11:31:29 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE , All Kidding Aside . Urgent Message for Burl
My dear Burl
I have just discovered that something terrible has been happening our
private E'Mail conversations with Linda have been going out on Talisman
who would do such a dastardly thing?.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comSun Nov 19 00:02:00 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 10:09:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu, banani@ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Nabil's Narrative, edited
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
The following comments are forwarded on behalf of Mrs. Banani.
> Dear Ahang,
>
> I would appreciate it very much if you would forward this e-mail to
> Talisman, since I have taken a "breather" from the list while I catch up
> with the hundreds of postings I received during my absence from home.
>
> The lengthy discussions I've read about the historical validity of Shoghi
> Effendi's translation of portions of Nabil's narrative into the volume we
> know as the DAWNBREAKERS, I believe, should have_begun_with the quote of
> Shoghi Effendi himself, in the "Dispensation" letter (1934) in WOB:
>
> "Indeed the chief motive actuating me to undertake the task of
> EDITING and
> translating Nabil's immortal Narrative..." (emphasis mine)
> World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 123 (1944 edition)
>
> Shoghi Effendi never claimed that this work was an exact, complete
> translation. For anyone who overlooks his clear statement, there may be
> many "surprises."
> Love,
> Sheila Banani
Thanks very much to Sheila for sharing this statement of Shoghi
Effendi.
Should I (insha'llah) rejoin Talisman at some future point, it might
be useful for me to post a translation of segments of Nabil's texts in
my possession which would assist in quantifying exactly how this
"editing" took place by the beloved Guardian -- at least for these
segments. I continue to be a firm believer that the Guardian's
efforts and his editing made Nabil's text significantly more useful to
the general community and that we must celebrate the Dawnbreakers as
his creation and gift. Of course this does not take away anything
from the argument that for historical research and study, the actual
text of Nabil (in his own hand) must be made available in due time.
I also believe that there is notable value in publishing the second
half of Nabil's Narrative (Baha'u'llah's period) in unedited fashion.
>From what I have of this section, I find the materials to be fresh and
inspiring. For example, Nabil's description of his Obligatory
Pilgrimage (haj) to the House of the Bab in Shiraz and the House of
Baha'u'llah in Baghdad is truly among the finest pieces of Baha'i
history. Every time I read his description of his journey, telling in
very great details how in every step he fulfilled Baha'u'llah's
instructions for Pilgrimages, and recollections of his overall
experience, I fully sense the infinite joy that one feels on such a
once-in-a-lifetime journey.
So, I must ask: now that none of us, in fulfillment of this command
of the Aqdas can go on Obligatory Pilgrimage to one of the Twin
Houses, why not share Nabil's descriptions (in his own words) with the
Baha'i world so that we may taste the sweetness of this divine Command
through Nabil's experience?
I hereby respectfully urge the Research Dept to consider this request,
and if the World Centre resources does not permit such an undertaking,
suggest that Tarjuman prepare a draft translation for the World
Centre's review.
Further, firmly believing that there are many new pieces of historical
data in the second half of Nabil's narrative, I earnestly urge the
Research Dept to consider publication of this important half in
original language and to commission a team of students of the Faith to
prepare an English translation.
regards, ahang.
From Eric.J.Fienieg@Bahai.NLSun Nov 19 00:02:33 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 17:51:20 +0100
From: Eric.J.Fienieg@Bahai.NL
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science&religion
GOD (The Unknowable Essence)
/
- - - - - - - - - | - - -/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Mirror of God->| /
The Pen of God | /
BAHA'U'LLAH........|/
Word of God | \\
Command of God | \\
His Primal Will | \\ HOLY spirit
- - . - - - -.- - - - -.- - - - -.- - - - - . - - -*- - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . \\ . . *
. . . \\ . . *
. . . \\ . *
. . . . \\ . *
. . . . \\ . *
. . . . \\ .
. . . . \\ human spirit of faith
. . . . \\.
. . . . HUMAN spirit & consciousness
. . . . /
. . . . /
. . . . /
. . . . /
. . . . /
. . . /....... ANIMAL spirit
. . . /
. . . /
. . . /
. . . /
. . /.............. VEGETABLE spirit
. . /
. . /
. . /
. . /
. /.......................... MINERAL spirit
. /
. /
. /
./
MATTER (i.e. the intermittant materialization of creative informed energy)
`-> The mirror for (human) scientific research, reflecting God's creation =============================================================================
Hi ALL,
Hi US, WE, cyberspacy fellow-neurons of this Global Brain E5-system :-) (E5 = Emotive Energy patterns through Excitating Email Exchange) ("Global Brain": read Peter Russell's The White Hole in Time, our evolution and the meaning of NOW, and: The Global Brain, speculations on the evolutionary leap to planetary consciousness)
As a Bahai I like this emergencing "New Thinking" on the basis of "The New Physics", the scientific holism, the paradigm of open life systems, the emerging Science of Wholeness, combined with the Baha'i Science of Reality,as two co-operative partners in the search for Unity.
Are there more participants of this newsgroup who enjoy authors like David Bohm, Paul Davies, Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav, Roger Penrose, Robert Barry,Ilya Prigogine, Danah Zohar, Anna Lemkow, Jean Guitton, etc, etc.
Last weekend I read "Leadership & the New Science; learning about organization from an orderly universe" by Margaret Wheatley, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,1995, ISBN 90-254-1171-1. And some months ago I read "The Quantum Society;mind, physics, and a new social vision" by Danah Zohar, ISBN 0-00-654793-1.
Well; we (some Baha'is in the Netherlands) are running a Baha'i BBS with a newsgroup "Science and Religion" and developing an own Homepage URL for those who are interested.
Are you interested in applying new metaphors and paradigms from the New Physics say quantum- , chaos- , systems- , complexitytheory in our world view, com-bined with the revealed Baha'i world view?
Those who are, and have ideas and comments in that field of holistic thinking,please send us your thoughts (and perhaps articles).
Address: Eric.J.Fienieg@Bahai.Nl
As a moderator of our Science and Religion newsgroup I promise to keep all participants informed.
Depending on the suitability for posting this kind of stuff on the regular Baha'i internet listst I certainly will do that if we find relevance. But in the first phase I will not look for reactions on the lists, but only into my own mailbox.
BTW, in the Netherlands some local Bahai communities are joining the so called Celestine Working Groups in society, a possible target group for teaching purposes ;-) [The Celestine Prophecy, James Redfield, 1993,ISBN 90-225-1810-8] Do you have some experience with those groups?
Hope to meet you via the Global Brain e-network,
Warm greetings,
Eric.J.Fienieg@Bahai.Nl
From TLCULHANE@aol.comSun Nov 19 00:05:20 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 09:16:54 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: CMathenge@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Confusion about Congregat...
Dear Carmen ,
You asked whether I had encountered any one who showed up and
suggested that communal/ congregational. collective prayer was not permitted
. The answer to your question is yes .
It is important for me to back track a little . I have already
commented on the state ( or is it station Theo :) ) of the community five
years ago . Where we are today has been a five year process . The first
step was to begin speaking of Baha u llah in more *Irfan * terms . In other
words to distinguish between the Baha u llah of history and the Glory of God
as a station . Then to look at the Baha u llah of history and what he had to
say about the experience of God .
I think there are a number of paths present in the written Revelation to
gain access to this experience . There is a very powerful *nature * mysticism
which Kevin Locke and I have discuused over the years . You will find the
nature symbols Baha u llah uses everywhere in the writings . There is also a
Zen like quality as Juan has noted . This is cast it sems to me in more
philosophic terms and references e. g. the Primal Will , the First Intellect
. I might say this is a harder one for me to grasp . For that reason I am
fascinated and enjoying the current discussion on Zen and Bahai . There is
also a *personal * mysticism as divine experience . It is this one which
appeals to me the most and has been a part of my personal experience since
childhood . This approach is what I have called the Baha Maiden dialogues .
That is Baha u llah very . very often :) when describing His personal
experience of God , His moments of Irfan uses the symbol of the Maiden . It
is this one that I have chosen to stress in Omaha , perhaps because it speaks
so powerfully to me .
The second step in this process was to study and speak about what Baha u
llah , Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi have to say about the Mashriqu l Adhkar
. I do this in both its inner or Irfan sense and then its outer or
institutional sense . The combination is what I have before referred to as
*Irfan Republic* . I will discuss this btw at the Mystical conference .
Once the friends began to see that the frustratations , longings and dis
- ease with commmunity as administration was not simply a character flaw on
their part or a purely inner psychological condition which could be remedied
by private prayer re: prayer as psycho therapy - they could begin to put
words to their inner feelings and thoughts. In turn they discovered that Baha
u llah not only addresssed the inner dimension of irfan experience but also,
as I have argued, institutionalized it in the outer Mashriq . Once a
sufficient number of people got past the Americanized notion of religion is a
private thing which has its own history in North America and I talk a great
deal about that ; they began to ask what would a religious community look
like life based on Baha u llahs vision of Reality? How would a religious
community understand itself differently if the experience of God ( Irfan )
was the centerpiece of life ? If religion has a shared pubilc dimension,
after all, how do we begin to develope and express that dimension ? This
is the part btw that I think Jack Mc Leans book misses . It too often
projects a very privatized - often confused with individualized -
understanding of religion onto the Faith and reads into it the kinds of
statements you referred to on p116 of this book . As I mentioned in my
comments about the Birth of Baha u llah the ban on "images and effigies " in
the Aqdas is not the same thing as employing the *symbols * of God Talk and
God experience which exist throughout the writings of Baha u llah. My
personal view is that this is a reflection of Bah au llah trying to get away
from Christian notions of incarnation and worship of the historical personage
of the Manifestation . My understanding is that this was a fairly strong
tendency in Shi'a thought as well .
In the same passage which "bans" images there is the injunction to
*celebrate with radiance and joy * the remembrance of God . Now I dont know
about you but when I think about celebration , in the context of a passage
ordaining Houses of Worship I think of a public or shared experience . So the
question became how to develop and express that public celebration of the
*remembrance * of God . I would bet that Baha u llah speaks of this more than
any single thing in His writings - and remembrance is about Irfan . Most of
us came to the conclusion that if it was good enough for Baha u llah it was
good enough for us . Sort of taking our own Manifestation seriously . Once
we have the irfan experience, which I understand Baha u llah to tell us is
meant to be our normal state of waking conscoiusness , which is the
recognition of K1 in the Aqdas then we must , are, in some inner sense
compelled to observe it - the inseperable twin of recognition in K1 . So
where and how do we obseve this? It seems clear it comes in the context of
the inner and outer reality of the Mashriqu l Adhkar . It is this which
constitutes the "spiritual center " of every Bahai community according to no
less an august body than the Universal House of Justice.
By mid 1993 the LSA had come to the conclusion that re-vitalizing
commmunity life meant officially taking the wraps off and giving "permission
" to the friends to make Mashriq , inwardly and outwardly - the spiritual
center of community. I think most people , most Baha is I know sense this
deep inside and are afraid to act on it . They have been told all kinds of
other things over the years about what constitutes Bahai life . Mostly those
things revolved around the centrality of Administration equaled community,
teaching meant formal proclamation , ( teach what exactly was always an
interesting issue ) giving to the fund - a national one of course - which
promoted administrative activity again .
Dont get me wrong at the same time I have argued for a sense of *Irfan * I
have argued for the importance of Administration not as an end in itself but
as a vehicle Baha u llah has given us to govern ourselves and so that we dont
have to re-create the wheel every generation . New age psycho babble to the
contrary God talk and experience needs to be institutionalized and find
public expression . To assume otherwise is to not pay attention to the needs
of our children. And that is something Americans and the American Bahai
community became pretty good at - ignoring the needs of our children . This
privitized version of what constitutes prayer and worship is about as
appealing to children as a bucket of warm spit . It does not prepare them
for, nor provide, a meaningful identity that can be sustained in public. As
humans we are eminently public or social beings ( even those introverted
types like myself ) .
This process was well under way by the time talisman came along. We had
been giving ourselves permission to experiment and explore for a while now .
What Talisman did this past spring /summer for instance is provided a
compilation of passages related to prayer and pubilc worship . That was the
final piece we needed to give the members of the community the *permission *
to express their love of God in public ways as Bahais . Most of the
objections over the years are grounded in fear , how unfortunate . I suspect
their is also a good deal of self doubt involved in that project. By that I
mean the automatic assumption that the Revelation as given to us cannot be
acted upon or understood without first having some form of administrative
sanction . It is this attitude which has paralyzed individuals and
communities for years . I find it is this attitude which the House of Justice
has been trying to wean us from , individually and institutionallly , in
their Soc . Econ . Development letter , their letter on the Feast in 1989 ,
the whole approach to the Holy Year itself , and most recently in the May
19th letter .
What I shared with you about the Birth of Baha u llah was the "fairest
" fruit to date of this communities efforts to give itself permission to do
what Baha u llah has enjoined in the opening of the Aqdas - recognition and
observance .
A final thought ( well ok for the moment) . One of the key steps is
consultation among the friends. Not so much to arrive at a solution or an
action plan but first to simple explore what it is that people desire in
their hearts . In this consultation people are allowed to express what they
want , what makes them uncomfortable and why - not in a veto sense- but a
means of allowing everyone the space to be honest . From this we can design
activities , programs etc which take into account all the varied concerns and
desires of different believers . We know for instance that not every form of
expression will appeal to or speak to each believer . We are working on a
couple of things. One to build variety into the various forms of worship we
explore and two , just as important, allowing different believers the
opportunity to design worship , celebratory services for the community . The
fascinating thing about this point is that while I may not find a particular
form of celebration speaking to me what does speak to me is that this
particualr form - whatever that may be- speaks to the individuals who
participated in creating it . And that speaks to me .!
Sorry for the long answer to your sraight forward question . My friends
in Omaha are used to it :) and humor me frequently . I hope you will too .
warmest regards,
Terry
From belove@sover.netSun Nov 19 00:06:33 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 14:41:58 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: "Mark A. Foster" , talisman@indiana.edu,
748-9178@mcimail.com
Subject: RE: Both/and thinking
On Fri, 17 Nov 1995 17:25:11 -0600 (CST) Mark A. Foster wrote:
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>Don -
>
> Your fascinating posting on either-or contrasted with both-and
>thinking (or is that a dichotomy, too? ) reminded me of recent
posts
>here on Talisman which appear to bifurcate science from religion,
the
>left hemisphere of the brain from its right hemisphere, or
spirituality
>from materiality.
>From my perspective, all such divisions are completely
>artificial and unneccessary.
>
> Seeing things from a God's-eye viewpoint enables us to reconcile
>apparent contradictions in the light of reality. ...
Hi. Mark. This was a challenging posting, a very complicated idea
you've expressed here. I liked some of it, but some of it I didn't.
These comments of yours have helped me clarify my own position and
for this I thank you.
I agree that "seeing things from a God's eye viewpoint..etc.
I disagree that "all such divisions are completely artificial and
unnecessary. " Not sure what to make of that second phrase.
Tools are artificial, but hardly unnecesaary. These divisions are,
IMHO, tools.
I want to take you've thought about either/or and both/and thinking
and run it through the model of standpoint epistemology, named by
Juan Cole and found in the Table of All Food.
First, some definitions.
1. I think that Standpoint Epistemology is another word for Semiotic.
Here "semiotic" is used as a noun.
A "semiotic" a system of symbols, or language, that, by its nature
and structure, enables the mind to become aware of a certain portion
of reality.
A semiotic is a tool. It is a logic. And centuries ago, it was
conceived of as a sub-division of logic. St. Augustine was an early
user of the term and he used it to discuss the nature of prayer, as I
recall.
As I recall the philosophical debate on semiotics, it was said that
this tools arises because our mind can't take in everything at once
from all perspectives. The Human mind can't achieve a -- to use your
word's Mark -- God's eye view.
St. Thomas, I remember, talked about this saying that reality and God
were ultimately simple and One, but for us to think about it, we had
to make it more complex. We had to break it up into manipulatable
pieces. Because that is how our mind works.
2. A semiotic is not so much a map as it is a grid onto which ideas
may be mapped.
It is a grid of underlying, interlocking, more-or-less consistent
premises and basic assumptions. Gregory Bateson called this a
"Tautology." When you mapped observations onto a tautology, the
tautology provided the connections between the observations. The
connections were called "explanations."
In the science and religion conversation, we are talking about
"explanations" and whether those explanations can be simultaneously
mapped onto both the Religion Grid and the Science Grid.
A common example of a tautology/semiotic would be the postulates of
Euclid's Geometry. Here is a self-consistent series of propositions
that is then used to create "theorums" or "explanations."
Like any other tautology, or tool, it is self-contained.
The Euclidian grid enables us to be aware of the patterns of
relationship of lines on a flat plane. But it can tell us nothing
about what happens on the surface of a sphere.
Another example of different semiotics might be DOS and Mac. The Grid
which allows one program to perform, can't be used for other
programs.
3. Standpoint Epistemology gives us five semiotics, five ways for us
humans to be able to think about portions of the God's eye view.
4. It may be that we can invent, or receive through revelation a
semiotic than can integrate into one schema that which was previous
separated into several schemes.
It may be that there is one operating system, or platform that can
read both MAC and DOS.
It may be that there is a grid upon which may be mapped both Science
and Religion.
But I don't think we've found it.
And now, to refer back to your positing,
bifurcate science from religion, the
>left hemisphere of the brain from its right hemisphere, or
spirituality
>from materiality.From my perspective, all such divisions are
completely >artificial and unneccessary.
>
> Seeing things from a God's-eye viewpoint enables us to reconcile
>apparent contradictions in the light of reality. ...
We have to use semiotics. As humans we can't attain the God's eye
viewpoint, but might know it is there. We don't currently have
semiotics that recocile the apparent contradictions. The divisions,
like tools, are artificial, but are necessary.
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/18/95
Time: 14:41:58
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comSun Nov 19 00:07:02 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 23:23:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: peculiarities of the Revelation
Judy's letter with its questioning tone, mandates a response,
and a satisfactory response demands a visit to Khidr,
"the guide of soul" , the teacher of trust.
Ultimately, without that visit, no answer regardless of its
sophistication would be thirst quenching for our cynical side
which is trapped in doubt and confusion and uses the power of
intellect to justify its seclusion and fear.
But visiting and travelling with Khidr is no easy task, as Moses proved it
to be!
Perhaps, Khidr would take us to face up the on-going cruelty and injustice
and yet requiring us to believe and trust in the nobility of humanity.
Perhaps, Khidr would take us to observe the chaotic patterns of history
and life and yet requiring us to believe and trust in order and beauty.
Perhaps, Khidr would take us to the habitation of Simurgh to observe the
empty-ness and void of His presence and yet requiring us to believe and trust
in His majesty, glory and ever presence.
Perhaps, Khidr would take us to observe the lost and confused humanity and
yet requiring us to believe and trust in the reality of guidance, confirmation
and revelation.
Perhaps, Khidr would take us to gaze at the innocent eyes, devoid of joy and
hope and full of despair and pain and yet requiring us to believe and
trust in the divine love and assistance.
Perhaps, Khidr would take us to look at the heroic beings hung by their neck
and yet requiring us to believe and trust in reliance to the Almighty and
eventual victory.
Perhaps only then, the gate to certitude is opened and "I am" would be
the sufficient proof and all the peculiarities surrounding a Revelation would
prove to be the utter wisdom and/or the mischievous games by our playful God.
Farzin
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieSun Nov 19 00:07:39 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 15:53:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Aqdas, Transmutation of the Elements
Dear whoever I sent that short note about the "Divine Philosophy"
mentioned in the Aqdas,
I apologise that I cannot recall to whom it was but there was
something decidedly strange about your mail here, and it caused me to
crash twice while trying to open that mail specifically, so I don't
recall, and I can't find out.
At any rate, it was I who sent that mail on the ref to the Aqdas,
it's in the last note at the end of the book #194. ( I think. At any
rate you'll find it in the index, under "Philosophy, Divine").
Lastly, as it was I who sent that note, though I do quote the Dept.
of Exp. Physics as my address at the bottom, I would hate to
masquerade just yet as a Physicist (I can hardly even spell the
word!), since I am as yet only a final year student, and haven't even
got some letters after my name; perhaps in another 5 or so years I'll
claim to be a physicist, but certainly not yet.
Anyway, there you are,
D.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From forumbahai@es.co.nzSun Nov 19 00:08:17 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 14:39 GMT+1300
From: Alison & Steve Marshall
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Spelling of 'Abdu'l-Baha in books written by Baha'is
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
I've just noticed that 'Abdu'l-Baha is consistently spelled a little
differently in Compilation of Compilations from the standard spelling in a
number of other Baha'i books.
Comp. of Comps. - 'Abdu'l-Bah\'e1
Other books - 'Abdu'l-Bah\'e1
Due to the limitations of some mail readers I realise that the previous two
lines may not have transmitted and decoded properly. If so, here's my
description of the difference in spelling.
I realise that the "apostrophes" in 'Abdu'l-Baha's name aren't really
apostrophes, and instead indicate something about the pronunciation of the
word, but for the purposes of this question, I'll call them apostrophes. In
most books written by Baha'is, the spelling of 'Abdu'l-Baha uses "curly
apostrophes". The first apostrophe is an "open" apostrophe, and the second
is a "closed" apostrophe. In Comp. of Comps. the two curly apostrophes are
exactly the same -- both are "closed".
Any thoughts?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison and Steve Marshall
Email: forumbahai@es.co.nz
90 Blacks Road, Opoho, Dunedin/Otepoti, Aotearoa/New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSun Nov 19 00:09:22 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 0:22:08 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Bruce Burrill , friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen anti-intellectualism
SRF> "As you know, Zen Buddhism is anti-intellectual and anti-scholarly,
SRF> so one should be wary of thinking of it as a model for community
SRF> advancement. Monastic, elitist, and enjoying special privileges
SRF> through its cultivation of contacts with those in authority,
SRF> it is typically oriental in its rejection of personal freedom
SRF> and democratic institutions."
Bruce> Is this an unqualified statement?
Dear Bruce:
Thanks for the nudge. No, I don't mean it as that. If it were
unqualified, it would be a unfounded generalization, and certainly
untrue.
But, if you qualify it to mean the institutional structure of
Zen Buddhism, then it is certainly a much more accurate statement.
If you qualify it further by distinguishing between Rinzai and Soto
Zen, and pointing out the well-known distinction of the Japanese
proverb: "rinzai shogun, soto domin" (Rinzai for the shogun, Soto for
the peasants), then better accuracy would be achieved. But, almost
always, Zen, as a monastic temple order, has been authoritarian in
nature.
Perhaps the most interesting recent development in Zen, and perhaps
in Buddhism in general, is its transplantation to America and Europe.
There, it is adapting to a culture that has little patience with
authoritarianism. Thich Nhat Hanh, who headed the Vietnamese Buddhist
Peace Delegation in Paris during the Vietnam War and now lives in
France, is an example of a marvelously loving and generous-minded
Zen teacher who is a leading spirit in this new movement.
As for the anti-intellectualism of Zen, you know much more about it
than I. The aim of Zen is to bypass the futile, confining structures
of conventionalism, be it bureaucratic trivial-mindedness or
intellectual game-playing, and bring about a direct, sudden,
non-rationalized experiencing of Truth.
In Japan, Zen developed partly in reaction to the highly magical,
ritualized, intellectually sophisticated Shingon sect with its
emphasis on tantric esoteric Buddhism. It found its main supporters
among the feudal military class, impatient of scholaticism, but
willing to embrace the simple, manly virtues of Zen.
To say that Zen is anti-intellectual and anti-scholastic is not
necessarily saying something derogatory, but rather to characterize
its methods. But, certainly in an age that finds all the religious
and cultural traditions of the whole world as its heritage, we can
not shirk the task of gathering together and sifting through the
knowledge that we have inherited. We can not abandon the tasks
of scholars, nor deprive ourselves of the insights of intellectuals.
Perhaps we should recall that to the Japanese, Zen was but one thread
in a diverse and multi-faceted cloth. Zen occupied a special place
in Japan in that it was simultaneously a way of knowing and a
way of action, a cutting through to a spirit-filled creativity.
If we keep that in mind, then I would be less worried about its
undemocratic character. Knowing the precepts of Zen, to my mind,
is then a wonderful way to keep one's eyes open and ready to act!
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From jrcole@umich.eduSun Nov 19 00:20:34 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:18:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Eric D. Pierce"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Judy's paper on Babism
This paper is an unremarkable scissors-and-paste narrative dependent on a
few secondary sources. Very large numbers of important works are absent
here, possibly because it must have been written in 1989, when Amanat's
book was first published, and so it does not take account of subsequent
volumes of, e.g., Studies in Babi and Baha'i Religions (Kalimat).
1) Todd Lawson's careful philological work in the Bab's early esoteric
writings have demonstrated that to insiders his claim to be the 12th Imam
would have been entirely apparent right from the beginning. This
contradicts the MacEoin account, but Todd has done the very difficult
textual work on Arabic esoteric texts that MacEoin never carried out
(Denis once confessed to me that he was not particularly good at
analyzing highly abstract texts). Todd's work is a Ph.D. dissertation in
Islamics at McGill and some of it has been published in Studies in Babi
and Baha'i Religions vol. 5 and in book chapters and journal articles.
2) Since Azal sent Mirza Aqa Jan to Iran in 1854-56 with instructions to
try and assassinate Nasiru'd-Din Shah; since Azal openly called for the
assassination of Dayyan in his *al-Mustayqiz*; since Azal married the
Bab's temporary-wife widow in the same period, in contradiction of the
Bayan; the depiction of him as a shy retiring naif out-maneuvered by an
ambitious and "ruthless" Baha'u'llah is complete nonsense. It was
Baha'u'llah who had retired to Sulaymaniyyah in this period to avoid
causing any contention!
3) I should have thought that the break with Islam was commemorated by
two events, the revelation of the Persian Bayan, which abrogated the
Qur'an; and Badasht, which announced the abrogation. Why the problematic
of this slight scissors-and-past job should be whether the Babi movement
broke from Islam rather puzzles me.
cheers Juan Cole, Professor of Middle Eastern History, University of
Michigan
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 20 18:22:37 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 08:21:32+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Truth
Dear Henry:
Thank you for your post. But don't be too hard on yourself in the imperfect
department. You are right...we all have a long way to go. But God also
created us in His own image...what does that mean?
According to my understanding of Buddhism (may I, please, not get stomped on
by all the Buddhist sandals in the room), our spirit or soul is created
perfect...it is God's image. We practice our spiritual reality, and thereby
unpeel layers of "stuff" which hid that perfection. When we have become
fully re-acquainted with our true spiritual nature, this is enlightment.
Baha'u'llah refers to the same in the Hidden Words. Might I suggest
including some of them in your daily prayers? They really are the perfect
affirmation.
It is important to identify areas where we need work, and to be humble. It
is also important to look in our Romper room mirror and see ourselves as God
has created us...as spiritual creations. All the rest, the intellect, the
physical practices, the position in life, is window dressing, and also part
of our tests. (Imagine being created in the image of Malibu Barbie!) It
provides the direction for the practice, if we are truthful enough with
ourselves to recognize the tests and accept them as such. And we have the
gift of the writings to provide light to guide our way, and to see the
reflected image by.
Scholarly inputs are amazing and wonderful gifts. We need ALL the scholars
in the Faith. We need to delve into the writings from ALL angles. I sense
from those who post to Talisman a great love and devotion to the Cause of
God. Their exploration of what the "words" means, what was the historical
context in which the words were revealed, what historical background in
history and religion is this picture backdropped against, and what is the
spirit and intent which one can possibly glean from those words and events
can help shape the language needed, the understanding and the tolerance
needed, and the thinking skills needed for us all to progress as a community.
We also need people like me, who are not scholars, but who operate more on
intuition, faith and emotion. The scholarly input helps me keep my own
bearings so I don't float off as a space cadet in Never Never Land. When
the debate gets too pragmatic and nit picky, I just put it down to scholarly
bull.... and wait for something with a little less self importance and a
little more meat to come along. I imagine that scholars do the same with my
little ramblings. I suspect that through this dance, we arrive at a set of
dialogue areas which are helpful and meaningful to us both ...a meeting
place within the Community. In the same breath, the scholarly nit pickyness
is important stuff to the scholar, it is their creative medium...just like
mine is paint and paper. I wouldn't think of putting them down for it,
anymore than I would expect to be put down for going off on some wild and
woolly nonsense on canvas. It is all grist for the mill, and as long as it
is there inside, it needs to come out to make room for more; to be refined,
developed and allowed room to grow.
What it also provides for all of us is a forum to explore, to be, to think,
and perhaps to put into practice what we are learning. Wonderful? You bet!
It is something I have missed in our 7 years in Uganda. Maybe this is what
community (family?) is...a place (or cave) where we can gain strength from
fellow community members which enable us to go out and "forage" for whatever
we or the community needs (like an occasional Mammoth). If you don't have
a base which is secure and replenishing, you can't hunt Mammoth.
I, for one, have felt a growing sense of "community" here on Talisman.
Maybe that is just me..I suspect so. At any rate, it is a sense of
community which I have not experienced for a long time...I am grateful. It
is also giving me the strength to grow, to ask questions of myself, to think
about what worship means to me, to think about what Baha'u'llah desires
worship to be for us, and about how to bring it all together, and keep the
song of discovery alive!
Warmest love,
Bev.
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Nov 20 18:23:22 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 05:25:47 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Prayer & Medicine Wheels
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Carmen and Bev -
Carmen, at the end of the Five-Year Plan, when I worked for the
year-long "Westchester Project," just north of New York City, all of the
"teachers" (there were four of us) would sometimes sing prayers together
(such as the "remover of difficulties"). One of the members of the
Baha'i Committee of Westchester (the supervisory body) joined us one
morning and expressed concern. I assured him that there was nothing
wrong with it, and that the prohibition against congregational prayer
(as in Islamic salat) referred only to the three daily obligatory
prayers - and not to the Prayer for the Dead or to other prayerful
reading or singing. He was unconvinced and reported back to the
committee. We were subsequently told not to continue this practice until
the committee heard back from the National Center. After a couple of
weeks, word came to us that we could continue with what we had been
doing.
Bev, thank you for your response. I think that I inadventantly
addressed you as "Don." My apologies. I just looked at the header and
apparently ignored your signature.
I agree with you that we need to find new and creative ways of
reaching out to people. IMHO, part of the solution is to focus on
spiritual reality and not so much on outward appearances. For example,
we can speak of the nature of the soul and the relationship between God
and humanity through His Messengers.
The common practice of discussing progressive Revelation, and the
use of the school-grades analogy, while certainly accurate, may give the
individual the impression that we believe that their own religion is
inferior and thus turn people off before they have a chance to
investigate further. Even worse, IMO, walking up to a Christian and
proclaiming that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, while proper in
the Blessed Beauty's epistle to the pope, may not be so wise in our
individual teaching efforts.
I am interested in your reference to the medicine wheel and what it
can teach us. Also, what is "hakuna mutata"?
Warm greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From SFotos@eworld.comMon Nov 20 18:24:11 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 01:58:43 -0800
From: SFotos@eworld.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mark Tobey & Bernard Leach
Dear Talismans
More detailed information on these two is available in the Baha'i Worlds.
However, I believe that Bernard Leach first heard about the Faith from Agnes
Alexander, and was subsequently encouraged to declare by his good friend Mark
Tobey. Bernard Leach is warmly remembered by many Baha'is in Japan and by
artists in general for his development of the Mingei (folk craft) movement.
He died in 1979 but up until his death, even though blind, he made trips to
Japan from England to set up exhibitions and speak about the Faith.
Before he became a Baha'i, Leach studied Buddhism with the Zen master Diasetz
Suzuki, whose American wife was a Baha'i.
Best,
Sandy Fotos
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 20 18:33:35 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 18:47:55+030
From: Don Peden
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Prayer & Medicine Wheels
Dear Mark:
Hakuna Mutata is swahili for "No Problem!"
It has been many years since I even thought about the philosophy of the
medicine wheel. It has a foundation and a variation in a number of
traditions, I think. In the Native People of Canada, the plains people to
be more specific, it is the understanding that truth has many perspectives.
If you sit in a circle around a particular "truth" or object, each person in
the circle will have a different view. Each person will be correct in their
portion of the view, even though their description will not match the person
across the circle from them who has a completely different point of view of
the same "truth". Instead of arguing about who's view is the correct view
(futile because they are both correct), the idea is to move to as many
positions around the wheel or circle as possible, or to listen to as many
descriptions as possible, and incorporate them with your own. That way,
"truth" can be revealed in a more holistic manner. Another variation is the
three blind men feeling an elephant, and trying to describe it. One man
describes it as being long, slender, carressing and flexible. Another
describes it as huge and fat...so fat you can't reach around it. The last
man describes it as tiny, thin and having a terrible aroma from time to
time. Which man is correct? And of course, there is always the Little
Prince and his drawing.
Love,
Bev.
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
>Carmen and Bev -
>
> Carmen, at the end of the Five-Year Plan, when I worked for the
>year-long "Westchester Project," just north of New York City, all of the
>"teachers" (there were four of us) would sometimes sing prayers together
>(such as the "remover of difficulties"). One of the members of the
>Baha'i Committee of Westchester (the supervisory body) joined us one
>morning and expressed concern. I assured him that there was nothing
>wrong with it, and that the prohibition against congregational prayer
>(as in Islamic salat) referred only to the three daily obligatory
>prayers - and not to the Prayer for the Dead or to other prayerful
>reading or singing. He was unconvinced and reported back to the
>committee. We were subsequently told not to continue this practice until
>the committee heard back from the National Center. After a couple of
>weeks, word came to us that we could continue with what we had been
>doing.
>
> Bev, thank you for your response. I think that I inadventantly
>addressed you as "Don." My apologies. I just looked at the header and
>apparently ignored your signature.
>
> I agree with you that we need to find new and creative ways of
>reaching out to people. IMHO, part of the solution is to focus on
>spiritual reality and not so much on outward appearances. For example,
>we can speak of the nature of the soul and the relationship between God
>and humanity through His Messengers.
>
> The common practice of discussing progressive Revelation, and the
>use of the school-grades analogy, while certainly accurate, may give the
>individual the impression that we believe that their own religion is
>inferior and thus turn people off before they have a chance to
>investigate further. Even worse, IMO, walking up to a Christian and
>proclaiming that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, while proper in
>the Blessed Beauty's epistle to the pope, may not be so wise in our
>individual teaching efforts.
>
> I am interested in your reference to the medicine wheel and what it
>can teach us. Also, what is "hakuna mutata"?
>
> Warm greetings,
>
> Mark
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
>*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
>*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
>*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
>*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
>* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
>*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
>*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
>*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
>* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
>* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
>* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>
>___
>* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
>
>
>
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 20 18:35:16 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 18:48:11+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Zen, Buddhism, and Baha'i
>> It is interesting in this context to note that the most successful Baha'i
>> visual artist to date, the only one with an international reputation to
>> explicitly refer to the Faith's importance for his work, Mark Tobey, spent
>> several months at a Zen Buddhist monastary in Japan and was known as a
>> proponant of Zen.
>>
>> cheers!
>>
>> Dave Taylor
>>
>
>Dear Dave:
>
>Another successful Baha'i artist who is almost an icon in Japan, and arguably
>one of the most significant figures in the arts and crafts movement in the
>20th century is Bernard Leach, the famous potter. Did he teach the Faith
>to Mr. Tobey? Anybody know what he or Mr. Tobey said about Zen?
>
>Stephen R. Friberg
>
>Dear Stephen:
I don't remember who taught the faith to who. The trio consisted of
Reginald Turvey, Bernard Leach and Mark Tobey. A few quotes and
relationships can be found concerning the relationship between Tobey, Leach
and the Japanese potter Hamada. Hamada had a great influence on Leach, as
did Leach on Hamada.
In the book "Hamada, Potter" by Bernard Leach, there is a "running dialogue"
by Leach and Hamada as they tell of their relationship and loving respect
for each other. On page 121 Leach says:
"It was through Hamada and his reaction against the Germanic scientific and
theoretic training that he received at his pottery school that I realized
the superiority of the natural processes employed by early potters all over
the world. From him also I received a glimpse of the condition of mind as
well as insight into the practical techniques of the earlier Oriental
potters. This exchange between us was not based upon theory before practice
but upon practice before theory in the pursuit of that which we considered
beautiful and true. I had no real training in science, whereas Hamada had,
and he was now at my elbow. At second hand I learned something of the
principles involved, only by using intuition rather than textbooks. He did
not like the coldness of the analytical approach; he got sick of textbooks.
It took him away from the sheer experience of man and clay and fire into a
world of theory before practice, and he and many of his Oriental friends
held this as a bad mark against European culture. They say that Europeans
go to theory before practice, and that is what has upset the aesthetic
standards of Europe to a large extent. They say that we have always put
intellect before intuition, but at the expense of that which speaks from one
man's heart to another, which is the nature of art. All this Hamada taught
me; in fact I have learned not only from Hamada but from Buddhism more than
I have learned from the West about such things. In later years I realized
how strongly earlier Christianity also had put the heart before the head."
In a review of Mark Tobey's work by William C. Seitz, Tobey's relationship
to Buddhism is alluded to in many passages. But perhaps on page 49 - 50 is
the clearest, most direct reference. Seitz has included "quotes" by Tobey
from other interview material.
"Tobey stayed with the family of his friend Teng Kuei in Shanghai, living
the ordinary life of the city. He became familiar with native foods,
amusements, theaters and concerts; he looked at painting and sculpture, and
met artists and musicians. In careful detail, his experiences are recorded
in his diary. Later he traveled alone to Japan, where he saw No drama,
Kabuki, Japanese painting and flower arrangement. He passed a month in a
Zen monastery in Kyoto talking with the abbots and monks, attempting Eastern
meditation, practicing calligraphy, and painting. Day after day he studied
a sumi painting of a large free-brush circle; "Was it selflessness? Was it
the Universe - where I could lose my identity?" He practiced painting
before a moon window through which everything was framed in a circle, and
composed poetry in the Haiku form. Tobey did not achieve enlightenment -
satori - and doubts if any American, or even any modern Japanese artist has
done so. Nor does he claim a full understanding of Zen. But it reinforced
his conviction that "if you wish to break down the rational mind and to
reveal what is behind it, you must pass through the experience of having it
smashed." He found Zen released him, by its "circle of emptiness" from the
domination of others' ideas; and he took as his own the Japanese emphasis on
conservation and concentration, simplicity, directness and profundity. He
prefers the Japanese aesthetic to the Chinese, and values the ideal of
shibui, which to him means hidden beauty; "that which doesn't look like
anything, but in time discloses its jewels." He accepts the idea of
accident, and especially the freedom of the "flung" style, which he used so
magnificently in his sumis: "When I get into the old Zen monks who did
calligraphy, then I'm very happy." Most important, China and Japan gave the
final encouragement to Tobey's natural "writing impulse," and to his idea
that forms could migrate from Orient to Occident just as they previously had
in the opposite direction.
Baha'i and Zen were Tobey's two most important spiritual influences; but
Baha'i, as he says, "found him", whereas it was he who sought out and found
Zen. "I could never be anything," he confesses, "but the occidental I am."
In Bernard Leach's book "Drawings, Verse and Belief", Leach talks more
explicitly about his relationship with Buddhism and Baha'i, and how he
understands them in relationship to art. On page 9 he says:
"Art, as we endeavour towards perfection, is one with religion, and this
fact is better recognized in the East. Perfection is more like the state
prior to the expulsion from the Garden of Eden than the mere opposite to
imperfection. The oriental concept of Life or, as we would say, God, is
non-dualistic at root, and this is difficult for our Western rationalism.
If, as Genesis declares, "He made us in His own likenes', then we have
overlooked the responsibilities attendant upon the freedom of choice to
refuse Him until we rediscover, usually painfully, Reality.
In the same way as that in which the ultimate inscrutability of the "I am
that I am' holds us, so do these words contain their own verity. We, 'made
in His image', have within us a power to recognize truth when we meet it.
>From ancientIndia comes the sanskrit, 'Tat tvam asi" (That thou art).
Everything that exists is an infinitesimal part of Totality - Buddhism does
not speak of God but of 'Thusness' (Things as they really are). I am
convinced that these three roots about the meaning of life are not in
conflict. All from West to furthese East are unitive and not dualistic.
Our dualism commenced when we separated intellect and intuition, the head
from the heart, and man from God."
A couple of paragraphs later, Leach continues...
"The difficulty I experienced in accepting the Baha'i Faith lay in the
apparent curtain hung between normal man and prophethood, which to Buddhists
is anathema. To them a Buddha is a fully enlightened man, in other words a
selfless being. Baha'u'llah states that no man can become a manifestation
of God except by the grace of God. He constantly writes that we are all
potentially filled with God; the Buddhist says this is a certainty in
timeless time. What can exist outside God? Without His seeing eye how can
we see ourselves or Him:?
So great is the liberty of God that this apparently dualistic environment of
life is the testing ground of our worthiness to return to his non-dualistic
Heaven. In fact, as every Buddhist knows, Heaven is half-hidden behind any
leaf, or stone, or human face, or even artefact. To us, His followers,
Baha'u'llah was the predicted return not of the Jesus, but of the Christ, or
the Buddha, or any prophet-founder, reiterating the real and immediately
relevant meanings of Life in our so-confused day. This realization came to
me not by any systematic study, nor even through the friendship of
outstanding Christians or Buddhists, but by the quality of inspired
selflessness in the lives of three Persians of our time: the Bab (the GAte),
Baha'u'llah (the founder) and his son, 'Abdu'l-Baha (the interpreter and
exemplar)."
It is well known that there existed a close relationship between Bernard
Leach, Mark Tobey and Reginald Turvey. They all spent time together at art
school in England, and there remains a wealth of correspondence between
them. It is obvious from the comments of Seitz that Tobey must have kept a
journal during his time in Japan, and it would be of great interest to have
access to this journal. However, I have no idea who possess it now,
although I believe his estate passed into the hands of his companion at the
time of his death.
In "Mark Tobey: Art and Belief", there is an essay written by Mark Tobey on
"Art and Community". It is well worth the read. It is not long, and I
think addresses the issue of the relationship between "heart and head" which
was a constant theme of both Leach and Tobey. Reginald Turvey, just got on
and painted...it is all he ever aspired to do...paint and serve the Cause of
God. Quiet, gentle soul that he was, he had not the fire or the ego of
either Leach or Tobey, and was greatly loved by both of them. He was also
greatly loved by the people in his life, and by the people of South Africa.
It wouldn't be fair to look at Leach and Tobey without also looking at Turvey.
I hope this helps pique your curiosity even more, and that we can look
forward to more information on this topic.
Love,
Bev.
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Nov 20 18:38:24 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 21:09:54 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: communal prayer
Dear Carmen,
I remain unsure as to what precisely the Baha'i law on
congregational prayer means, but yes, Jack McLean seems
to apply it too broadly. When K12 says "It hath been
ordained that obligatory prayer is to be performed by each
of you individually. Save in the Prayer for the Dead, the
practice of congregational prayer hath been annulled", the
Arabic is
Kutiba `alaykumu 'S-SALATU furada.
Qad rufi`a hukmu 'l-jama`ati illa fi SALATI
'l-mayyiti.
Clearly both sentences refer specifically to salat, obligatory
prayers, and not to prayer in general. So the law would not
prevent the recital of prayer in unison, or with simultaneous
gestures, as Jack says (p287, n58). If it did, we would not
even be able to sing the prayers together! At our last
fireside we listened to the Halih Halih Halih Ya Bisharat,
with people joining in the chorus as they felt moved. I
hope this is just the beginning of a deeper integration of the
arts, community worship, and community life here.
Also Jack says that the emphasis in the Baha'i Faith is on
individual and private prayer, whereas the emphasis in the
Aqdas seems to be equally on obligatory prayers and the
chanting of prayers in the Masriqu'ul-Adhkar in the
morning. Whether or not one thinks that obligatory prayers
can or even should be said in the spiritual meetings, clearly
communal prayer should have a very important place in
Baha'i community life - it occurs more frequently than in
the Christian tradition (outside the monasteries) but not 5
times a day as (ideally) in Islam. Jack's understanding
strikes me as a rather 'Protestant' interpretation of the life of
Faith. It is interesting that his categories of prayer are
derived from a convert from Catholicism to protestantism,
and that communal prayer is considered as a secondary and
inferior form. I can't entirely square this with the Aqdas,
but, especially as regards prayer, each to his/her own
Sen
BTW, my unauthorized (pointed) text has 's-Salwtu and fii
Salwti in K12: Wehr gives both forms (with a/w) but
doesn't indicate any difference. Is this an optional spelling,
dialect, or subtle difference in meaning?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
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 . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------\'1a
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Nov 20 18:39:15 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 14:28:52 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: House of Justice on Scholarship
[quote from letter from the Secretariat of the House:]
> In any case the Universal House of Justice asks us
> to point out that no commentary on the Sacred Texts made by anyone other
> than the Authorized Interpreters can constitute authoritative
> interpretation.
> [Juan wrote:]
> I take the last sentence to mean, incidentally, that even the House could
> not have promulgated a binding Interpretation of the Scripture with
> regard to Baha'i scholarship, much less the Research Department!
Agreed. Not only cannot the House provide "binding" Interpretation, but
none whatever. The House has explicitly disavowed interpretation in its
letters on the Guardianship and the House of Justice. I think that is why
sometimes the House makes rather cryptic references such as "the friends
should study" such-and-such passage and reflect on it. We as individuals
possess the power of interpretation, though with no assurance of accuracy
or infallibility, and surely no authority. But the House refrains from it
entirely. To me this means that the House *knows* the true path, and will
lead us down it, but will not elaborate upon it, as to do so would be
interpretation.
I distinguish this from the House being unable to make any infallible
pronouncements on scholarship or anything else. That is, the House has
powers that are neither legislation, nor interpretation, in which the
Writings assure the House of divine guidance. One of those which makes
specific reference to scholars has been posted several times. It is a
Tablet from the Master quoted by the House in one of the letters I
referred to above, in which He refers to the "deductions" and
"elucidations" of the House. The Tablet begins with reference to the laws
and interpretations of laws and applications of laws made in Muslim
jurisprudence, which supplement the fundamental laws set forth by the
Prophet in the Qur'an. The Master states that Baha'u'llah has referred
this to the Universal House of Justice. The Tablet is also remarkable
because the Master makes specific reference to the elected membership of
the House, that they are not left alone by God, and that acting as a body,
they are guided. There is another passage from Shoghi Effendi, similar in
that it makes specific reference to the elected members of the House, in
which He says that the House is infallibly guided in "administration" of
the Faith. Earlier in the World Order of Baha'u'llah, I think also in the
Dispensation, he writes that the House is infallibly guided in
"application" of the laws of Baha'u'llah. I personally believe that the
vast majority of the acts of the House are not legislative in the sense of
passing laws on matters not revealed in the Text; but are more properly
described as application of Baha'u'llah's laws, or administration of His
Faith.
When I read the letters of the House that are in the name of the House
itself, I see it referring to its own "elucidations," and its "deductions"
and its "clarifications," and other terminology used by the Master and the
Guardian regarding the scope of powers of the House. These, the House has
also explained, should not be confused with the power of interpretation
possessed by the Guardian, which is different in nature.
My point is this, and only this: While the statements of the House of
Justice as a body are not interpretation, that does not mean to me that
the House cannot make divinely-guided pronouncements on scholarship or any
other topic which it sees that it has the authority to make. I do not
believe that, should it choose to do so, such a pronouncement would merely
be on the same plane with the personal understanding of the friends. I
think that we may have limited tye types of discourse in which the House
may engage; there is room for more than just supplementary legislation
and interpretation. I think the House has largely refrained from this
for the present time.
Brent
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comMon Nov 20 18:42:22 1995
Date: 19 Nov 1995 16:52:51 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: communal prayer
Sen said
> I remain unsure as to what precisely the Baha'i law on
> congregational prayer means
Congregational prayer, I believe, is where one person says prayers on behalf
of the congregation. It is not where the congregation says prayers in unison.
Therefore, some of the prayers offered during services in the Catholic Mass,
and possibly in other 'high church' services, as well as some prayers offered
in Muslim services are prohibited.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From JWALBRID@indiana.eduMon Nov 20 18:43:14 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 20:10:21 EST
From: JWALBRID@indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: communal prayers
Don Calkins commented:
Congregational prayer, I believe, is where one person says prayers on behalf
of the congregation. It is not where the congregation says prayers in unison.
Therefore, some of the prayers offered during services in the Catholic Mass,
and possibly in other 'high church' services, as well as some prayers offered
in Muslim services are prohibited.
*****
It doesn't follow. Baha'u'llah did not prohibt "congregational prayer";
he prohibited "salat al-jum`a", which is not exactly the same thing.
"Salat" is what we call in English "obligatory prayer," and is only
a specific subset of prayer. Actually his reading would prohibit the
usual Baha'i practice of one person reading a prayer to others at feasts
and other worship services.
john walbridge
From burlb@bmi.netMon Nov 20 18:50:37 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 23:03 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Half-esoteric
Juan (not to Talisman):
Judy -- the one who prepared that paper on the Faith -- sent me some e-mail
which I answered and then she made this comment:
The paper I wrote was largely on Shaykhism and the origins of Babism in Shi'i
Islam. Babism is rooted in incredibly esoteric thought . It bears almost no
resemblence to the Baha'i faith--which is why almost zero is
translated--especially the Baha'i faith as it was reconstructed by Abdul
Baha. (I don't say these things to be mean or to cause problems--it's just
the way it is, and when you look at all this stuff--as MacEoin did--you can't
pretend it's not there. You will never have serious scholars--which doesn't
mean you won't have smart apologists--because I suspect that most real
scholars will cease to be Baha'i's.
Well, Juan, what do you think of the Faith "never having serious scholars"?
Will "real scholars" cease to be Baha'is?
Things will be awfully quiet on Talisman if all the scholars leave!
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Nov 20 18:52:17 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:12:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: communal prayer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Don -
I think that the issue of congregational prayer can only be
understood with reference to salat - which has been translated by the
Guardian as "obligatory prayer" and, by way of example, by the United
Submitters (Masjid Tucson) as "contact prayer." To my knowledge the
distinction is clear in the Arabic - but not as clear in the English,
since there is no clear Christian tradition (except as a part of certain
Roman Catholic liturgical practices) which distinguishes between the
different sorts of prayer. A closer comparison can be found in orthodox
Judaism.
In our teachings, we have four obligatory prayers - the three daily
prayers and the Prayer for the Dead. Of those four prayers, the only one
which can be recited congregationally is the Prayer for the Dead. The
three daily prayers are performed individually. In Islam, OTOH, the
obigatory prayers were, as a rule, recited in a Mosque (Masjid) with
other Muslims.
Therefore, to me, the issue is not whether the prayers are, or or
not, said in unison. It is that, in this Dispensation, daily obligatory
prayer has been transformed from a collective to an individual
responsibility. As I see it, this change is in keeping with the age of
maturity into which we are entering.
Warm greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Nov 20 18:52:58 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:55:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Joan Jensen
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: a003@lehigh.edu
Subject: Re: Scholarly Paradigm
Dear Bill,
Thank you for asking for a pace and enough background so that the rest
of us can follow these fascinating discussions. I can't keep up with
the quantity of information that flows in and out of the newsgroups,
even when I devote hours a day. Being a part of these lists reminds
of classes I took in graduate school. The adult students were from
a variety of different disciplines, and of varying ages and years of
experience within their own discipline, and also had quite a variability
of intelligences (see: _Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice_
by Howard Gardner). The poor instructors had to teach us all the basic
information of the course, knowing that some would be bored and others
would be completely lost and have to do a lot of background reading
just to keep afloat. Reminding ourselves of these concepts, both as
posters and as readers, is very useful.
My best hope is that the individuals initiating a thread or contributing
to threads will be generous enough to continue to name books and authors
who were important in their own formulation of ideas on the thread. This
is actually done quite often, and I have a little notebook by my computer
in which I write down the references in topics I'm interested in, for my
next trip to the library, or the bookstore, in my spare time (years from
now, perhaps). I cannot keep up, but at least I am exposed to the ideas,
the seeds have been planted somewhere in my brain or my soul. I've also
been inspired to re-read books and compilations that I haven't read in
years.
For me, also, tone is very important. I am not talking about flowery
phrases and indirect speech. I am talking about being aware of your own
true feelings, then being aware of how these feelings are projected into
the words typed onto the screen, and pausing to think about whether this
is really what you want to convey. For example, frank speech and
righteous indignation are fine by me, in fact very refreshing, as
long as they are "I" messages rather than "you" messages. Also,
direct and courteous questions are helpful. But sly insinuations
or making assumptions about other people's motives leave me feeling
a cold dread in the pit of my stomach. Happily, I have seen plenty of
the former and very little of the latter, on the newsgroups being
operated by Baha'is.
As an aside, I have also been bemused at the frustration some
people express about our inability to DO something with all these ideas
generated. Rather than thinking of these groups as 'discussion'
groups or problem-solving forums, I see them now as brainstorming,
idea-churning and information-generating forums. I think it was Steve
Scholl who suggested taking the ideas back to your own communities for
action, and Terry in Omaha who uses the postings as the basis for community
deepenings.
Warmly, Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
*******************************************************************
"...love and affinity are the fruits of a gentle disposition,
a pure nature and praiseworthy character..."
Selected Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 287
*******************************************************************
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieMon Nov 20 18:53:58 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:40:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: infallibility
Dear Sen,
You wrote,
> Darach,
> my fault I think: we've discussed infallibility at great length
> on Talisman, and I've been thinking about it for a long
> time, so I tend to cut corners to get to the bit I'm interested
> in, which is whatever model I'm fiddling with at the time.
>
> The first steps of the argument go something like this:
> Infallibility, as regards the Universal House of Justice and
> the Guardian, can't mean always factually correct, for
> reasons we've discussed.
Can you tell me what these reasons are?
or,
I realise that you are quite busy and that these issues are
addressed, probably in previous discussions here. Can
any body send them to me?
>In looking for other alternative
> meanings, many people on Talisman have looked at Islam,
> where infallibility refers to immaculacy, or freedom from
> sin. I've rejected that model (as regards the UHJ and the
> Guardian) because the Guardian himself says that he is not
> a 'stainless mirror' (it's in the 'the Administrative Order'
> section of 'The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah'). Of course it
> could be that immaculacy applies to the Universal House of
> Justice, while the infallibility of the Guardian resembles
> that which is claimed for the Pope, and for the body of
> believers as a whole in both Islam and Christianity, i.e., in
> the Baha'i case, the Guardian would be 'free from mistakes
> in questions of doctrine and the interpretation of the
> scriptures'. This is possible, but I distrust it because it
> supposes two quite different types of infallibility for these
> twin institutions. I've shelved it while looking further for
> other possibilities.
Here, I agree with your distrust of such an interpretation. Besides
which, if the UHJ is considered 'immaculate', surely it is the
institution itself, and not the members that are immaculate. Hence,
one could claim such an immaculacy for the Guardian(ship) as an
Institution, and not as an individual; but this leads to
difficulties in that it doesn't lead anywhere as an argument, because
the 'immaculacy' of the Guardianship implies freedom from sin in the
sphere of the Guardian, which I would presume to mean ordinary
infallibility again (I justify this jump by wondering how the
Guardianship could sin if you see what I mean).A similar argument
applies to the UHJ. Hence from 'institutional immaculacy' I would
have to conclude ordinary/"papal" infallibility.
> Another model proposed here was operational - that
> infallibility is a short-hand equivalent of the possession of
> authority. I.e., that the Guardian and/or the Universal House
> of Justice are not actually free from error (however defined)
> in every case, but since they are the highest authorities in
> their respective spheres, and our unity is our own highest
> good, we treat them as if they are. This doesn't satisfy me
> because I have a theological bent: I like to ground things in
> the divine nature, rather than in exigencies. This model
> may tell us what the practical significance of infallibility is
> (but I don't think so, authority doesn't require infallibility)
> but it does not say what it is - to me.
This particular argument has no foundation at all; it accepts the
idea that the UHJ has been declared free from error in the 'ordinary'
sense, but seems to reject it on the basis of a disagreement with
certain decisions that appear thoroughly nonsensical. That is, this
argument interprets 'infallibility' only as a convenience tool, and
the only basis for this is a personal interpretation of the UHJ's
past decisions.
> So I've ruled out or shelved for now 1) not being wrong, 2)
> not doing wrong, and 3) being beyond questioning, right or
> wrong. At this point one option would be to go for a
> symbolic interpretation, according to the rule that, if the
> literal meaning of a verse is impossible (the stars falling to
> earth, for example) a symbolic meaning must be intended.
> I'm shelving this too, because I'm not satisfied yet that the
> words cannot have any direct meaning as they stand,
> because this kind of interpretation should specifically not
> be applied to the Aqdas, and because no remotely plausible
> symbolic meaning occurs to me. However I do note that the
> phrase 'source of all good and freed from all error' is
> hyperbolic: there are certainly good things which do not
> come from the Universal House of Justice, so perhaps the
> second part of the phrase is also an example of the rhetoric
> of 'exaggerated emphasis'?
Perhaps this phrase is not in fact 'merely' hyperbolic at all, but
literally true in a spiritual sense. After all, the UHJ is guided
by the Twin Manifestations, which we accept are the Channels of God's
Grace. The very existence of the Head of the Baha'i Faith may be
"the source of all good" in the world. (I realise that a
literalist/fundamentalist interpretation may not be popular on
Talisman, but it must be considered).
> Now in the Will and Testament I notice that it says:
> "the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the
> Universal House of Justice ... are both under the
> care and protection of the Abha Beauty, under the
> shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One
> (may my life be offered up for them both).
> Whatsoever they decide is of God."
> And the coincidence of the link between 'unerring guidance'
> and 'protection' and infallibility led me to think that
> infallibility may be a relationship with God which is
> absolutely secure. So in 'free from error', the 'error',
> naturally enough, is turning away from God. What error
> could be greater, and besides this error, what other could
> have any significance? At this point it doesn't matter so
> much what the practical effect of this never-failing
> guidance may be, in fact we can leave that up to God. The
> type and degree of guidance doesn't matter - it could be as
> little as the gentle reassurance that life means something
> which any one of can receive in prayer and daily life. If it
> is never-failing, absolutely reliable, then that is already
> supernatural since (as someone else noted today), that
> 'ordinary' guidance can certainly not be relied on to arrive
> daily at the doorsteps of ordinary mortals. And this is
> roughly what I meant with what I called model 33B. The
> phrase 'never losing contact with the ground of Being' was
> an attempt to rephrase this for those more comfortable with
> less anthropomorphic language.
>
> Anyway, model 33B was a couple of days ago, and I've a
> new suggestion now. In the Will and Testament it says:
> All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of
> the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that
> turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous
> error.
> Maybe these two institutions are 'free from error' in the
> sense that anyone who is in the house of faith and looks to
> anyone else for guidance is in error? A sort of vermin-free
> zone? (But NOT implying that everyone outside of these 10
> people are vermin!)
>
> You suggested this interpretation:
> I suppose that "freed from all error" implies that the
> UHJ always makes *decisions*,announcements, etc.
> that are the best possible for the Faith (and therefore
> [bit of an extrapolation] the human race as a whole).
> Hence I suppose 'Abdu'l-Baha's other phrase in
> W&T that the House of Justice is a "source of
> good".
> This is good, in so far as it gives equal weight to 'source of
> all good' and 'freed from all error', and I think that's a
> weakness in all the models I've suggested above. But I'm
> not happy with 'best possible': it would mean that choosing
> a solution/announcement/decision which is very good but
> not the best possible option would be an error. This is quite
> an expansion of the meaning - from 'free from error' to
> 'guaranteed 100% best',
This comes back to the idea of 'immaculacy' of an institution; if an
institution is to be considered free from error of any kind in its
decisions, a decision which is less good than the best will in some
way harm somebody, inasmuch as it will not do that person/etc. as
much good as it could have, which I would most certainly consider an
error.
>and I am anxious if possible to
> locate a minimum assured meaning for the term
> infallibility. This would not mean that infallibility
> CANNOT mean more than that, or that the Universal
> House of Justice can never have a greater measure of
> guidance ('God does what God wills'): I just think it would
> be useful to find some minimum, so we (or I) can say,
> 'whatever infallibility *might* mean, at the very least it
> means this.'
>
> Also I note that you apply infallibility broadly to decisions
> and announcements. Shoghi Effendi in 'The Dispensation of
> Baha'u'llah', in the section on the Administrative Order
> which is largely an interpretation of the Will and
> Testament, sets out a two-spheres model, in which "the
> Universal House of Justice has been invested with the
> function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in
> the teachings." Now since the *authoritative* sphere of the
> Guardian (but not his *authority*) is limited:
> The interpretation of the Guardian, FUNCTIONING
> WITHIN HIS OWN SPHERE, is as authoritative
> and binding as the enactments of the international
> House of Justice, ...
> I have assumed, by analogy, that the Universal House of
> Justice speaks and acts authoritatively (which seems in
> Shoghi Effendi's writings to be synonymous with
> infallibility) only within its own sphere. Of course the
> Universal House of Justice does a lot of things apart from
> legislating - it runs busy offices and supervises building
> projects and deals with governments. In fact legislation is a
> very small part of its functioning. This is really another
> question, just to note that all of my models of what
> infallibility might *mean* assume that it *applies* only to
> the House in its legislative function, and not to
> administrative, judicial or other functions.
Yes, I must admit that this is my error for not being very clear.
However, for anyone who considers the House's legislative
pronouncements to be infallible in the 'ordinary' sense, it is an
interesting question to try to distinguish their exhortations etc.
from their legislation...
> I trust this explains more clearly where I am at now. If you
> want a collection of emails on this I could gather it
> together for you (the Infallibility Files - now we have the
> title we'll just get Burl to throw together a script :-)).
> However I think I did this for someone a couple of months
> ago, and I hope they will offer it to you, 'cause I'm rather
> busy between now and Christmas (it's hard to get good
> help, and we've had a bad bout of Dutch Elf disease, and
> the price of nosebags and sleighbells!).
>
> Sen
Yes, thank you very much for this, I would be most grateful if
someone could send me the "Infallibility Files" as it was
expressed.
Thanks,
D.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From chris@c-nelson.demon.co.ukMon Nov 20 18:54:46 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:18:25 +0000
From: Chris Nelson
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Standpoint epistemology
Dear Juan,
> In order to be whole human beings, we must acknowledge and satisfy both
> halves of our brains (which are sites of discourse and consciousness that
> enable different spiritual faculties to be expressed). But I do not
> think we can usefully synthesize the two. I think they should be kept
> separate, because they are fundamentally incompatible.
I don't know that I can agree with you here. One world you talk about
is of pure matter, the other pure meaning. The physical world devoid
of meaning has no existance.
Chris.
> They have to
> coexist and each must be acknowledged, but they are like bifocals; you
> can only look through one set of lenses at a time, and which you look
> through will depend on whether you wish to read or look out on a
> landscape, in other words, it will depend on your particular purpose at
> that moment. Sometimes, as when I write academic historiography, I have
> left-brain, nasut purposes. Sometimes, as when I write Baha'i theology,
> I have right-brain malakut/jabarut purposes. Baha'is who insist that
> there is ether because `Abdu'l-Baha uses the word are like someone trying
> to read a close-up book from the top lenses of his bifocals. It just
> blurs everything.
/One World
/One People
/One Family
Bahai
From burlb@bmi.netMon Nov 20 18:55:05 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 09:00 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: theo
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Standpoint epistemology
Theo said:
> There is also the view of
> archetypal psychologist, Erich Neumann, which seems to corroborate that of
>TOOCITBOTBM.....consciousness is indeed, seemingly young....
I began reading TOOCITBOTBM about the same time I was re-studying
Gleanings and found the two made delightful complimentary reading. Another
fun combination for the nightstand is "Secret of Divine Civilization" and
"The Third Wave." --- at least it was in the late 80's. I am continually
surprised by the people (who and why) familiar with TOOCetc.
At the recent Mid Atlantic Mystery Convention in Philly (at the infamous
Holiday Inn where Linda caused such a stir this past weekend in the Reunion
Sports Bar by building a replica of the the Samoa House of Worship out of
stuffed baked potato skins) someone purchased my current book simply because
they found a quote from TOOC in it while flipping the pages! They were
surprised that I was familiar with it, and I with them. I would love to
acquire the film right to that title.
I am of the current view that the development of consciousness is assuredly
not in any way a point A to final point B (or Z) process, and that relative
to the future we are far less conscious now than we will become. As
Baha'u'llah says, we can not think ourselves into an understanding of
thought any more than we can understand the process of vision by straining
our eyes.
Our 20-21st centurey consciousness is as nothing compare to where we will be
in several centuries, and those alive in those days may have difficulty
understanding what our thought processes were like. I find it intriguing
that in prayer and meditation there is, for lack of a better phrase,
"timeless merger" -- a unity of the spheres.
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Nov 20 18:55:59 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:02:43 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mark Tobey and Bernard Leach.
I noted the references to Bernard Leach and Mark Tobey . In 1965 I spent some time
with Bernard Leach in St. Ives , Cornwall , England . The first impression which
vividly stays until this day was the man's hands . I was not aware then that the man
was as famous a potter as he was and is . One look at the hands that seemed to have a
life of their own , you knew this was a person that did something unique and special
with them. According to Bernard Leach he accepted the Station of Baha'u'llah from
the moment he heard the message in C1914 , the joining of a group presented
difficulties . Mark Tobey and he both taught at Darlington Hall in Derbyshire it was a
school for the Arts and Reg Turvey the painter and pioneer to South Africa also taught
there . Reg Turvey was accorded by Shoghi Effendi the station of the 'Father of the
Baha'is of South Africa' and was a close personal friend of Bernard prior to the
Darlington Hall period . Due to Mark Tobey , Bernard Leach and Reg Turvey
accepted the Faith I seem to remember that some of the early Baha'i summer schools
in England were held there . The three men became the closest of friends and used
their art to take the name of the Faith into areas that had previously been unattainable.
Bernard was one of the leading lights that established St Ives as one of the major art
centers in the UK . The Leach Pottery continues under his son David's direction my
brother in law also a potter is a friend of David's and occasionally has visited him .
The development of modern day pottery would not have occurred in the manner it did
without Bernard Leach .
I have a copy of his pamphlet 'My Religious Faith' produced on Japanese rice paper
and signed by the man himself in 1965 . At that time he had more or else given up
throwing pots and was trying to enjoy his retirement. His house in St Ives was on the
beach and the large window in the lounge faced out onto the harbor and beach . I sat
there reading his books and watching the Atlantic Ocean waves break onto the shore.
He was so strong in his statement the way to teach the Faith was by the heart and with
the use of the Arts . Mark Tobey I meet once in London and have nothing to add
about the man except this little story. In the National Office in London there is a
painting . In 1971 when I was in the office one 'expert' was trying to tell the NSA
they need to redesign the center and especially get rid of that painting . The painting
was a gift from Mark Tobey and even then was valued in the five figures region . The
'expert' was needless to say ignored .
Mark Tobey 1890-1976 , born Centreville Wisconsin . Juilet Thompson taught him
the Faith and he became a Baha'i in 1918. He was a member of the NSA in the UK in
the 1930s . He presented classes at Geyserville < Bosch is the moden day Geyserville
>on Art . There are 3 articles by him in the World Order Magazine 1935,1939 and
1949 . He won the Guggenheim International award in 1956 and was elected to the
National Institute of Arts and Letters . He was elected a member of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1960 but declined the election . He won many other
honors in his lifetime and rightly can be regarded as the finest painter the Faith has
produced so far .
Bernard Leach's honors include:'The Order of the Sacred Treasure' and the first craftsman to be awarded the ' Companion of Honor ' by the
British Crown . His books included 'Drawings , Verse and Belief ' . and ' Beyond
East and West '. In 1914 he wrote ' I have seen a vision of the marriage of East and
West , and far off down the Halls of Time I heard the echo of a child-like Voice .
How long How long ?
I hope this is of assistance both Mark Tobey and Bernard Leach had strong links with
Japan , Leach being fluent in Japanese .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduMon Nov 20 18:56:42 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:57:48 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Communal prayer experiences
Dear Friends,
My non-scholastic response to the subject of communal prayer
from a purely cultural perspective, based on my muslim background is
as follows:
1)The phrase "Salat'i Jum'a" means Friday Prayer which is always
at noon and done in a mosque (mostly by men) collectively with the
mullah's lead.
Jum'lah I believe means collective.
2) The possible reasons IMV and based on some childhood experiences
is that, the obligatory prayer (especially) loses its spiritual quality
when done in public. I remember as a child having humorous (giggly)
moments with other children watching adults performing the
motions during the obligatory prayers in a mosque and at home.
There are some other reasons which I cannot elaborate at this time.
However, I will share an experience I had while in Konya at the Mosque of
Mawlawi past September during "juma namazi" meaning "congregational
obligatory prayer on Friday"
My mother and I visited Mawlawi Mosque on a Friday, which is the size of a
soccer field from inside with wall to wall carpet. There was a
special area (size of a small living room) in the back designated
only for women while men had the rest of the space. One of the
elderly ladies came up to me (we were packed as sardines) and
shoved me to the side and asked me to almost lean against the wall.
This upset my mother deeply and she was not happy to say the least
to have her daughter (whom she had not seen for ten years) to be
treated this way. But, she remained composed. We began the prayers
almost an inch away from each other left, right back and front.
One elderly lady obviously had an upset stomach and while we were
kneeling down (you can guess the rest...). A little girl's burst of giggles
reminded me of my own childhood.
After the prayers I asked the women why they were not requesting
for more space instead of being sardined while there were empty
spaces up in front. Needless to say, my suggestion was not too
welcomed, so I kept quiet afterwards.
Of course, there are times the spaces for men is packed also.
I don't know if this shed some light on the matter; but, take it
for what is worth from a single experience and multiply it
by thousands which are not shared on talisman and you may
understand why the 'islamic communal obligatory prayer' has no resemblance
of a spiritual experience given the human side of things, at times.
lovingly,
(*_*)....
From think@ucla.eduMon Nov 20 18:57:18 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:46:07 -0800 (PST)
From: SAFA SADEGHPOUR
To: Chris Nelson
Cc: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Standpoint epistemology
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Chris Nelson wrote:
> Dear Juan,
>
> > In order to be whole human beings, we must acknowledge and satisfy both
> > halves of our brains (which are sites of discourse and consciousness that
> > enable different spiritual faculties to be expressed). But I do not
> > think we can usefully synthesize the two. I think they should be kept
> > separate, because they are fundamentally incompatible.
>
> I don't know that I can agree with you here. One world you talk about
> is of pure matter, the other pure meaning. The physical world devoid
> of meaning has no existance.
>
> Chris.
>
Dear Chris,
I might be interpreting Juan wrongly but I think the distinction
he places is in the realm of epistemology and not that of ontology.
Regardless of what reality is (ontology) we cannot understand this
reality without some plausible epistemical model.
The "true" reality of things, that is, the one that encompasses
all things and all their values is well beyond our understanding.
This reality would not only encompass what we understand by
physical, but also the spiritual and God.
Therefore, it is much easier to search this reality from
different planes of understanding (epistemical levels) even
though all these different understandings point to one and
only one reality.
It is in this manner that two persons can understand the same
thing in two very distinct forms. The same would seem to apply
to a broader scale... as Juan pointed out, one broad plane
including us, another the Manifestations of God, and so on.
Take care.
Safa
>
> > They have to
> > coexist and each must be acknowledged, but they are like bifocals; you
> > can only look through one set of lenses at a time, and which you look
> > through will depend on whether you wish to read or look out on a
> > landscape, in other words, it will depend on your particular purpose at
> > that moment. Sometimes, as when I write academic historiography, I have
> > left-brain, nasut purposes. Sometimes, as when I write Baha'i theology,
> > I have right-brain malakut/jabarut purposes. Baha'is who insist that
> > there is ether because `Abdu'l-Baha uses the word are like someone trying
> > to read a close-up book from the top lenses of his bifocals. It just
> > blurs everything.
>
> /One World
> /One People
> /One Family
> Bahai
>
From lua@sover.netTue Nov 21 09:49:46 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:57:44 -0500
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: tan1@cornell.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Paradigm
Allah-u-Abha.
Tim Nolan wrote on 11/19:
"My understanding of Abdu'l Baha's statements about
evolution is that human beings may have once had bodies that
were animal in appearance, but that humans have always had
a distinctive human soul, even if the capacities of that soul
were latent. Since it is the soul, not the body, that makes
us human, the fact that we have always had a soul different
from that of animals (if they have souls), means we have always
been human, not animal, regardless of what human bodies looked
like in ancient times. This is what Abdu'l Baha is saying,
in my opinion, and this idea in no way contradicts the
theory of evolution, which is concerned only with physical
reality."
If memory serves correctly, I believe Abdu'l-Baha made a comment to the
effect (was it in Selections? Help me out, friends!) that people who were
searching for the missing link would never find it because it did not exist.
I read this to say that the idea of the human being was primary in the
creation of the cosmos, not an afterthought or something that just emerged
symptomatically from an evolutionary "leap."
"Out of the wastes of nothingness and with the clay of My command I made
thee to appear, and ordained for thy training every atom of existence and
the essence of all created things." (PHW29?)
I don't have access to my library - the number may not be correct.
Another illahi:
Human I used to say.
Now I know what a human is.
Heart and soul I used to say.
Now the heart can show the way.
Human, human, now I know what a Human is: Hu.
The one who speaks about belief
Is standing on the outside.
The one who finds it in himself
Is born from the inside.
Inside, inside, now I know what the inside is: You.
Though life is short a favor came.
One spark became a flame.
No splitting hairs or building walls,
Now I know what binds us all.
Human, human, now I know what a human is: Hu.
LBRegards,
LuAnne
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auTue Nov 21 09:50:28 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:28:36 +1100
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: review of "Seed of Creation"
Dear friends,
I like to share with you a letter that I received from the NSA
of Australia, regarding the article that I wrote a few months
back. If you remember, I posted that article a few month ago
and we discussed it at some length. Here is the report of a
reviwer.
13, November 1995
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia incorporated
Dear Baha'i Friend,
We are pleased to give below the comments of our reviewers about
your article "Seed of Creation".
"The article deals with an important subject and when
further developed, can be a valuable contribution. The
author views the concept of creation and links it to the
'all men' membership of the Universal House of Justice in
a unique and intersting fashion which can be convincing
if supported by the Writings and other supporting materials.
It is of course acknowledged that the author is expressing
a personal view and does not have to justify it beyond
reason. I encourage the author to expand on the proposed
concept and add supporting quotations. I commend him for
his efforts in presenting and properly arguing an
intellectually challenging subject. He should continue
working on the article.
In terms of article's appropriateness for publication and
further distribution in its present form, I have some
reservations. Firstly, the article needs some editorial
polishing. It contains a number of grammatical and/or
structural errors. Secondly, the concepts presented are
still raw and need further development, and as mentioned,
it is advisable to include further supporting materials
such as relevant quotations from the Baha'i Writings and
from other scholarly works where possible."
We are confident that you find these comments of great value for further
developing your article. A copy of your article which indicates some
corrections made by the reviewer is enclosed for your information.
These do not include the grammatical and structural errors as mentioned
above.
With loving Baha'i greetings
For the Secretariat.
I hope this will be taken as some support of the concept that I am trying
to put forward. I know that many on Talisman could not accept the concept
before, but that may be because they did not read the article in its full
length and were mearly replying to postings in its regard. If some one
is interested to receive it again, I will be happy to post it to them.
With Baha'i love and fellowship.
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ 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 ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 21 09:50:58 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:20:11 -0500
From: Robert Johnston
To: Maziar Ostovar , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: exposure of the offenders
Maziar,
A very thought provoking letter, I must say.
It would seem that a devotional life focusses on the pleasant, rather than
the unpleasant things of life. So, in this fleeting moment we have better
things to do than to dwell on the sins of others. (To do so is to get
caught in the pain of illusion.) But simple commonsense tells me that if I
don't want my child to go and play at the house of (say) drug addicts, then
I have a responsibility to be informed about the character and activities
of the people of my social context. I have no right to go about gossiping
though. So far as judging another is concerned...let's see... ummm... of
course we make a judgment concerning "the other" but this judgment is
limited. It is not a "final judgment", nor is a "legal judgment". It is
specific personal judgement. It has no effect beyond our legitimate domain
of functioning. Bringing to the attention of the community the
wrongdoings of citizens would appear be a function of assemblies/houses of
justice, or related courts.
I feel that it is a sign of the general waywardness of the times that
"balance" of these matters is often very difficult to find.
Robert.
From mfoster@tyrell.netTue Nov 21 10:00:30 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 22:52:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: communal prayer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Don -
I think that the issue of congregational prayer can only be
understood with reference to salat - which has been translated by the
Guardian as "obligatory prayer" and, by way of example, by the United
Submitters (Masjid Tucson) as "contact prayer." To my knowledge the
distinction is clear in the Arabic - but not as clear in the English,
since there is no clear Christian tradition (except as a part of certain
Roman Catholic liturgical practices) which distinguishes between the
different sorts of prayer. A closer comparison can be found in orthodox
Judaism.
In our teachings, we have four obligatory prayers - the three daily
prayers and the Prayer for the Dead. Of those four prayers, the only one
which can be recited congregationally is the Prayer for the Dead. The
three daily prayers are performed individually. In Islam, OTOH, the
obigatory prayers were, as a rule, recited in a Mosque (Masjid) with
other Muslims.
Therefore, to me, the issue is not whether the prayers are, or or
not, said in unison. It is that, in this Dispensation, daily obligatory
prayer has been transformed from a collective to an individual
responsibility. As I see it, this change is in keeping with the age of
maturity into which we are entering.
Warm greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 21 10:02:05 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 21:10:47 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: quick note
I just returned from the AAR meetings and am exhausted. Have just scanned some
of the many messages awaiting me.
At the conference (where my behavior was impeccable) I attended a session on
Catholicism in America. The presentations were all very scholarly. Yet, many
in the audience were not academics but committed Catholics. I was struck by
the fact that the non-scholarly audience seemed to have no problem with the
objective sorts of presentations given by the speakers. There were no sermons
on faith. The believers were there to gain insights. They did not seemed at
all threatened. I find it remarkable that Catholics seem to have less trouble
with all this than the Baha'is do.
Since we are touching on evolution again, I would like to say that I personally
cannot accept the idea of human distinctiveness except in a very spiritual way.
Science has shown that there is not a single missing link, but multiple links.
We cannot as rational people deny these discoveries. They are just too sound
and reasonable. We would have to bury our heads in the sand to deny them.
I tend to agree with Juan about the dichotomy of rational thought and the
purely spiritual realm - except that this spiritual, imaginal world can act as
a spark to the rational mind. It can give it life. However, I think that is
different from using scripture as a basis for academic study.
Now, a private note to Derek. No one else has to read this if they don't want.
Derek, you asked if John knew what he was getting into when he married me.
Now, for a brief moment I thought this was an impertinent question. But, then
I reconsidered. After all, such a well bred gentlemen such as yourself would
never be impertinent. So, I asked John for a response to your question. Now,
as you well know JOhn is our resident Midwestern poet. He can infuse so much
meaning in one word. He said, "hardly." Now, you have your answer.
BTW, Derek, you know that award you hand out every now and then. Some CSGS or
whatever. Well, I notice that it only seems to go to the guys. Probably Burl
or someone like that is up for it next. You know, one of those types that
kisses up to Sherman. Well, I want to see a woman win this award. There is
someone named Kathy on Talisman who posted me privately about SWAT teams and
such like. I tried to e-mail back to her but the message bounced. Anyway, I
think she is a wonderful candidate for this award, whatever it is. But if the
guys are getting it, it must be good.
Must go. Linda
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduTue Nov 21 10:03:57 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:41:11 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Sinlessness of the Guardian
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Vivien Hick wrote to Sen:
> Here, I agree with your distrust of such an interpretation. Besides
> which, if the UHJ is considered 'immaculate', surely it is the
> institution itself, and not the members that are immaculate. Hence,
> one could claim such an immaculacy for the Guardian(ship) as an
> Institution, and not as an individual; but this leads to
> difficulties in that it doesn't lead anywhere as an argument, because
> the 'immaculacy' of the Guardianship implies freedom from sin in the
> sphere of the Guardian, which I would presume to mean ordinary
> infallibility again (I justify this jump by wondering how the
> Guardianship could sin if you see what I mean).A similar argument
> applies to the UHJ.
I note that in the Constitution of the House, there is provision for
expulsion of a member in the event of a "sin against the common weal."
There is no provision for removal of a Guardian, under any circumstance.
He is referred to as the "irremovable head for life" of the House of
Justice, and as the "member for life." So, once selected, I gather that
there is a protection from the Guardian committing a "sin against the
common weal." Though the Guardian is not a "stainless mirror" I do not
read that the same way you do, Sen. I think the Guardian was using that
term "stainless" in the sense of the Manifestations of God who are a
higher order of being. It's not so much that the Manifestations are free
from sin. Sin is a condition of the soul, as I understand it, a kind of
immaturity, not "stains" as the dear Carondolet nuns used to teach me.
I think this is an aspect of the infallibility / sinlessness of the
Guardian. I think it is the scaled down level of "sinlessness" or the
Most Great Infallibility possessed by the Manifestation. With the
Manifestation, as the Master explained in His Tablet on the three
marriages of Baha'u'llah, the supreme explanation is that "He doeth
whatsoever He willeth." That is, the acts of the Manifestation are
inherently above proscriptions and commandments. In that same Tablet (I
read a carbon copy in the San Francisco Archives a decade or so ago) the
Master said that when Mary washed the feet of Jesus with costly ointment,
the apostles objected, saying that Mary should have sold the salve and
given the money to the poor. Jesus said that "you will have the poor with
you always" but He, the bridegroom, would not always be among them. The
Master pointed out that Jesus did not say, "This act is all right. Every
Thursday evening, purchase costly ointment and wash one another's feet as
a sign of humility towards one another." He did not commend this to the
believers, He reserved it to Himself. The Master compared this to the
marriages contracted by Baha'u'llah.
Brent
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 21 10:04:12 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:08:49 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: StrayMutt@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: brevity/soul/wit [was: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal] code
Bob wrote:
>As Juan and others have pointed out here previously, that makes a national
>assembly the defendant, prosecutor and judge, all at the same time.
>
>This is an obvious conflict of interest and I cannot think of a single legal
>system operating under internationally recognized standards of jurisprudence
>that would permit such a situation.
Try parenthood.
Robert (brevity/soul/wit) Johnston.
Eric: you computer types are all alike.
Robert (sometime computer worker) Johnston
From frlw@midway.uchicago.eduTue Nov 21 10:07:17 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:20:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Frank Lewis
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'is in Recovery
Dear Tony:
BIRF can be reached through the Spiritual Assembly of Seattle, which has
a very strong and long-standing BIRF program. The Seattle BIRF chapter
has been able to put people in touch with BIRFers in their own area.
LSA Seattle, P.O. Box 396, Seattle WA 98111-0396
yours, Frank
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduTue Nov 21 10:07:31 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 23:31:20 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review of "Seed of Creation"
Dear Ahmad,
After reading the letter from NSA of Australia regarding your theory,
I have some questions.
1) The letter is written in the form of "I" speaking to you. Who is
this person?
2) Does this letter give an authoritative support of one person's
interpretation of the Writings?
3) Does anyone have an obligation to accept your theory based on
these latest developments?
lovingly,
quanta (^!^).?.(*_*)
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auTue Nov 21 10:10:10 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:46:23 +1100
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: 'review of Seed of Creation'
Dear Talismanians,
Dear Quanta,
You wrote:
>
> After reading the letter from NSA of Australia regarding your theory,
> I have some questions.
>
> 1) The letter is written in the form of "I" speaking to you. Who is
> this person?
>
I was not told who the reviewer will be I sent the article via
E-mail to the World Center, they instructed the NSA of Australia
to review the article. I think the article was sent to one of
the members of the auxilirary Board for review.
> 2) Does this letter give an authoritative support of one person's
> interpretation of the Writings?
>
The letter only implies that the reviewer thinks that the topic
is important and my contribution can be valuable. As you know
and as the review does state: this article is a personal view
In such matters like the Big Bang theory and my seed theory both
are theories can can not for time being proven to a certainity.
However, one has to look at the facts avialable and see for time
being what sort of theory fit to the facts. I think based on
the writings one can deduce that a seed like universe is consivable.
I must say These are not interpretations of the writings, but
deductions from them, I put some difference in between the two.
> 3) Does anyone have an obligation to accept your theory based on
> these latest developments?
I don't think so. A theory must be based on facts. I think I have
done that. Hence, only when majority of Baha'is do accept it then
we can say is a common fact. But I tell you that I definitely
believe that it is correct. I my self would like to be in a universe
that is seed like than be considered as a big bang.
Again in such topics there is no enforcement and hence I don't think
it is right to ask if one has any obligation to accept it.
However, if you follow my thread of thought and use same writings
you can only come to the same conclusion! God is a gardener and their
is no doubt about that, Abdu'l-Baha testifies to that.
I hope I have answered your questions.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ 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 ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From mfoster@tyrell.netTue Nov 21 10:10:32 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 06:39:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: communication
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians,
Here is an interesting essay by Marian Lippitt. Perhaps it will shed
some light on some subjects recently discussed on Talisman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATIONS
(excerpts from a portion of the program titled My Greatest Problem the Other
Fellow, by Dr. Marian Crist Lippitt)
Relationships and Communications
A. Greater Lesser Relationships
1. When I consider my self greater, my communication -
a) either expresses his inferiority or my own love and concern for him as
his protector and helper;
b) aims to instruct or enlighten him, either arrogantly or with patient
love;
c) either assumes he will serve me or tries ways in which I can help him.
2. When I consider the Other Fellow Greater -
a) either is to wind his approval, favor and love or express my admiration
or love;
b) either resents, ignores and rejects his advice, instructions or opinions,
or accepts these gladly when given.
B. Equality Relationships
1. When the other fellow assumes superiority over me, my communicating -
a) either express hostility and negative emotion, or tolerance, compassion
and forgiveness for his error;
b) either resentfully rejects or lovingly ignores his commands and
instructions that are unreasonable;
c) It communicates either an annoyed rejection or willing compliance when he
expects me to serve him - the latter either because I know all people
should help each other or because I desire to fulfill my God-given station
of servitude.
2. When I know the other fellow feels inferior to me, I communicating -
a) indicates either a taking advantage of his regard for me, or as a special
effort to express affection and love for him;
b) either instructs and tells him, or consciously avoids trying to teach
him, excepts as he asks my advice or help.
3. When mutually recognized as one of equality, my communicating -
a) is continually either liking or loving;
b) presents my thoughts and ideas to make them convincing (with argument if
necessary), or merely for consideration or as possible enlightenment
(without argument);
c) it either suggests cooperation and exchange of help, or it seeks ways of
serving him and expresses delight in doing so.
\'0c
Shall We Tell People Their Faults?
We think, "If he realized how much he hurts me, he wouldn't do it." Or we
say, "If she only knew that she is this way, she would change." But is this
true?
Faults or undeveloped virtues that produce character deficiencies are part of
the person. There is only one thing CAN correct them: spiritual growth.
And the growth of a soul is a matter between himself and God. There is just
one thing I can do to help the other fellow to grow: I can LOVE him, backing
my love with prayer.
When I tell a person his faults, do I lift him up to those heights of
spiritual power where he can be changed? It is far more likely that I will
cast him down into some negative state of mind where he has NO ACCESS to his
own latent divinity: into anger or frustration, into disappointment and
unhappiness, into remorse or a sense of guilt. A truly spiritual person
knows how to climb out of these low negative states of mind through prayer
and meditation; but most of us are still so human that we DON'T do so very
readily; and in such human state of emotion our faults grow greater instead
of being overcome.
In short, if I keep telling the other fellow that he is selfish, he is either
going to reject this attack in anger, or accept it as true and increase his
own sense of inadequacy or inferiority. He won't be any easier to live with!
All I do in either case is to add to his spiritual impotence.
In the spiritual growth that corrects a fault in the other fellow, some
special virtue that counteracts that deficiency must be brought out. So what
should I do instead of pointing out his fault? First of all I should pray
for his growth - bring divine power into the situation. Then I should do all
I can to stimulate his spiritual growth, and try to bring out the virtue that
is absent. It has to be there, latent, because every soul can reflect every
attribute of God. Thus if I am hurt because my friend shows me a lack of
consideration, I should watch for a situation where he DOES show
consideration to someone, and praise him for it. I might say how lovable
that trait makes him seem! This might be an impetus to his tryi8ng to be
more considerate in the future. ?But let me not spoil the effect of this
effort by saying, "I just wish you would show me that much consideration!"
For that kind of comment expresses an entirely different nature from the one
that is only concerned with helping my friend.
Concentrating, thinking and communicating about evil only increases it. It
is the natural human thing to do. I must work to overcome it, call on the
power of God to eliminate the habit. The love of God is what can change my
bad habits and MAKE me control the natural tendency to find fault. And too,
who am I, with all of my faults to be self-righteously condemning the other
fellow for some imperfections that he has not yet corrected?
Copyright
Dr. Marian Crist Lippitt
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpTue Nov 21 10:59:24 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 14:25:54 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
Dear Friends:
The science/religion debate on Talisman seems to have several different
identifiable camps.
.............................................................................
(1) One camp holds that science and religion are the same: religion, properly
considered, is the Science of Reality. It alone is capable of bringing under
its umbrella all the diverse phenomena - simple atomic processes to
revelations - about which we have knowledge. Drawing a distinction between
science and religion, while perhaps being defensible on pragmatic grounds, is
to draw a distinction that is not really there.
(2) The other camp holds that science and religion are two distinct and
separate phenomena. Each has its own methods, and each has its own sphere of
discourse. Perhap the differences are even biological: one from the right
side of the brain, the other from the left side. Or, perhaps the differences
are related to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics: if you examine
one aspect of life, say material things, you can not simultaneously see the
spiritual side of things.
...........................................................................
Question: Are these two perspectives - one emphasizing unity, the other
emphasizing diversity - compatible?
..........................................................................
Suppose we adhere to the view (2). If we do so, then we would be forced to
admit that point-of-view (1) and point-of-view (2) are also separate spheres
of discourse, each with its own realm of applicability. The validity of (2)
therefore implies the validity of (1) and the two perspectives are
compatible.
If we adhere to point-of-view (1), then we are willing to recognize that
point-of-view (2) is contained in point-of-view (1) as a subset, but without
universal applicability. In other words, if all things proceed from one
source (or one emptiness), then twoness is contained in that source, but at a
lower level. However, oneness, being undifferentiated, only finds its reality
in twoness, threeness, or whatever. The reality of oneness is, in fact,
diversity. So, the two perspectives, both being aspects of one and the same
reality, are necessarily compatible.
..........................................................................
Thus, these two points of view, both examined in the light of their
own internal logic, appear compatible from a theoretical point of view.
Are they compatible in practice? This is perhaps the real question we are
asking. Can we "unify" science and religion without seeming "flaky" to those
we want to reach? Or, are we trying to dignify something that has not made it
to the level of a science in the eyes of the world by arbitrarily calling it
science. To what extent must we conform with the expectations and standards
of the audience we are wishing to reach if we are to be successful in
presenting our case? These questions are not easily answered.
However, if our main question is "Can we strive to create Baha'i
Scholarship that combines the spiritual and the scientific?", then
the answer *theoretically* is a resounding YES. But *practically*,
the way forward seems unclear.
Could we propose *practical* ways to advance in the right direction?
One such proposal, perhaps not yet fully perceived as such, is to turn to the
underdeveloped mystical and meditative aspects of our Faith, and to draw
insight and vigor from this tried and true source of inspiration. Thus, our
study of Zen and Islamic mysticism. Any other ways to proceed?
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From CMathenge@aol.comTue Nov 21 11:00:11 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:12:54 -0500
From: CMathenge@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Standpoint Epistemology
Dear Talispersons,
I have been poring over your several posts on "standpoint epistomology," and
think I more-or-less understand what is being said; but perhaps, not having
the philosophical background which many of you enjoy, I'm missing the point.
It's true that the purely physical plane where the hard sciences belong, and
what you might call the lower spiritual plane where the mythopoetic realm
belongs, use different sorts of language and are perceived in different ways,
analogous to the right and left hemispheres of the brain. However, my
understanding of the right and left brain is that the hemispheres are
*supposed* to work in "stereo"--that's why we have two eyes, two ears, two
hands, etc. If you use only one eye, for instance, you lose your depth
perception. The very fact that we see best with both eyes together, hear
best when we have full hearing in both ears, etc., seems to belie Juan's
argument that we must keep the realms of the right and left hemispheres
separate.
To say that history, for example, "is not determined by internal causative
factors, but rather by an external Design or Purpose" seems a lot like the
heredity vs. environment controversy. If you are talking about a certain
syndrome--say, alcoholism, or the concept of "IQ"--you may find some
"experts" who cite various proofs to show that it's all a matter of genes,
and an equally vehement opposite camp who think it all comes down to income,
dysfunctional families, etc., etc., and it may be true that neither side will
listen to the other. Nevertheless, it's rather obvious to any unbiased
observer that any real understanding of either of those topics requires a
knowledge of both factors and a study of the complicated ways in which they
may interact with each other.
As Baha'is we observe that there is an overall Design--the plan of God--in
history; yet we also observe that our response to that Plan is a matter of
choice--that's where "free will" comes in, and as a result of "internal
causative factors," we can postpone and complicate the process, even though
we cannot ultimately stop God's will from being carried out, but only bring
negative consequences upon ourselves and both prolong and increase our own
misery. The problem is, if you separate these realms into unrelated "sites
of discourse," you are never going to have a complete understanding of what
is going on.
And if, as Juan says, a statement made in the realm of Lahut might be
nonsense in the world of Nasut, then what about the statement in the Writings
that every word of God has 70 meanings (or 70 times 7 meanings, whatever--a
bunch of meanings, anyway)? Doesn't that imply that a statement made by the
Manifestation must have some meaning on EACH of the possible levels? Take
the recent discussion about transmuting copper into gold. Most of us have
taken this in the Jungian alchemical sense, as having a spiritual meaning.
But then from the posts by some of you with knowledge of physical sciences,
it appears that it is actually possible, although not as yet cost-effective,
to interpret this statement literally, even though the spiritual meaning is
probably the more important (unless your goal is to control the gold market
[g]). And who knows what meaning it might have on the three higher levels?
It seems to me that interpretations and worldviews in general, if I may put
it so vaguely, are moving from either-or to both-and; although all these
levels can be seen as separate and have their separate "languages," still
connections exist and some sort of integration ought to be possible. We used
to label folks "bad people," or "good people," but now we have "virtuous
misers, friendly thieves," and conversations with different "selves" (i.e.,
parts of ourself). We have moved from perceiving the self as either the
manifestation of the Devil or the ultimate goal of our existence, to
perceiving it as an instrument through which, if purified, God's purposes may
be carried out. We used to think Christ was the only Way, but now we see
each of the Manifestations as the Way. And so on. Again, there have been
scientific studies of phenomena such as parapsychology and near-death
experiences, which may not necessarily be considered entirely satisfactory in
scientific terms, yet that may only be because we have not yet developed
instruments with the high degree of sensitivity necessary to measure very
subtle kinds of changes. (I recall reading somewhere that a study had been
done in which people were weighed as they were dying, and that a sudden
decrease in weight of about 2 ounces was measured.)
If we are to talk to the creationists, for example, only in their own
language, that of religion; and to the evolutionists only in their own
language, that of science; then what can we possibly contribute to the
discussion? But if we can point out to both sides that creation exists but
operates through the evolutionary principle, then we may bring about a
synthesis.
Carmen
From Dave10018@aol.comTue Nov 21 11:48:56 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:26:05 -0500
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review of "Seed of Creation"
In a message dated 95-11-20 19:32:13 EST, ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au
(Ahmad Aniss) writes:
> I know that many on Talisman could not accept the concept
>before, but that may be because they did not read the article in its full
>length and were mearly replying to postings in its regard.
Ahmad, I just want to assure you that I read your article, "seed of creation"
carefully more than once before addressing it on Talisman. This review from
an NSA, while providing you with some limited encouragement does nothing to
change my opinion.
warm regards,
David Taylor
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 21 11:50:38 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 10:45:44 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a few thoughts on AAR
While I wasn't in the Sports Bar at the Convetion Center in Philadelphia, I was
listening to people either formally or informally share ideas that relate to
some of the Talisman postings.
Terry's last posting on prayer and community life again suggests the need for
freedom, creativity and a comfort and acceptance of one's own traditions in
bringing life into religion. Other religious traditions have allowed
this.Catholicsm is truly diverse, yet somehow remains unified as an
identifiable religion. People who are not Catholics often see it as
unidimensional. They think of some sort of normative Catholicism, yet there
are many versions of it and, for the most part, it seems, the Church has not
interfered greatly in these different expressions. Another interesting aspect
of Catholicsm is women's part in it. It is always viewed as the most
patriarchal of all religions. Only priests get to say the mass, perform
transubstantiation, etc. Yet, growing up a Catholic, I never had a sense of
being excluded. Catholicism in many ways is very much a religion for women.
Churches are dominated by statues of the Virgin Mary. Catholic homes are often
have more than one statue of her. I visited a Catholic church in southern
Indiana recently. There was a tiny crucifix flanked by a large statue of Mary.
My point here is that we must stop being so fearful of various religious
expressions. As Terry has so eloquently pointed out time and again, we need to
enrich devotional life. If we are not following a rule book, so what? A
community needs to develop its own life. If we don't quite understand what is
meant by communal prayer - and it is obvious from the postings that there is
disagreement - then why worry so much about it? If someone leads prayers
sometimes, or if there is joint recitation of prayers, is this so dreadful?
It is obvious to me that the Baha'i Faith was not meant to be simply a religion
for the individual, so stressing individual prayer seems to me to be
counter-productive.
A couple of other brief points and then I'll stop - honest. I was struck by
the fact that a very prominent scholar of Shi'ism - himself a Shi'ite was
telling a small group of people (among whom I was standing) that the Shi'i
community has to treat its scholars better and show them more respect. The
people to whom he was speaking agreed wholeheartedly.
One other point. While the Baha'is are so nervous about the Baha'i Faith being
presented in a "unified" fashion so that we look picture perfect all the time,
I am finding myself in an interesting position. I am writing about Shi'i
religious leadership today - which means that I have to learn about all the
internal politics going on in Iran, Iraq, and in other areas where there are
large numbers of Shi'a. The fascinating thing here is that I am meeting ulama
who are telling me all sorts of things that no "outsider" should ever know.
They know I am writing a book. One sheikh called me last night. He just read
a paper of mine and said that he wanted to go over it with me. That he wanted
it to be thoroughly objective. He implied that I was glossing over some of the
problems that exist. Another one whom I met in Philadelphia told me about all
sorts of internal dynamics that divide his community from other Shi'i
communities (though not completely). Believe me, what I am writing about is
far more outrageous than anything that Juan Cole or other Baha'i scholars are
saying about the Baha'i Faith. So, why are the Baha'is so nervous? Why do we
censor? What I am writing is not going to drive Shi'ites from their religion.
It is going to portray a human community. Can't we portray our own community
as human?
As for the bantering that goes on on Talisman, I must agree with Dan. There is
a certain dynamic to Talisman. The bantering seems to serve a purpose. Anyone
who is bored by it or does not enjoy it, does not have to read it. However, I
have received a number of postings that suggest that people enjoy a bit of
comic relief. Linda
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 21 11:54:21 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:58:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
I appreciated both Carmen's and Stephen's responses to my posting on
standpoint epistemologies.
I think there are actually three approaches common among Baha'is. The
first identifies propositions in scripture as literally true, and where
they appear to contradict findings of science, science is pronounced
wrong. This approach leads to a belief in chemical alchemy, Baha'i
cosmology as literal astronomy, etc.
The second insists that all propositions in scripture are true, and if
they conflict with science is is because we have not understood the
science well enough or we have not understood the propositions well
enough, or the propositions are metaphorical, or referring to some higher
plane of reality, etc. This position is more sophisticated than the
first, but seems to me to result in illogical statements, such as "X may
on the surface appear to be in conflict with science but it is not really
if we understand it spiritually." Typically this sort of statement is
simply made, without any demonstration. The crowd who subscribes to
Scientific American would slice such an argument into little tiny pieces.
The third approach, which I have advocated, is grounded in Baha'u'llah's
own Writings, such as His Tablet to Jamal-i Burujirdi, and is based on
the idea of standpoint epistemology. Baha'u'llah says that each of us
knows and speaks from a particular *maqam* or spiritual/intellectual
*station*, and this explains why there is such disagreement among
individuals. Past religions, as with the Inquisition, have assumed that
scriptural propositions are inherently true and that there is only one
plane of truth, and so everyone must be made to acknowledge that truth.
Baha'u'llah's standpoint epistemology allows for different planes of
discourse, and admits that the same proposition might be true on one
plane but untrue on another. It is precisely this theory of knowledge
that underpins Baha'u'llah's conviction that the religions are one. He
knew the world religions very well, and was perfectly aware of all the
contradictions among them. He simply attributed them to differences of
perceptual station. One can easily apply this idea. It is well known
that the Gospel of Mark has a "low" Christology, seeing Christ as a man
with a special mission; whereas the Gospel of John divinizes Christ.
Aristotle would say you had to choose between these two stances, that
only one proposition can be true. Baha'u'llah's (and Ibn al-`Arabi's)
standpoint epistemology would allow both propositions to be true,
depending on the station in which they were uttered. Thus, John's
assertion of Christ's divinity is untrue on Mark's station, and Mark's
assertion of Jesus's mere humanity is untrue on John's station.
So I would reply to Carmen that not every proposition is true or
meaningful on every plane, even if scripture is multivalent, having many
possible meanings.
As for science, remember that I am a social scientist, and I am telling
you all that many scriptural propositions are not meaningful if taken in
a positivist way, even if they are very satisfying spiritually.
The case of the outbreak of disease in Shiraz after the Bab's arrest
there is a case in point. I think attributing the epidemic to the arrest
is a perfect example of right-brain thinking. It is very satisfying
emotionally to know that a wicked people who attacked an innocent prophet
was immediately punished in this way. And, of course, the Bible and the
Qur'an are full of this sort of thinking.
But it would be a mistake to take the proposition literally on the level
of Nasut or ordinary physical/human reality, or to try to reconcile it
with logical, left-brain thinking.
Let us say I am writing a paper on the demographic history of 19th
century Iran (which I might well do). I will point out that population
growth was slow before about 1850, owing to the periodic outbreak of what
appears to have been cholera. There may also have been some lingering
plague outbreaks. Cholera is caused by a bacteria and passed from person
to person, especially in crowded and dirty conditions in cities and
villages. Pastoral nomads (one half to one third of the population) did
not suffer from these outbreaks, being outdoors away from vermin and
close human contact, and the tribes may have been strengthened against
the settled population partially because they were less at risk for
disabling epidemics, and so could sweep down on afflicted cities and
villages weakened by them. The Shi`ite custom of rolling a dead relative
up in a carpet and transporting him by camel back or cart to the Shi`ite
shrines of Najaf and Karbala in Ottoman Iraq may also have been
responsible for spreading disease (which is one reason Baha'is were
ordered buried where they died). And, of course, there was the 1845
epidemic in Shiraz, which was caused by the imprisonment of the Bab.
Now, if you are not jarred by the last sentence, then you are not
thinking clearly. In the context of this paragraph, which is written
from a social-scientific point of view, the last sentence is not
meaningful. It has wandered in from another language game. It belongs
to the theology of history, not to historical demographics. Within the
language-game of the theology of history, the statement is meaningful,
and "true." But not if uttered as part of a scientific paper.
I do not personally believe there is any meta-language game in which both
these discourses are simultaneously true. I think you have to decide
which maqam you are speaking from; which side of the brain you're giving
the reins to; which language game you are going to play; and then you
have to stick to it until you have finished making your point. This is
not to say that you have to banish right-brain insights altogether, but
if you are writing science then the left brain had better be in the
driver's seat. Otherwise you get false syllogisms of a sort the right
brain rather likes (grass is green, lagoon water is green, therefore
lagoon water is sea-grass), and which make for great poetry, but very bad
science. On the other hand, if you insist on writing poetry with only
your left brain, you will get very bad poetry.
And precisely the problem with the quashing of the Baha'i Encyclopaedia
is that some form of approach #1 above has been adopted by some powerful
Baha'is who intend to ram it down the rest of our throats, and who have
simply misunderstood Baha'u'llah and the implications of His approach to
knowledge. They have therefore disallowed academic Baha'i discourse and
collapsed all discourse to a single, limited maqam, that of their own
perceptual station. This sort of thing was what Baha'u'llah disliked in
past religions such as Islam, and was what he was trying to avoid in
founding the Baha'i Faith. It just goes to show that the recuperative
powers of religious fundamentalism are vast and even the intentions of
the Manifestation of God can be set aside and subverted very easily.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 21 11:55:34 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:22:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: StrayMutt@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
Bob: Thanks for your keen comments on my list of punishable offenses, as
revealed by the practice of the beloved Guardian.
I agree with you that we need a Baha'i bill of rights that is based on
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and analogous statements in the
Writings. However, I think voluntary private organizations such as
religions are different from states and that therefore a Baha'i bill of
rights would have to be crafted to fit Baha'i circumstances.
But my point in that posting was to suggest that we *also* need a
written-down criminal code. As Sen and others have said, the code
should specify the offenses that would be *sufficient* for the
removal of rights, while noting that these offenses do not, depending
on the circumstances, *necessitate* the removal of rights.
When an NSA summarily announces that it is
removing a believer's rights, the believer should be able to ask "Under
what article and section of Baha'i canon law?" If the NSA cannot cite
article and section, it should not be able to proceed. As you point out,
as things now stand, an NSA can remove a believer's rights for looking at
them squint-eyed, and if the House is too busy to take the appeal, there
is nothing the believer can do about it. Those Baha'is who naively think
such things cannot happen do not know much about recent Baha'i history,
not only in the U.S. but elsewhere.
cheers Juan
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comTue Nov 21 11:56:04 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:31:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: Re: a few thoughts on AAR
It has been tragic that the Protestant movement with some of its progressive
themes could not be accommodated under one Christian/Catholic umbrella.
However, the Catholic church has achieved and managed something very
significant which could be viewed as a precursor to the implementation of the
"Unity in Diversity", namely allowing different orders such as
the Franciscans, the Jesuits, the Paulists, the Trappists and the
Benedictines under one Church. This is quite remarkable.
It is unfathomable how a real growth could happen in the Faith and managed
without a structure very similar to the Catholic order system.
It is both necessary and inevitable that such *soft* orders/groups/societies
must soon or later appear.
The issue might be whether we have trapped ourselves to an understanding
of unity which could effectively stifle
these organic formations and make them underground and undercurrent.
Farzin
From burlb@bmi.netTue Nov 21 12:10:54 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 08:48 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
dandy, valuable post -- one of the most instructive and usefull ones
yet...although the last paragraph may have some sea-grass as the origin of
its emotional coloring. May I have your permission to quote from this post
-- the bulk of it (minus references to the encylopedia) when I teach my
upcoming five part miniseries at Winter School?
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 21 12:16:01 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:58:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
I appreciated both Carmen's and Stephen's responses to my posting on
standpoint epistemologies.
I think there are actually three approaches common among Baha'is. The
first identifies propositions in scripture as literally true, and where
they appear to contradict findings of science, science is pronounced
wrong. This approach leads to a belief in chemical alchemy, Baha'i
cosmology as literal astronomy, etc.
The second insists that all propositions in scripture are true, and if
they conflict with science is is because we have not understood the
science well enough or we have not understood the propositions well
enough, or the propositions are metaphorical, or referring to some higher
plane of reality, etc. This position is more sophisticated than the
first, but seems to me to result in illogical statements, such as "X may
on the surface appear to be in conflict with science but it is not really
if we understand it spiritually." Typically this sort of statement is
simply made, without any demonstration. The crowd who subscribes to
Scientific American would slice such an argument into little tiny pieces.
The third approach, which I have advocated, is grounded in Baha'u'llah's
own Writings, such as His Tablet to Jamal-i Burujirdi, and is based on
the idea of standpoint epistemology. Baha'u'llah says that each of us
knows and speaks from a particular *maqam* or spiritual/intellectual
*station*, and this explains why there is such disagreement among
individuals. Past religions, as with the Inquisition, have assumed that
scriptural propositions are inherently true and that there is only one
plane of truth, and so everyone must be made to acknowledge that truth.
Baha'u'llah's standpoint epistemology allows for different planes of
discourse, and admits that the same proposition might be true on one
plane but untrue on another. It is precisely this theory of knowledge
that underpins Baha'u'llah's conviction that the religions are one. He
knew the world religions very well, and was perfectly aware of all the
contradictions among them. He simply attributed them to differences of
perceptual station. One can easily apply this idea. It is well known
that the Gospel of Mark has a "low" Christology, seeing Christ as a man
with a special mission; whereas the Gospel of John divinizes Christ.
Aristotle would say you had to choose between these two stances, that
only one proposition can be true. Baha'u'llah's (and Ibn al-`Arabi's)
standpoint epistemology would allow both propositions to be true,
depending on the station in which they were uttered. Thus, John's
assertion of Christ's divinity is untrue on Mark's station, and Mark's
assertion of Jesus's mere humanity is untrue on John's station.
So I would reply to Carmen that not every proposition is true or
meaningful on every plane, even if scripture is multivalent, having many
possible meanings.
As for science, remember that I am a social scientist, and I am telling
you all that many scriptural propositions are not meaningful if taken in
a positivist way, even if they are very satisfying spiritually.
The case of the outbreak of disease in Shiraz after the Bab's arrest
there is a case in point. I think attributing the epidemic to the arrest
is a perfect example of right-brain thinking. It is very satisfying
emotionally to know that a wicked people who attacked an innocent prophet
was immediately punished in this way. And, of course, the Bible and the
Qur'an are full of this sort of thinking.
But it would be a mistake to take the proposition literally on the level
of Nasut or ordinary physical/human reality, or to try to reconcile it
with logical, left-brain thinking.
Let us say I am writing a paper on the demographic history of 19th
century Iran (which I might well do). I will point out that population
growth was slow before about 1850, owing to the periodic outbreak of what
appears to have been cholera. There may also have been some lingering
plague outbreaks. Cholera is caused by a bacteria and passed from person
to person, especially in crowded and dirty conditions in cities and
villages. Pastoral nomads (one half to one third of the population) did
not suffer from these outbreaks, being outdoors away from vermin and
close human contact, and the tribes may have been strengthened against
the settled population partially because they were less at risk for
disabling epidemics, and so could sweep down on afflicted cities and
villages weakened by them. The Shi`ite custom of rolling a dead relative
up in a carpet and transporting him by camel back or cart to the Shi`ite
shrines of Najaf and Karbala in Ottoman Iraq may also have been
responsible for spreading disease (which is one reason Baha'is were
ordered buried where they died). And, of course, there was the 1845
epidemic in Shiraz, which was caused by the imprisonment of the Bab.
Now, if you are not jarred by the last sentence, then you are not
thinking clearly. In the context of this paragraph, which is written
from a social-scientific point of view, the last sentence is not
meaningful. It has wandered in from another language game. It belongs
to the theology of history, not to historical demographics. Within the
language-game of the theology of history, the statement is meaningful,
and "true." But not if uttered as part of a scientific paper.
I do not personally believe there is any meta-language game in which both
these discourses are simultaneously true. I think you have to decide
which maqam you are speaking from; which side of the brain you're giving
the reins to; which language game you are going to play; and then you
have to stick to it until you have finished making your point. This is
not to say that you have to banish right-brain insights altogether, but
if you are writing science then the left brain had better be in the
driver's seat. Otherwise you get false syllogisms of a sort the right
brain rather likes (grass is green, lagoon water is green, therefore
lagoon water is sea-grass), and which make for great poetry, but very bad
science. On the other hand, if you insist on writing poetry with only
your left brain, you will get very bad poetry.
And precisely the problem with the quashing of the Baha'i Encyclopaedia
is that some form of approach #1 above has been adopted by some powerful
Baha'is who intend to ram it down the rest of our throats, and who have
simply misunderstood Baha'u'llah and the implications of His approach to
knowledge. They have therefore disallowed academic Baha'i discourse and
collapsed all discourse to a single, limited maqam, that of their own
perceptual station. This sort of thing was what Baha'u'llah disliked in
past religions such as Islam, and was what he was trying to avoid in
founding the Baha'i Faith. It just goes to show that the recuperative
powers of religious fundamentalism are vast and even the intentions of
the Manifestation of God can be set aside and subverted very easily.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Nov 21 13:05:55 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:42:08 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: new scholarly paradigm
You wrote:
> My dear Juan
I had not thought about the Academic calender good point. Why are you
so convinced there is a definite effort to stop such a list as
Talisman. In 1963/4 when I gave a lecture on the
history of the Faith and mentioned that Baha'u'llah had 3 wives and I
thought from my limited reading the Bab had 2 wives . I was told in
very definite terms I was wrong etc etc etc . However I did not accept
that , as we both know the 'offical' view was wrong ,time proving the
remedy . My strong feeling is the young people coming up in the Faith
now , if they get deepened to think for themselves based on the
Writings , will do away with such intolerance as no academic studies in
the Faith. Talisman is a very useful starting point for such matters .
I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality and range of the
postings since I came on .
I do not agree with some of the conclusions but not agreeing with a
point has never been an issue with me I am more than able to make my
own . I happen to enjoy diversity of thought it makes me think. I can
see Talisman in a couple of years being regarded as 'the' place for
ideas in the Baha'i Community. If the Faith is seriously attacked
intellectually this forum should provide the weapons and backbone to
defend the Cause . If a form of fellowship has developed it is the
ablity to be different , together and defend the difference.
Warmest Regards
Derek
>
>
>Derek: Thanks so much. I will get the list in the mail, and hope
both
>our collections can grow this way.
>
>I perceive Talisman to have a rhythm tied to the academic calendar.
It
>is now late in fall semester or quarter; the students are studying
>furiously for exams and the professors trying to grade term papers and
>finish up the conference papers owed that semester. I noticed that
last
>August, when virtually all academics and serious students are on
>vacation, there was a 3-week bad patch, as well. Well, it's just a
>theory.
>
>I suspect, too, that the quashing of the Encyclopaedia and the recent
>move of the NSA against a Talisman poster have left some contributors
>rather dispirited. It is not entirely clear that we are under present
>circumstances capable of the civil society that nourishes intellectual
>debate.
>
>
>cheers Juan
>
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comTue Nov 21 13:09:42 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:46:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
Dear Juan,
Thanks for your writings on "standpoint epistemologies", it clears the way
and creates a breathing space for otherwise a choking atmosphere.
I always viewed *magam* or spiritual/intellectual *station* from view point
of Seven and Four Valley. Namely, there are seven basic perceptions or
levels of consciousness and also there are also 4 basic type of
personality or temperament which would go through these valleys.
I see somewhat the five levels are just another expression of four Valleys.
I would be very interested to see how you
incorporate the 5 levels from Nasut to Hahut into the landscape of Seven
and Four valley.
Thanks.
Farzin
From burlb@bmi.netTue Nov 21 13:10:31 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 09:49 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
>
>The last paragraph no doubt had a lot of emotional sea-grass in it. I'm
>mad about the NSA threatening to take away a talismanian's administrative
>rights for writing an account of history they disagreed with!
>
Hmmm. I don't recall that being an offense worthy of sanction -- even if
it were poor history or lousy poetry. You realize, of course, that avowed
enemies of our beloved Faith just love this sort of thing -- as do those
"nefarious" persons (whoever they are) attempting to subvert the Cause from
the inside out. These are indeed the days of severe mental tests, and I
can't tell if they are essay or multiple choice.
Burl
>
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comTue Nov 21 13:10:53 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:00:15 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: quick note
Hello Tallies... I would like to know just what it was that the men, Burl
and Juan did to win this award??? I have been reading every message sent
out by all,, and I have no clue as to what prompts a CSGS award, nor do I
understand what it means... Contempory Science Guys Script? or Casual Shoes
Go Sacrament, or Cold Sherman Guli Salad, or Cadence Scan Gibberish
Scoutmaster???????
Warmly,
Margreet
At 09:10 PM 11/20/95 EWT, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote:
>I just returned from the AAR meetings and am exhausted. Have just scanned some
>of the many messages awaiting me.
>Now, a private note to Derek. No one else has to read this if they don't
want.
>Derek, you asked if John knew what he was getting into when he married me.
>Now, for a brief moment I thought this was an impertinent question. But, then
>I reconsidered. After all, such a well bred gentlemen such as yourself would
>never be impertinent. So, I asked John for a response to your question. Now,
>as you well know JOhn is our resident Midwestern poet. He can infuse so much
>meaning in one word. He said, "hardly." Now, you have your answer.
>
>BTW, Derek, you know that award you hand out every now and then. Some CSGS or
>whatever. Well, I notice that it only seems to go to the guys. Probably Burl
>or someone like that is up for it next. You know, one of those types that
>kisses up to Sherman. Well, I want to see a woman win this award. There is
>someone named Kathy on Talisman who posted me privately about SWAT teams and
>such like. I tried to e-mail back to her but the message bounced. Anyway, I
>think she is a wonderful candidate for this award, whatever it is. But if the
>guys are getting it, it must be good.
>
>Must go. Linda
>
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Nov 21 14:04:49 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:15:51 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Truth of AAR.
I wish to thank Linda for giving us such an insight into the Walbridge family lifestyle.
I found the words 'hardly' uttered by John , of deep meaning no doubt indicating a
long suffering situation he is part of .
What you do not know is that Burl and myself received reports of your activities in
Philly . One does not want to doubt the word of a Lady . Except I notice you have
taken the omission of facts route . I note you failed to inform Talisman of who built of
potato skins in the Reunion Sports Bar the Temple in Samoa , who won the Annual
Religious Intellectual Tobacco Spitting Contest , who came
second in the Jesuit Arm wrestling contest , who was disqualified in the Cassock
twirling contest , who was involved in starting three legged races at 4oclock in the
morning shouting we all have to run with a Bishop, who threw an egg at Christopher
Buck , who jumped up and down on the podium shouting a pope a pope my kingdom
for a pope . It is these questions and many more that inquiring minds need the answer
too.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS, C . G . S . P. has been awarded to three men on Talisman namely : Juan Richardo
Cole , Robert Stockman and Burl Barer . I am happy to inform you that of course
Ladies have been awarded this the highest honor just none on Talisman
at the moment
, but Sherman does not allow canvassing it is an award that comes from
selfless
service and devotion .
From burlb@bmi.netTue Nov 21 14:06:07 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 10:37 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Nervous in His service (was:thoughts on AAR)
Linda, still licking the baked potato stuffing from her fingers, asked:
"So, why are the Baha'is so nervous?"
The Baha'is are nervous because the Catholics or Shi'ites are not going
to be the brunt of wholesale assaults -- aside from Adventists and JW's
fearing that the Pope has an Uzi under his pointed hat and that he his going
to force them all to worship on Sunday or celebrate Xmas. Every vocalized
dismay, every hastily expressed charge of suppression concerning our
administration, is quickly used as "proof" of the falsity of Baha'u'llah's
revelation. If you doubt it, read some of the anti-Baha'i material popping
up on the internet. It is no longer just the same lame stuff (although there
is plenty of it being recycled) but now Kalimat Press is used by our
detractors -- old bits of irritation have been enlarged to massive
world-embracing horror stories in which one can almost see Tony and Payam
tied to the rack while evil, shadowy figures whip them with a
cat-o-nine-tails (note the use of 9, a number of superstitious significance
to followers of this strange faith).
It is my opinion, subect to review, that we are in a difficult position --
we must spiritualize (abdul-bahaize?) our lives and our communities, become
the leaders of thought, be in constant action, and refrain from being too
vocal in what may appear to be harsh, fault finding criticism of the "way
things are" or "the way we see them to be" yet we must also strive to purify
and improve (ie spiritualize) the very channels through which the Holy
Spirit is supposed to flow to the communities -- our local and national
assemblies.
It is a tough situation and one, I think, that can only be resolved by the
dynamic chaos of rapid, unamanageable expansion -- and that means really
doing things with joyous, empowered abandon -- proclaiming, expanding,
consolidating. The more we don't do, the lessness increases (hows that for
common sense?)
What is my fear? I fear the American Baha'is, and perhaps their Canadian
counterparts, have become apathetic and lethargic -- that they (we) have
devolved into isolated congregations of a marginal, little known faith,
resistant to growth, adverse to experienceing transformative dynamics, and
out of touch with the very revelation which we espouse. The Baha'i Faith,
to me , is a joyous, mind expanding, world embracing, multi-dimensional,
dynamic, progressive, revolutionizing all encompassing adventure! And I put
the emphasis on adventure! This is gleaming the cube of the cerebral cortex,
if I may borrow an image from skateboarders, this is surfing God's own ocean
of utterance....and damned if I will be foam and flotsom tossed on the sand.
If we just sit and complain, a couple things will happen -- nothing, and it
will get worse. If we are active and complain, a couple things will happen
-- something and it will get better. If we run and shout and jump and dance
and sing and pray and teach and deepend, a whole raft of stuff will happen
-- there will be too many of us too diverse of us too weird of us too
scholarly too ignorant too ecstatic too everything for anyone to be
nitpicking, threatening, etc.
Burl (I'll stop babbling now) Barer
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduTue Nov 21 16:14:23 1995
Date: 21 Nov 95 10:37:04 U
From: Dan Orey
To: Secretariat@BWC.org
Cc: SBirkland@aol.com, dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu
Subject: A Grateful Thank You
Subject: Time: 9:40 AM
OFFICE MEMO A Grateful Thank You Date: 11/21/95
TO: The Universal House of Justice
Baha'i World Centre
Haifa Israel
11/21/95
Dear Beloved Members,
My primary purpose in writing is to express my gratefulness in receiving the
reply (letter dated October 18, 1995) to my questions posed to UHJ member
Glenford Mitchell during my pilgrimage. I am deeply moved that the House of
Justice would take time from its schedule to address my private questions. I
have taken immediate steps upon receipt of your instructions, and have
contacted Continental Counselor Stephen Birkland. His protection, mentorship,
and advice extended to me is the finest of all gifts. Please be assured that I
recognize the duty and opportunity you have bestowed upon me.
I wish at this time to thank you as well for the bounty of allowing the
Talisman computer community to flourish and grow. I ask for your continued
patience, and love on behalf of this experiment.
Because of the inordinate amount of prejudice and bigotry I have received from
the Baha'i Community as a homosexual, the Talisman group has been an answer to
many of my prayers. It has allowed for healing on my part and has allowed me to
reenter the Faith in a manner that I could never have dreamed of in the past.
The unconditional love as expressed to me by the many participants has been the
finest example of a burgeoning Baha'i culture that I can see, many of the
participants have become close friends, something I have sorely missed as a
Baha'i. I am convinced that we are bonded by our mutual love for Baha'u'llah,
and our shared desire to work from with in the Covenant.
As a person who works professionally with a large number of teachers, schools,
and school districts in a number of countries, I can fully attest that Talisman
is an opportunity to build a Baha'i culture that is unprecedented - being able
to talk daily with people in a dozen countries, to call them friends, to ask
their advice, to share in their concerns, and to work on projects (both Baha'i
and non-Baha'i) together, is indeed a glimpse of what I am beginning to
understand as a future Baha'i culture. I wish very dearly that a number of
schools, faculty, and community members could engage in the level of direct,
often humorous, always informed, deeply honest and open consultation that
occurs in this forum.
In this season of thanksgiving, in the United States, I am indeed extremely
grateful for many things: my family, my Talisman friends, my tests, my
opportunity to work with Stephen Birkland, and most of all, the knowledge that
our spiritual affairs are in the care of such loving and caring people at the
World Centre.
Please be assured of my obedience and prayers. In loving Baha'i Service,
Daniel C. Orey, Ph.D.
3075 Yellowstone Lane
Sacramento California 95821
US Baha'i ID: 0084297
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Nov 21 16:14:51 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:15:23 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE. Seed of Creation the Saga returns.
As we are back to Seed of Creation time again let me again state I gave
the complete
file to 20 ladies attending Bosch at a variety of sessions . They were
from varied
backgrounds and ages , all found Ahmad's theory offensive and not in
accord with
the Spirit of the Faith . Frankly I do not care what the opinion of
reviewers in
Australia is , what ever position or function they may discharge for
the Faith . I have
read and studied as many did on Talisman Ahmad's Theory I believed it
to be wrong
then as I do now. I am prepared to repost the 2 postings on I did on
this subject .
Ahmad you are entitled to your view of the Writings and I would happily
defend
your right to such ideas, but in my considered opinion they are wrong
and
demeaning to women.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 21 16:15:07 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:13:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: quick note
Marguerite: This is of course an honor bestowed upon stalwarts by
Sherman the Cat. Ever since he read Ahmad's paper on the Seed of
Creation we have been unable to get him to bestow it on women.
:-)
cheers Juan
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduTue Nov 21 16:15:35 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 15:02:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Individual prayer (was Re: a few thoughts on AAR)
> It is obvious to me that the Baha'i Faith was not meant to be simply a
> religion for the individual, so stressing individual prayer seems to me to
> be counter-productive.
Allah'u'abha! Thanks for your posting on AAR which was very interesting
reading. Please pardon me if I react to one small part of it.
While I agree wholeheartedly that the Faith "was not meant to be simply a
religion for the individual," I don't see stress on individual prayer as
"counter-productive." Nor is it incompatible with stress on other aspects of
religious life. Perhaps you are observing that there is stress on individual
prayer to the exclusion of other aspects of religious life in the (American?)
Baha'i community? If so then one might say that emphasis on individual prayer
needs to be complemented with a balanced emphasis on other aspects of our
living faith. Just another plug for "both/and" thinking...
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
--
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 21 16:15:58 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:09:05 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science & teasing
Pull the right thread and the garment comes apart, remove the right brick
and the building collapses. The Zen butcher's blade never needed
sharpening because he never struck bone. Juan ("Science, unity, diversity,
and religion") wrote:
>As for science, remember that I am a social scientist, and I am telling
>you all that many scriptural propositions are not meaningful if taken in
>a positivist way, even if they are very satisfying spiritually.
Response: "positivism!?"
Robert (brevit/soul/wit) Johnston
PS
For those of you who are interested. The House has responded to my
Talismanic letter. It is lengthy, so I'll try to get it scanned today
sometime...
Robert (teaser) Johnston
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Nov 21 16:16:31 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:55:46 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE . quick note and the Seed of Creation
Thank-you Juan for pointing out the traumatic effect the Seed of
Creation theory had on our beloved Leader Sherman it was too
painful for myself his humble scribe to mention . He is still
trying to balance the various nihilistic concepts to gopher
hunting and feels for the present he can not award C . G . S . P.
to any more Ladies. Although he does hope to change that ruling
in the future , I believe after the Ladies in Australia have
found Ahmad and sorted him out.He currently is in hiding
somewhere in the Outback. My dear friend and yours Burl Bare
informed me of that this morning. Ahmad they are closing in on
you .Burl can you update us with the latest news of the search
for Ahmad by the Ladies Posse in Australia ?I do fear for the
poor man's safety .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduTue Nov 21 16:16:52 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 15:06:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Cc: Ahang Rabbani
Subject: Baha'i Encycolpedia
Dear Friends,
I was off-line for a couple of weeks and missed the discussion, if
any, on the Baha'i Encyclopedia project. The last I heard was
John's summary of the situation: the project, for all practical
puroses, is gone.
If the above is still the case, I have a suggestion for the
many Talismanians and others who have contributed to the encyclopedia:
To request to meet with the Research Department - better yet
the Universal House of Justice itself - and express your
concerns, suggestions and hopes.
I made a similar suggestion earlier with regards to the
future work of the Centre for the Study of the Sacred
Text - this is another matter that could be discussed if
the audience is granted.
I think such a meeting, in the Holy Land, near the Sacred
Shrines can be nothing less than productive.
regards,
sAmAn
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 22 00:09:08 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 13:45 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: quick note
>
>
>Marguerite: This is of course an honor bestowed upon stalwarts by
>Sherman the Cat. Ever since he read Ahmad's paper on the Seed of
>Creation we have been unable to get him to bestow it on women.
>
>:-)
>
>cheers Juan
>
>You have the rare ability to make me laugh out loud when I'm the only one
in the room!
BB
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 22 00:11:00 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 15:50:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science,unity,diversity
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Steve, Juan, and others -
I enjoyed reading the continued postings on science, religion, etc.
Hopefully, a better understanding of the various approaches to these
subjects will result from this discussion.
In what I am guessing was a reference to my views, Juan wrote:
J >The second insists that all propositions in scripture are true, and if
J >they conflict with science is is because we have not understood the
J >science well enough or we have not understood the propositions well
J >enough, or the propositions are metaphorical, or referring to some higher
J >plane of reality, etc. This position is more sophisticated than the
J >first, but seems to me to result in illogical statements, such as "X may
J >on the surface appear to be in conflict with science but it is not really
J >if we understand it spiritually." Typically this sort of statement is
J >simply made, without any demonstration. The crowd who subscribes to
J >Scientific American would slice such an argument into little tiny pieces.
Juan, I do not know if you intended this paragraph to refer to the
position I have put forward. However, I will assume that you did and
will comments accordingly. I agree that the first part of what you say
represents my POV quite well. My thinking is that all statements in the
teachings are true - regardless of on what plane, or planes, of meaning
that truth lies.
However, I do not see how _Scientific American_ readers would slice
my argument into "little tiny pieces" and how, even if that were to
happen, it would impinge on the correctness or incorrectness of a
particular set of evaluative statements. Among the nineteenth-century
defenders of miasma, many of whom were medical doctors, Louis Pasteur
was regarded as a quack. For years, he could not even get his colleagues
to examine his evidence. However, they have been forgotten, while
Pasteur's name has lived on in chronicles of nineteenth-century medical
history.
To my understanding, *everything* in the teachings is symbolic -
regardless of whether it has a literal referent. The object of the laws
and ordinances in the Aqdas is to effect a collective and an individual
spiritual transformation and to prepare us for our existence in the
Great Beyond. The physical universe itself is an emanation of spirit
(mineral, vegetable, or animal), and, throughout the Prophetic Cycle,
the divine Teachers have called on humanity to actualize the spiritual
reality of existence through conformity to the Will (love, Law, or
Covenant) of God.
Knowledge is not fixed. It is always relative to our understanding.
For example, how do we know what the Master meant by "ether"? How can we
be sure that it was literal (which *might* lead to the conclusion that
His statement was, God forbid, incorrect), symbolic, or a combination of
the two? If we use the past as our teacher, how many times has something
been assumed to be absolutely true only to be overturned by subsequent
research? How much more so can we expect the same to happen through the
eventual unity of the religion of God with the material sciences? Why
should the views of Baha'is be conditioned by the responses of a
scientific community which, for the most part, has not accepted the
words of Baha'u'llah? Should not we be the ones in the forefront of a
revolution in our fields - whatever they may be?
IMHO, science, as the process of discovery, must include both
spiritual and material investigations. From my reading of what the
Master and the House of Justice has said, Baha'is are being asked to
find new ways of blending the spiritual and the material - and, while
learning from as many sources and modes of thinking as possible, not to
be dependent on present-day philosophies - whether of science, ethics,
art, or knowledge. Ambiguity is not, IMV, something to be avoided. As
the Office of the Secretariat at the World Centre said (to me), it is an
inevitable feature of the process of the investigation of reality.
Also, as I said the other day, I do not think that anyone has
differed with the concept of "standpoint epistemology" in principle. The
disagreement has been over what one Talismanian (I forget who)
distinguished as "either-or" and "both-and" thinking. While it might be
difficult to combine the insights of material scientific investigation
with the science of reality, that does not, IMO, mean that it cannot be
done. I believe that as the years go on, we will find that new
discourses will be developed in all fields which will simultaneously
demonstrate sensitivity to the truths in the divine teachings and in
material scientific inquiry. The two, I suspect, will develop in tandem,
as research into both becomes complementary. Continual exploration of
the meaning of the divine teachings in relation to the human and
physical sciences will replace the current distrust which is so common
in both domains of knowledge.
Steve, you wrote:
F >1) One camp holds that science and religion are the same: religion,
F >properly understood, is the Science of Reality. It alone is capable of
F >bringing under an umbrella all the diverse phenomena - simple atomic
F >processes to revelations - about which we have knowledge. Drawing a
F >distinction between science and religion, while being defensible on
F >pragmatic grounds, is to draw a distinction that is not really there.
I would basically agree with your summary of my views. However, I am
not saying that the science of reality (the systematically revealed
divine teachings) can comprehend the material sciences. Rather, IMHO,
both divine science ("the science of reality") and the material sciences
("bridges to reality") are expressions of progressive Revelation.
Through the unified investigation of the divine teachings and the
material universe, with a recognition that each can inform the other,
our knowledge of reality will increase. However, I suspect that there
will continually remain some creative tension. What does "ether" mean?
Is there actually a literal elixir which can transform a mineral into
any other mineral - or is this alchemy only meaningful as a metaphor for
the transformative effect of the Word (knowledge) of God? IMV, these are
questions will be answered gradually.
With loving greetings,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 22 00:15:41 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:40:08 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: C. S. G. P. the Truth. A statement from Sherman.
Sherman wishes to inform everybody that this honour is not just
meaningless letters of the jolly old alphabet .But an order of worthy
beings just like the Order of the Garter in the UK.It is his sincere
hope that the Famous Ahmad Ladies Hunt in Australia gets Ahmad , it was
on CNN last night , Sherman says it reminds him of the time he caught a
twelve pound rodent in the upper meadow . Just carrying that critter to
dinner was a major task . The tail alone was 8.5 inches long , it was
big , it was good , it was dead and it was tasty.Burl as a member of
the Famous Order of C. G. S. P. can we have your comments please .
Kindest Regards
Derek
PS Linda I do know that Kathy type she is also into special
rings, leather and hologram projections , strange things like
that. I do not know if she is into arm wrestling and tobacco spitting
like yourself.Do let Talisman know about the Cassock twirling contest 4
people have posted to me for details not Dan Orey though . By the way
what has Catholicism to do with Shi'i community life?
From Dave10018@aol.comWed Nov 22 00:21:41 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:40:27 -0500
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: "New scholarly approach"; standpoint epistemology
I've been wanting to contribute my viewpoint to the discussion of the
"scholarly" dilemma for a while. I have a few thoughts from my yurt on a
little promontory quite near Juan's camp (I can hear the bacon frying). In
a message dated 95-11-07 Robert Stockman writes:
>I think the idea of a new scholarly paradign is intriguing. Perhaps
paradigm
>is
>a bit misleading; I would refer to a new scholarly style or approach. But
>certainly none of us know what that style is. Perhaps there are some
>principles
>of it that can be outlined, but I have no idea how it would balance
>independent
>investigation of truth and the need to protect the unity of the community.
>Neither is sufficient itself, but combining the two is very difficult. I
>suppose "Baha'i" scholarship (in the sense of distinctively Baha'i) will
>emerge
>gradually...."
I take this as a fair expression of the task before Baha'i scholars vis a vis
their Baha'i audience, a task which so far no one in authority has been
able or, at least, willing to clearly define.( The World Center seems more
willing or able to say what it doesn't want than what it wants.) This task
is further complicated by the need to appeal simultaneously to an academic
audience for whom any hint of an attempt to "protect the unity of the
community" may, understandably, render suspect the Baha'i author's devotion
to the pursuit of truth. Naturally researchers want simply to do their
research and let others worry about popular interpretations. That way lies
the respect of their peers and is the task they are trained for. Further, by
holding back work perfectly good by modern academic standards, the House
seems to be favoring censorship, holding back unpleasant facts, and some
people, even some on this list, are inclined toward the view that such
difficult evidence --should-- be surpressed. In the long run that is,
fortunately, impossible. Suppressing difficult, apparently contradictory
evidence is not only intellectually dishonest but deprives us of the fuller
understanding that would allow us to integrate new data into both our
historical and our conceptual picture of our Beloved and His times. Being an
optimist and new to this fray, my working hypothesis is more along the line
Robert Stockman suggests, that the House does not seek ultimately to suppress
information, but to see that Baha'i scholars present their findings in such a
manner as not to cause a rift between those able to accept their discoveries
and those who would find their niave faith, their piety threatened. This is
not impossible but it is difficult. We believe in Baha'u'llah as we
understand Him to be. Historical evidence, whether from contemporary accounts
or newly translated texts, often contradicts our preconceived notions as well
as our inadequate understandings of Baha'i scripture. Such evidence thus
appears shocking to many Baha'is. If we are to remain united and "firm in
our faith" we cannot confront the historical record and remain unchanged. So
many Baha'is are eager for miracles but unprepared for the paradoxes thrown
up by historical evidence. Thus as we discuss historical evidence we must
discuss and develop the various rationales which can enable us to assimilate
this information. We must evolve a popular understanding of Baha'i history
which reconciles the sense of the miraculous with evidence which goes against
longstanding popular Baha'i assumptions about such things as the kind of
reading material found in the Holy Household. It is understandable that
trained historians would resist seeing this "theological" aspect as their
responsibilty, but it is also understandable that Institutions charged with
protecting the Faith would be concerned that such a rationale be explicitly
developed and presented along with potentially shocking information. The
"new criticism" contributed to a split within the ranks of Christians which
Shoghi Effendi regarded as an evidence of the decline of Christianity, as,
for example, in "The Unfoldment of World Civilization, " (in "World Order of
Baha'u'llah," p.183) where he writes: "That the solidarity of some of
these[Christian] institutions has been irretrievably shattered is too
apparent for any intelligent observer to mistake or deny. The cleavage
between the fundamentalists and liberals among their adherents is continually
widening." What is needed is not "victory" for either Baha'i "liberals" or
"fundamentalists" but a reconciliation which must be presented to the larger
Baha'i community as an integral part of Baha'i scholarship, for the sake of
the larger Baha'i community.
The question is first, can we really accomplish such a reconciliation without
suppressing information and accepting assumptions that lead to biased
histories. Let's assume we can! The question then is how. Juan, with his
"standpoint epistemology" has made a good start. His formulation still has
marks of his evident ( and most understandable) desire to be able to pursue
and publish his research without worrying about questions of faith. Thus he
expresses his formulation as if events on the "material" plane simply have
nothing to do with the realm of faith. We should, he asserts, let him pursue
these "Nasut" facts without trying to make them fit with "Jaburat" type
statements. There is a lot of truth to this, though I think the idea of
relations between the various realms of meaning needs some refinement before
it will really meet all the difficulties. Surely, within everything higher
reality is both revealed and concealed. Surely we should approach history
with humility, ready to see the Divine reflected in it but not as we might
expect and to regard every "fact" we find as an approximation, and we should
be sceptical about assumptions of material reality which rest on statements
of a symbolic order. On the other hand, the tension between the two realms,
the apparent contradictions of meaning, must themselves be meaningful. Thus
we should discuss them. As we recover more of the context of Baha'u'llah's
life and His Revelation, in a sense we are approaching the Holy Threshold. To
be privilidged to make such a pilgrimmage is naturally to encounter some of
the human qualities of the Manifestation, human circumstances, which might
tend to disillusion us if we hold to traditional ideas. For example, some
might be troubled to find in the Holy Household a book by a European which
describes astronomy in terms which Baha'u'llah apparently repeated as divine
Revelation. This, it seems to me, is consistant with the creative process of
Revelation. By uttering a word He transforms it. It is certainly possible to
acknowledge that Baha'u'llah thus absorbed and uttered words from other
sources and yet believe in the truth and transcendent Source of His
Revelation. Such evidence also can arouse doubt in reasonable people. The
common Baha'i presumption would appear to be that any reasonable person who
was familiar with Baha'i history would be compelled to accept the truth of
Baha'u'llah's station. While I certainly am a Baha'i, I do not think this
presumption is correct, for reasons which have to do with the nature of the
relationship between matter and spirit. The possibility of doubt is always
there.Otherwise faith would not be a matter of choice. This truth is
affirmed in the Book of Certitude. We need to affirm this possibility of
doubt, that it is the nature of things that historical evidence should be
ambiguous. Every event has multiple causality. Juan in a recent post
mentioned the cholera epidemic associated in the Dawnbreakers with the Bab's
imprisonment in Shiraz. A symbolic meaning is associated with this particular
outbreak and its fortuitous timing. (It appeared, so the text says, so
well-timed as to save the Bab's life.) Who, in looking back at his own life,
cannot find aparently meaningful coincidences? Why would we assume that
simply because bacteria are involved that other effects are not also
operating? And, of course, there is no reason to rule out "spiritual
meanings" for the other outbreaks of plague Juan mentions. Generally
speaking, poor sanitation in nineteenth century Iran reflected the
degradation of that country. "Inefficiency and wretchedness, the fruit of
moral decay, filled the land" to quote the Gaurdian's introduction to the
Dawnbreakers. Further, for each individual involved, even very small events,
especially when considered in retrospect, appear meaningful, or , to put it
another way, appear to have spiritual causes as well as more rationally
ascertainable and proximate material causes. Juan is right that to insist
that one such event has a spiritual cause while holding that others do not is
inconsistant. Spirit is everywhere apparent. It is also everywhere hidden. We
should not suppose that all should be convinced by the Bab's assurance in the
face of His arrest and encounter with cholera(according to Nabil's account).
Certainly other explanations are available. Perhaps Abdu'l Hamid Khan's son
would have recovered without drinking some of the water the Bab washed with.
And perhaps there is little evidence this event ever happened.
Issues such as this, which present apparent contradictions, must be
considered openly. Scholarship which unearths such facts must be
"popularized" so that the truths hidden in the Revelation can be unveiled to
a united community. Our task is to overcome to a larger extent the
divisions between the scientifically oriented and those more oriented to
acceptance of traditional authority. Juan has said " I do not personally
believe there is any meta-language game in which both these discourses are
simultaneously true." I think there is and hope we can discuss it.The
dichotomies are old and deep, perhaps so deep as to be reflected in the
structure of our brains(an example of spirit reflected in matter?). Resolving
such dichotomies is what we are here for. "He is the Hidden and the Seen."
I agree with Juan in his estimate of those attempts at effecting the
reconciliation which involve literalizing statements of Baha'u'llah and the
Master and using them to establish Socrates's movements or even to develop a
psychological terminology. Such efforts look a lot like scholasticism to me.
So much of the terminology the Master used, for instance, comes from Islamic
philosophy and so much also comes from discourse current at the time in
places He was visiting. His use of the term "materialism", for example, in
public meetings in the West, certainly had something to do with the great
interest at that time and place among Theosophists, Christians, even
sceptics, in a perceived dichotomy between matter and spirit. He spoke to
many in the West who were interested in arguments against "materialism." We
are spirits in a material world, sayeth the Police.
regards,
dave taylor
ps, a few minutes ago i sent out the wrong post! sorry about that, folks!
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Nov 22 00:28:21 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:06:23 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: "New scholarly approach"; standpoint epistemology
Howdy!
David, excellent post, I liked it.
This feeble minded one continues to be confused by the
apparently contradictory calls for both a circling of
wagons and at the same time the need for the froth
and chaos of mass expansion (Burl, Burl, Burl). Seems
that proper mass expansion would require the removal
of protective mechanisms to allow the development of
a solid foundation of "legitimate" objective scholarship
that addresses the inevitable concerns of a greater
number of critical seekers and other unhappy campers.
Thanks much,
EP
(PierceED@csus.edu)
> From: Dave10018@aol.com
> Date sent: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:40:27 -0500
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: Re: "New scholarly approach"; standpoint epistemology
> I've been wanting to contribute my viewpoint to the discussion of the
> "scholarly" dilemma for a while. I have a few thoughts from my yurt on a
> little promontory quite near Juan's camp (I can hear the bacon frying).
...snip
----------- text attachment -----------
:
: Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
: From: Derrick Johnson
: Subject: Re: Investigator reaches a conclusion
: Organization: Internet America
: Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 08:31:10 GMT
: Approved: pjh5u@virginia.edu (Pete Hellmann)
: Lines: 64
:
:
: I, too, have investigated the Baha'i faith, and while I respect and
: admire many of its tenets and followers, I cannot believe it is of
: truly divine origin. Some of my general reasons for this conclusion
: are as follows. Please understand these are simply my own reasons, and
: carry no particular weight.
:
: (1) The Baha'i interpretation of progressive revelation leaves as
: many questions unanswered as it answers. The Baha'is seem to point out
: the particular events or beliefs of other religions which mesh well
: with their own, and simply ignore those which don't, or ascribe them
: to "errors introduced by man". This is a very convenient view, but it
: utterly ignores many of the VERY important differences between
: religions.
:
: (2) The Baha'i religion seems highly derivative of Islam. I cannot
: see how anyone can deny this. However, I've offended some Baha'i's by
: jokingly referring to them as "Moslem Methodists", comparing them to
: Catholics and Methodists. The Kitabi Aqdas (sp?) contains a tremendous
: amount of requirements which are completely without meaning or value
: to one without an Islamic background.
:
: (3) The Baha'is do not appear any more unified than anyone else,
: although they will vehemently deny this in almost all cases.
: Nevertheless, as many other readers have pointed out, the lines of
: succession have not always been clear, resulting in many offshoots and
: branches derived from Baha'i. Simply saying they're not Baha'is is a
: dodge.
:
: Also, adherance to many parts of the Kitabi Aqdas have not yet been
: required of western followers, to my understanding. This means the
: faith is not the same everywhere, or that some of these laws must not
: be that important. This is similar to the problems faced by the
: Mormons in explaining why blacks could not hold the preisthood
: priveleges until the 1970's.
:
: Finally, it seems that much of the Baha'i unity is obtained at the
: expense of confusion and disorder in the ranks of its members. As a
: group, Baha'is appear to have as many internal divisions and
: misunderstandings as any other faith. In spite of the volume of works
: produced by its principals, many important issues are not addressed or
: explained clearly, and many Baha'is have widely divergent viewpoints
: on these matters. My limited contact also suggests the faith has a
: different flavor in the east as opposed to the west.
:
: (4) Baha'is really do not encourage "independant investigation" in my
: view. To most Baha'is, independent investigation means readings the
: standard Baha'i works and then deciding if you think that makes sense.
: No Baha'i I've met will direct you to works written by "enemies of the
: faith", or other works which may not be favorable. The common argument
: is that these works are not the truth (how they know this I have no
: idea), and therefore unworthy of investigation. This seems a little
: silly to me. If I'm going to investigate, let me read as much as I
: can. God will help me sort out the truth. Especially since the Baha'is
: do not believe in the Devil, there should be nothing but ignorance
: between me and the truth. God will work actively in my favor, so the
: cards are stacked to favor me. Why can't I see it all?
:
: (5) Why can't I see a picture of Bahaoullah? I've had it explained,
: but I think it's a weak argument. Was he ugly? Come on....
:
: Anyway, these are afew issues. Mine and mine alone. Good luck and
: good fortune to you all.
:
: Derrick
:
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 22 00:30:03 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:37:50 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review of "Seed of Creation"
Dearest Ahmad,
These thoughts come partly from the giggly, little girl inside me
and partly from the woman that I am today; if, you
can see the difference.
> Hence, only when majority of Baha'is do accept it then
>we can say is a common fact.
Now, this is confusing to my non-scientific, non-scholarly mind.
So, if anyone comes up with an idea which is accepted by the
majority, then it is a fact even though it may not be in reality?
This sounds more like pure politics of persuasion to me. HELP!
> I my self would like to be in a universe that is seed like
>than be considered as a big bang.
Pardon my humorous side reacting to this. Please,
forgive my ignorance and don't feel persecuted. This is
the residual effects of my strict social background.
Well, it is obvious that you have not been married yet!
Shall I send my congratulations, or condolences? Sorry!
Hmmm! I remember a joke from Cheshmak. What was it?
>Again in such topics there is no enforcement and hence I don't think
>it is right to ask if one has any obligation to accept it.
Would you prefer a development towards enforcement?
>However, if you follow my thread of thought and use same writings
>you can only come to the same conclusion!
"When diverse shades of thought, temperament and character......
then will the glory of human perfections be made manifest"
Not necesssarily through the thought of a single person, but
synthesis of many. You have my, honest, sincere best wishes and
request for your forgiveness, if you feel hurt.
lovingly,
quanta...(*_*)
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 22 00:39:26 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 21:42:49 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: all my trials
I have just returned from a class in which I attempted to explain the basics of
the Lebanese Civil War in the light of the Arab/Israeli conflict to
undergraduates. This is exhuasting. I drag myself to the computer to see if
there is anything important on e-mail and, what do I find, Burl's and Derek's
names posted all over the screen.
Once again, these fine minds have applied themselves to real investigative
work, deep philosophical thought and, above all, public service. Who else
would throw themselves into making mugs and sweatshirts celebrating "HOSE?"
What a blessing these two are to the Baha'i community. If we could only clone
them, we could have a world full of communities abounding with Dereks and
Burls. Such an exhilerating thought. I am sure that Burl would then get his
wish: millions more people would be drawn to the Faith. These masses would be
mesmerized by their e-mail messages. It would be a mass spiritual experience
comparable to only, say, the Jonestown community.
They expect me to sit here at this computer and tell thabout my activities in
Philadelphia. Why don't they ask John and Juan what they wee doing in Ann
Arbor thisweekend. My Victoriaan sensibilities and the ethos of propriety we ttem
attempt to maintain here on talisman are all the prevent me from discussing
this. Believe me, arm wrestling Jesuits is nothing in comparison to what they
were up to.
Derek, so glad you were able to fit in the question about Shi'ite and Catholic
community life. When you read my book - which is coming out next year - you
will have a more complete answer. However, for now, I will just share with you
a few insights. I find Catholicism and Shi'ism to be very similar in their
intense devotional life. Catholics reverence for the Virgin Mary and Shi'ites
devotion to the Imam Hussein (both personal favorites of mine) are comparable.
Both tend to mean the same thing as well. They both can serve the purpose of
limiting authoritarian approaches to religion. They empower the believers to
act on their own behalfs.Both have centralized authority that helps keeps some
semblance of unity, while both have many dimensions and systems of religious
expression.
Well,s help? I am suI am sorry that I am not more
forthcoming about my activities in Philadelphia.Some of us need a bit of
privacy and don't want to blab on the internet about absolutely everything. Of
course, there are others who obviously delight in it.
My e-d\{1ma
From rtaeed@marlin.utmb.eduWed Nov 22 00:41:20 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:05:16 +0000
From: roozbeh taeed
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Science & Epist.
Dear Talismanians:
I have noted a recent onslaught of messages re: science. From the tone of
some notes, this seems to be a common theme, and I think an important one.
I would like to pose the following.
I consider myself a proponent of the "philosophy of science". As a rookie
in academic medicine, I have begun to observe medical students, and I am
amused by their inability to perceive the impact of the scientific method
on their clinical education. I think this is true of people in general, I
suspect that science existed as a method to knowledge before Desecrate and
assoc. formalized it. We just do not recognize our "mind's" use of the
scientific method on a daily basis.
This leads to a definition of science and the scientific method. Although
many have been proposed, all the ones that I am familiar with have two
elements in common. 1. The purpose of science = an attempt to understand
"phenomena" 2. The method of science = observation. It is fairly easy to
achieve consensus re: purpose. The method is just a little more difficult
because people question "what" are we to observe and "how" are we going to
observe it? I am quite liberal regarding the methods of observation as
long as they are stringent and consistent. I generally divide method of
observation into two categories, I think they are accepted by most
scientist!
DIRECT OBSERVATION = the "phenomena" itself can be analyzed (eg human anatomy)
INDIRECT OBSERVATION = the "phenomena" is analyzed by its effect/
"MANIFESTATION" on a more directly observable object or directly understood
phenomena (eg gravity, particle physics.)
What I am suggesting is that science sometimes describes "phenomena" quite
adequately without directly analyzing it. Consider the Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle. We do not directly observe the now sub, sub, sub,
( and to be further subbed) atomic particles, but the experiments--that
consistently give us the same relative answer--indirectly "support" their
existence and character. (physicist may grill me but it is o.k. I can take
a public correction. I note that Dr. Feynman suggests: "Does this mean
that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to
calculating only the *probability* of an event, and not predicting exactly
what will happen? Yes....Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities.
Yet science has not collapsed." (QED p 19).
Having said this I would like to pose that as scientists we have to accept
that some of our present observations may be inadequate and may be altered
by the progress that science will achieve. To this end allow me to offer
my favorite definition of science:
"The scientific mentality may be roughly characterized as the tendency to
suspend belief until evidence of the appropriate kind is presented and then
to believe the proposition in question to the degree that the available
evidence warrants it, without excluding the possibility of a future
disconfirmation." (Arthur Pap)
If we refute this possibility of future observations impacting our present
understanding, we are sure to commit the same in justice the Church imposed
on Galileo?
This brings me to Dr. Cole's "standpoint epistemology" and the debate of
Baha'i Scholarship esp. re Dr. Amanat's book. We have been discussing
Juan's suggestions on a "columnar" perspective. Now I suggest we *also*
place it on the "linear" axis of time. Allow me a common scientific
example:
>From the "standpoint" of pre-Copernicus era direct observations (and
beliefs) did not permit the recognition of the movement of the earth. But
as we progress (I would like for you to consider such terms as evolve and
even concepts such as progressive revelation), we come to another
"standpoint" whereby indirect observation of the movement of the stars
suggest the present directly observable movement of the earth. We can
identify three "true" observations of the relationship of the earth in
space depending upon the standpoint. Pre- Copernicus "standpoint" =No
observations made according to our records (please if you are a Native
American or Egyptian etc do not chastise me, I am dealing with "general
info." here); Peri-Copernicus=Indirect observation.; "Modern ERA"=Direct
Observation.
Not only does Juan's standpoint epistemology give us insight to differing
views on the present discussion, but if viewed on a linear aspect it can
give us insight into the perspective of the past.
Now permit ma a Baha'i example:
>From the "standpoint" of life in Shiraz in May 23 , 1844 the meeting of a
citizen of that town with a traveler is of questionable "historical"
significance. It is most likely a common event. From our present (Baha'i)
"standpoint" the meeting was to shape the destiny of mankind. Now if we
add the columnar "standpoint" we can offer even more "potential" insights
ranging from "the emergence of a social reform group" to "the emergence of
the Cause of God". What makes Baha'i Scholarship so difficult especially
for historian is that they need to confront the epistemology from two
standpoints: 1) the axis of time which itself divides into Then and Now and
2) the columnar axis which itself has the following elements: A. the world
of man, B. the role of the Manifestation as an ACTIVE/RATIONAL mediator
between man and the "Unknowable", and C. (if you are really good) the role
of the "Unknowable" Itself. Does this columnar aspect remind any one of
the symbol of the Greatest Name!
Sorry this is so long. Please feel free to comment. I am fairly detached.
Roozbeh
rtaeed@marlin.utmb.edu
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 22 00:43:14 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:38:06 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Pt 3 Manif/God/Amer/Soc: history
Ffolks,
I though this was particularly interesting. (It is from "the" letter). I
hadn't seen it before.
Robert
"... even in Scriptural history, the most out standing of all histories...
... Holy Writ is authoritative, and with it no history of the world can
compare, for experience hath shown that after investigation of the facts
and a thorough study of ancient records and corroborative evidence, all
have referred back to the Holy Scriptures."
('Abdu'l-Baha, From a Tablet, translated from the Persian) .
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Nov 22 00:45:22 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:12:26 +1100
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: trumatic effects on Sherman
Dear Talismanians,
Dear Derek
You wrote:
> Thank-you Juan for pointing out the traumatic effect the Seed of
> Creation theory had on our beloved Leader Sherman it was too
> painful for myself his humble scribe to mention . He is still
> trying to balance the various nihilistic concepts to gopher
> hunting and feels for the present he can not award C . G . S . P.
> to any more Ladies. Although he does hope to change that ruling
> in the future , I believe after the Ladies in Australia have
> found Ahmad and sorted him out.He currently is in hiding
> somewhere in the Outback. My dear friend and yours Burl Bare
> informed me of that this morning. Ahmad they are closing in on
> you .Burl can you update us with the latest news of the search
> for Ahmad by the Ladies Posse in Australia ?I do fear for the
> poor man's safety .
> Kindest Regards
> Derek Cockshut
I am deeply saddened to hear that the article Seed of Creation had
traumatic effects on our dearly loved Sherman. Perhaps, I can
suggest that you take Sherman for a session of deep psychotherapy.
In the hope that this could remedy the after effects of the seed's
growth. May I suggest that a similar dose of therapy is advisable
for the humble scribe of the Sharman. After all, in this day and
age, the King and the servant must be treated alike.
I have to say that at this moment of human history, both the sceientist
and theologians have been baffeled and bewildered as to the nature
of our universe. So I can only say that we have to rely on the
writings of Baha'u'llah and after all we will not get another
Manifestation from God for long time to come. However, I take joy
in the fact that our writings are reach and if one followes the
deductions I made from the writings He or she should come to the same
conclusions.
As to describing me as a lookalike of the writer Salman Rushti, I have
to say that he wrote satanic verses and I only pencilled in just a
Gardener's Manual, what harm can that have on our beloved ladies.
One does not have to rely on various nihilistic concepts to gopher
that we live in a world that is more than this physical senses
and that we are not bond with them alone. Surely, a Baha'i must
rely on his God given gifts, those metaphysical senses that are
present in him. I assuredly testify that God is a True Gardener
and I think Abdu'l-Baha testifies to that too.
As to him hiding somewhere in the outback, I must say you will not
find a coward in him. As a matter of fact, he is a desperate unmarried
bachalor who will wellcome whole heartedly and seeking at all times
the pleasure of companionship of those lovely ladies you mentioned.
Perchance his lucks may turn around and a heavenly angle may drop in
on his door-steps.
As to a search by the ladies Posse in Australia goes, what else can
he wish for, is he mad to hide himself of such a bounty. Please send
them in from the other side of the world, nay from the whole world
perchance he may get lucky.
As to Brul's latest news, I must say that I hear the front page states
that Brul and his fellow barbermen in the Walla Walla's barbershop
have shaved the lucks of our dearly lovely ladies Passe from Walla Walla
in stead of the beards of their fellow townmen which is the routine
procedure. I am afraid that, It could be you and Brul that might have
to hid for some time to come.
You claim that you have given my article to 20 ladies in you part of
the world, I do appritiate if you could give me their names and contact
addresses or E-mail, so that I can converse with them personally and
search for their true greivences. Has evolution changed mankind so
much that ladies on the other side of the world have transformed into
a different human female spceies and they differ greatly from those in
down-under. What happened to unity in diversity.
I hear from atop the tree, the squeaky voice of Sherman with shivering
knees, saying, enough is enough, Sherman and the humble scribe will
take the advise of the wise hakim and will seek therapy. So I dare
to go afar. I will be content to what I believe to be right.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ 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 ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Nov 22 00:50:09 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:57:06 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: StrayMutt@aol.com, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> When an NSA summarily announces that it is
> removing a believer's rights, the believer should be able to ask "Under
> what article and section of Baha'i canon law?" If the NSA cannot cite
> article and section, it should not be able to proceed.
I have mixed feelings about a comprehensive list of sanctionable offenses.
On the one hand, if I were going to lose something so precious, I would
want every opportunity for fairness, and as a lawyer, we are trained to
make sure that the offense is actually proscribed in the language of the
law.
On the other hand, doesn't that lead to prolixity? Doesn't this
inevitably lead to massive tomes, and written opinions distinguishing
this incident from that one, and the development of more "regulations" as
the Guardian said, and an over-emphasis on legalisms, which he
discouraged at the present time?
Where is the balance? On the one hand, of course we don't want
deprivations of rights based on whim. On the other hand, we don't want,
or at least *I* don't want, the cases where technical imperfections in
statute-drafting result in injustices either way, either in summary
deprivations without recourse to the believer's immaturity or motivation,
or in the inability of the NSA to sanction an offense. For example, if
you have ever read a statute prohibiting lewd behavior, it is quite
explicit. Likewise, the federal criminal laws for interstate larceny
required that "property" must have been transported across state lines,
and for some time computer source code was not within the definition.
That's because the law requires that to be convicted, the law must not
have been vaguely written, and must precisely describe the prohibited
acts. I hesitate to encourage drafting an exhaustive, minutely-written
code of Baha'i law.
Brent
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 22 01:33:49 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 1:12:46 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Native Messengers
I wish to thank Robert Johnston for posting the Research
Department memoranda he received as enclosures from the Universal
House of Justice.
As I must prepare for the Baha'i Studies conference in Texas
*quam celerite* as the dead Romans say, I'll be brief.
First, Research Dept. memoranda serve the purpose of advising
the House and are not the final word in principle, although in
practice this may be otherwise. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this!)
Second, researchers (including World centre staff) ought to
authenticate passages from the Writings on which arguments are based.
The Research Dept.'s citations from PUP may be weak in terms of authenticity.
I believe I have demonstrated in print (in my JBS rejoinder to Sours)
the dangers of uncritically using Promulgation of Universal Peace
without first authenticating passages in question.
The Research Dept. (again, not referencing the quote from
`Abdu'l-Baha re: ancient North America) cannot overrule the Master's
statement saying that the *Call of God* had been raised among native
Americans.
The technical term, *Call of God*, was not even glossed--it
was glossed over. The *Call of God* is very clearly a reference to the
teachings that originate from Manifestations of God.
As to adding names, at the end of my paper at ABS in Boston in
1994, Dr. David Ruhe specifically stated that we should not treat this
statement on behalf of the Guardian too dogmatically.
Perhaps any Talismanian who was present could verify or
elaborate on Dr. Ruhe's remarks. Later, in his Balyuzi Memorial
Lecture, Dr. Ruhe referred to Dekanawida as a *prophet* of God.
There is also the problem of how to understand the language of
totality in the Writings. When is *all* a literal truth, and when is
*all* a rhetorical truth?
I have to go. If Juan or some other learned soul who has access to
*Khitabat* could verify whether or not the PUP passages in question
are authentic, I would be deeply grateful.
I don't think this is the last word on the subject. Even if it
were so on the matter of names, I believe that the Research Dept. still
needs to investigate the purport of the expression, *Call of God*.
I will stand corrected if I am told a Research Dept. memorandum is
the final word. I will humbly bow to such authority. But I do not think
binding authority is vested in such communications.
I also believe that some of the research functions of the
Research Dept. might wisely be extended to other Baha'i scholars for
specific input within their respective domains of expertise.
Oral cultures continue to be culturally measured and judged
against the standards of literate cultures. Religiously, oral cultures
are still being judged by Semiticentric standards.
`Abdu'l-Baha's pronouncement on the *Call of God* is decisive.
I do not think we can overturn the fundamental Baha'i teaching that
authentic teachings about God derive from Manifestations of God.
If there was a land bridge over which Amerindians migrated, so
must have the Call of God. Yes, we can't add names to the Qur'an,
because we cannot even adduce the Qur'an as evidence in the Americas!
Unless there was a Baha'i Book of Mormon, the native peoples
in the Western hemisphere had no Qur'an, Evangel or Torah. But they
did have their *Call of God*.
From their vantage, we cannot possibly add the names of Moses,
Christ, and Muhammad to native traditions, except in speaking of the
simultaneity or complementarity of Manifestations of God on other continents.
In a past memorandum, the Resarch Dept. used the very same
*Call of God* passage to argue the possibility of two Manifestations
of God on earth at the same time.
Having taken the Master's statement out of context, the
Research Dept. is now arguing against the possibility of Native
Manifestations.
We can't have it both ways. We cannot use the same text in two
separate memoranda to argue two contradictory points!
In the Research Dept. memorandum re: *Simultaneity of
Manifestations of God* (which text Moojan has and which I have in the
form of a memorandum sent to the LSA of Mitcham), the Research Dept.
adduces the *Call of God* text to argue for simultaneity of
Manifestations of God on separate continents.
To adduce the very same text, to argue for simultaneity of
Manifestations of God (i.e., on North America and Asia) and then to
use the same *Call of God* text in a memorandum arguing against
Manifestations of God in North America is a blatant contradiction.
I regreat that I cannot argue this point more closely now, as
I have simply run out of time. I end this note by affirming my deep
and abiding respect for the Research Dept.
If steadfastness in the Covenant requires submission to such
memoranda, I will say no more. If not, I believe the points I have
raised warrant further investigation into the matter.
-- Christopher Buck
22 November 1995
-- Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From cfarhoum@osf1.gmu.eduWed Nov 22 11:13:59 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:50:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: Burl Barer
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Nervous in His service (was:thoughts on AAR)
Dear Burl, dear friends Allah-u-Abha. i really enjoyed reading your post
and wanted to share some thoughts and perhaps get feedback to see if these
thoughts are on the right track. You said some important things about the
Baha'i communities in North America ( i am Torontonian presently doing my
Masters in Virginia). YOu say in a way we are isolated congregations ...
True in many of our communities. i always feel like the Faith has so much
to offer the world, and who is able to offer it to the world except us?
And how can we DO this if we don't know what the needs of the world are?
And how can we KNOW this if we are so "into" our communities that we do
not SEE anything on the outside. i mean the Faith is only a healing
message if it is applied to the ills of the world, and how can it be
applied if we Baha'is do not become MORE AWARE OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, OUR
WORLD. Do we make an effort to not only deepen but read maybe the paper,
the world section especially, how about a weekly magazine? and when
reading these do we ponder how the teaching may apply to that which we are
reading.
I think the Faith will emerge from obscurity when we Baha'is become WELL
TUNED to our surroundings. Aware of every thing that happens. Like,
today, the impossible - the improbable - the unlikely - occured and
"peace" was negotiated in the Balkans. Yes, the warring parties of the
former Yugoslavia agreed on a formal division of territory and drafted a
constitution. Now, wait a minute. 5 years ago the world was divided,
every corner of the world saw division and war. THe Baha'is came out and
said there will be peace by the end of the century. YA RIGHT! was the
response. Hm! Let's take stock
1. Mandela is president of the nation which imprisoned him for 27 years!
2. the formidable Soviet Union has collapsed ending an era of Mutually
Assured Destruction
3. the Berlin Wall, the symbol of East West tensions has collapsed.
4. the Arabs and the Israelis have finally realized that a nation built
on injustice and hate is not going to flourish and survive. they have
also realized that they do not have to be enemies and hate. If images
make history, then the image of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands and King
Hussein crying at Rabin's funeral as if his dearly loved brother was
killed, then we have history in the making
5. the borders in Europe are disintegrating day by day
6. people are more conscious of the environment, women, human rights etc.
as demonstrated in the UN international conferences.
7. Northern Ireland - the parties are talking!
8. 250,000 deaths later the leaders of a once unified nation Yugoslavia
finally agree to what everyone said was the impossible!
i don't want to take any more of your time. The point i am trying to
make is that you so right. any model is good only when it has
applicability. So, come on friends, where is the applicability of the
Baha'i model. We will only know if we get involved with our communities
and our world.
You know as a student of Conflict ANalysis and REsolution, i often found
and still find it so frustrating to think that my colleagues think i am
completely out of my mind and too idealistic. Well, they can say this
now because they view the world in its present context and forget that
the above mentioned events were thought impossible by even the greatest
scholars and academics and politicians of our time.
Problem in need of solution: How do we Baha'is become more effective
agents of social transformation?
Possible Solutions: Let us deepen and be involved in our communities but
let us also get together as Baha'is and explore the relevance of the
Faith for today. How can we convince our friends if we are not sure
ourselves.
Now, did any of that make any sense? i would love comments so that i can
further formulate my own thoughts on this.
THank you all for listening.
Regards,
Cheshmak Farhoumand
Master's Student
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
George Mason University
From SFotos@eworld.comWed Nov 22 11:14:17 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 23:02:58 -0800
From: SFotos@eworld.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: planes of discourse
Dear Talismans
Juan Cole wrote:
>>Baha'u'llah's standpoint epistemology allows for different planes of
>>discourse, and admits that the same proposition might be true on one
>>plane but untrue on another.
In regard to this, many years ago I heard the following:
The virtues of the far are the sins of the near.
Does anyone know the source? This statement would imply a developmental
continuum where similar validity options exist.
Best,
Sandy Fotos
From TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Nov 22 11:17:42 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 02:19:54 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: science,religion unity,diversity
Dear Friends ,
I have enjoyed the comments on "standpoint epistemology " and my
right brain is trying to have a conversation with my left brain to make sense
of it all . :) No easy task - just ask my right brain !
It has helped me better understand my life long confusion . I write left
handed -a right brain dominance . I also eat left handed . I throw a ball and
shoot baskets right handed , but I bowl left handed - hmmm. I bat in
baseball left or right handed . perhaps this means with regard to baseball I
am balanced . Then of course baseball is a divinely ordained athletic
activity any way . There are, you know, nine innings , nine players in the
field , and with no clock the game could continue for eternity in the event
of perfect balancebetwen teams . A perfect game would see a pitcher face 27
batters , a multiple of nine and a perfectly pitched game would result in
only 27 pitches , that multiple of nine again . So there you have it the
divine origin of baseball .
On a more serious note I have wondered on this subject that if different
stations "perceive" different truths then how does one reconcile in the lived
world of human societies these different perceptions of truth ?
In the past the choice was absolutist rule . For short the divine right
of kings . A second possibility seems that the "church" via its clergy and
hierarchy determined the truth for which those who contested paid for with
their lives or great suffering or both . And not the least of these were the
prophets of God . Baha u llah seems to have made this point in the Iqan .
We no longer have absolutist rule as a desirable state of affairs , Baha
u llah sems to have altered that in Tab .of the World with the approval of
the consultation of the people e. g. parliamentary democracy and in the Most
Holy Book with His "command" to the presidents of the Republics of America
to promote justice and oppose tyranny. We dont have a clergy or those
authorized to continue binding interpretations of truth that exclude all
other truths . Abdul Baha seems to have disavowed this even for himself in
SAQ and of course Baha u llah abolished a clergy in His Faith .
So how do I tentatively try to answer my question ? It seems that if
Baha u llah recognized stations of "standpoint epistemology" and seemingly
approved of such as inhering in the nature of Reality and Abdul Baha seems to
have argued much the same in his Commentary on the "Hidden Treasure" hadith .
While I "assume" Baha u llah wrote in ways which satisfy my right brain - His
mystical writings and prayers - I also "assume " he wrote in ways that would
satisfy my left brain . Specifically , since I think the Manifestations
attend to the re-organization or transformation of human affairs both
inwardly and outwardly, Baha u llah must have provided a solution to the
pragmatic resolution of human disagreements.
This is the part that seems to me most remarkable in light of the end of
absolutist rule and abolition of clergy . It seems Baha u llah told us to
consult , the principle of consultation . This is most remarkable to me
especially because of the absence of clergy and absolutist institutional rule
. I sometimes think we take this so for granted or give it such lip service
we miss its revolutionary character . Baha u llah did not tell a clergy to
consult or simply tell rulers to consult ; He seems to have suggested that
this was a practice with which all human beings in all arena 's of life were
to be engaged . This application of consultation to all people and affairs
is a profoundly *democratic* sentiment . Democratic because it assumes that
ordinary people have this capacity and it locates this form of the expression
of human powers within ordinary people . It is not a power reserved for a
select class or group of humans .
In the Prosperity For Humankind there is a statement which suggests
that all peolpe who are affected by a decision are to be involved in the
decision making process . I wonder how well we as a community have
institutionalized our advice to the world ? Is it not an abnegation of our
responsibiltiy before Baha u llah if we turn over our responsibility to
consult on issues affecting the community only to elected officials and
presume they are the ones this power applies to ? Is this not a smuggling of
a clergy approach back into the Faith when Baha u llah granted this "power "
to all human beings ? Would not part of the age of maturity mean that
individuals cannot pass this responsibiltiy off on institutions and
institutions cannot assume this "power" for themselves ?
I am intrigued by the mid 19th century when Baha u llah appeared .
Absolutist rule was under attack ; He seems to have been the recipient of
untold suffering and pain as a result of those who refused " standpoint
epistemology " from clergy to kings; so he says power has been seized from
two classes of men . Interestingly by the 1930's it was parliamentary
democracies that were being questioned and appeared to be on the wane .
Stalin , Hitler , Mussolini in Europe others in Japan , China were not
exactly advocates of the power of ordinary people to consult . That
possibility was also under intellectual attack by the 1920's in America. By
the 1990's it is once again parliamentary democracy - the consultation of the
people - which is seems to hold promise and excite the hopes of human beings
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auWed Nov 22 11:22:32 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:06:08 +1100 (EST)
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review of "Seed of Creation"
Dear Talismanians,
Dear Quanta,
You wrote:
>
> Dearest Ahmad,
>
> These thoughts come partly from the giggly, little girl inside me
> and partly from the woman that I am today; if, you
> can see the difference.
>
If you were giggled by this, please do not read my post to
derek as it will giggle you to death.
>
> > Hence, only when majority of Baha'is do accept it then
> >we can say is a common fact.
>
> Now, this is confusing to my non-scientific, non-scholarly mind.
> So, if anyone comes up with an idea which is accepted by the
> majority, then it is a fact even though it may not be in reality?
> This sounds more like pure politics of persuasion to me. HELP!
Sorry, You must replace the word "fact" here with "understanding"
I do see a difference. One is reality and the other has posibilities.
My mistake I admit it, but only because I was trying to reply in
among my work load.
> > I my self would like to be in a universe that is seed like
> >than be considered as a big bang.
>
> Pardon my humorous side reacting to this. Please,
> forgive my ignorance and don't feel persecuted. This is
> the residual effects of my strict social background.
> Well, it is obvious that you have not been married yet!
> Shall I send my congratulations, or condolences? Sorry!
> Hmmm! I remember a joke from Cheshmak. What was it?
I don't get you? Are you giggling because I said the universe
is seed like or something else. see my questions later.
Attacking my personal life would not change any thing.
Many factor are impotant in getting married and one such as
this has minimal effect. In any case, my views should make me
a loving companion as I am trying to show a need for the fact that
male and female are complementary, is it not?
>
> >Again in such topics there is no enforcement and hence I don't think
> >it is right to ask if one has any obligation to accept it.
>
> Would you prefer a development towards enforcement?
No! But I like to see an acknoweldgment that based on my deductions
from the writings one could come up with my conclusions.
>
> >However, if you follow my thread of thought and use same writings
> >you can only come to the same conclusion!
>
> "When diverse shades of thought, temperament and character......
> then will the glory of human perfections be made manifest"
> Not necesssarily through the thought of a single person, but
> synthesis of many. You have my, honest, sincere best wishes and
> request for your forgiveness, if you feel hurt.
see my last question below.
Now you asked me a number of questions and I tried to answer them as
best as I could. Let me now ask you a number of questions.
1. Is it better to beleive in so called "Big Bang" as a causeless\
\
event for creation of Universe or to beleive that God is a Gardener,
He has created a seed, the seed had the potential of growth, and He
nourished it to grow and so it has turned into what we see a beautiful
Universe (tree)?
2. If you beleive that the concept of the "seed of Creation" is defective
on the bases that it produces superiority for men and inferiority for
women (which it does not as I stated before), then you must admitt that
the current situation with no women on UHJ, must be considered as a cause
of inferiority in women and superiority in men, is it not?
If you say yes, then what is the difference here?
3. I beleive that all concepts originate from single individuals at
their inception, but yet they are transformed and perfected as a
result of consultation and adaptation by common agreement. This is what
makes perfect ideas. I do not claim this concept is in its perfect form
yet. Input of others will make it perfect and manifest.
Also, Is it not why we beleive in Manifestations of God, don't they
originate concepts from God and don't we adapt them and consult on them
and use them. Aren't these concepts originated from one single person
at their inception? Shouldn't you deny them the truth?
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ 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 ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 22 11:22:45 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 22:43:45 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Christopher Buck , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Native Messengers
Chris wrote:
"We can't have it both ways. We cannot use the same text in two
separate memoranda to argue two contradictory points!"
But we can. For instance,if my memory serves me correctly, Baha'u'llah
said that we should be kinder to humans than to animals because human were
endowed with speech and could complain, and 'Abdu'l-Baha said we should be
kinder to animals than to humans because animals weren't gifted with
utterance.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 22 11:22:52 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:20:36 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: "Stephen R. Friberg" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion
Stephen,
Your analysis was lovely. Rational-scientific-artistic (etc, and
incorporating intuition) exploration of all things physical (eg, stones)
and metaphysical (eg, dreams), with religion as the ultimate 'reality'
reference is true science, methinks.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 22 11:23:24 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:10:49 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: SFotos@eworld.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: planes of discourse
Sandy's letter went:
>Dear Talismans
>
>Juan Cole wrote:
>
>>>Baha'u'llah's standpoint epistemology allows for different planes of
>>>discourse, and admits that the same proposition might be true on one
>>>plane but untrue on another.
>
>In regard to this, many years ago I heard the following:
>
>The virtues of the far are the sins of the near.
>
>Does anyone know the source? This statement would imply a developmental
>continuum where similar validity options exist.
>
Does Juan's argument maintain that there is this hierarchy of value, or
does he say that a truth statement on one plane has validity equal to an
apparently opposing truth statement on another, and that there is no
harmonious discourse between these planes?
Robert ("Plato barred poets from the Republic because they were
untruthful!") Johnston
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieWed Nov 22 11:23:35 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:49:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: StrayMutt@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
Why did you quote Lenin in your letter on a Baha'i bill of rights.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 22 11:23:53 1995
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 01:11:56 -0500
From: Robert Johnston
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
Brent wrote:
I hesitate to encourage drafting an exhaustive, minutely-written
>code of Baha'i law.
>From my reading of "Secret of Divine Civilisation" simplicity would appear
to be a key characteristic a Baha'i legal system. However, simplicity and
attention to fine detail need not be mutually exclusive options. The tests
would be: does it work, is it efficient, is it fair? Obviously Baha'i law
would stem from the Aqdas, which is -- jurisprudentially speaking -- brief
and to the point.
Globally speaking, the elimination of contending legal systems would surely
have advantages similar to the establishment of a universal language.
Simplicity again.
Robert.
From belove@sover.netWed Nov 22 11:24:37 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 19:25:44 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: FW: RE: History, Miracles, Planes of Knowing
On Tue, 14 Nov 95 15:03:38 PST belove@sover.net wrote:
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:44:07 -0500 (EST) Juan R Cole wrote:
>>
>
>>Most Baha'is, for all their liberal principles and the ocean of
>Revelation
>>they have to draw on do not actually seem to have any useful
answers
>to
>>the divisions in the modern world between faith and reason. The
>"new
>>paradigm" some envision looks like a Baha'i version of Vatican
>>prescriptions rather than like anything new in human history or
>thought.
>
>>I would like to challenge Baha'is to take more seriously
>Baha'u'llah's
>>"standpoint epistemology." Human discourse is not "flat," and
>>propositions do not have only one signification.
>>
>>In the Tablet of All Food Baha'u'llah, as Stephen Lambden and
Moojan
>
>>Momen have shown, delineate *five* metaphysical planes:
>>
>>Hahut - divine transcendence and unknowability
>>Lahut divine manifestation (Logos)
>>Jabarut the realm of the revealed God acting within
>creation
>>Malakut the angelic realm of human moral perfections
>>Nasut the physical world, which only indirectly reflects God's
>perfections
>>
>
>>I don't want this "standpoint epistemology" business to become too
>glib
>>or overly schematic. It has to be rigorous, hard-headed and
>>completely honest to succeeed. But it seems to me that it is at the
>core of
>>Baha'u'llah's claims to unite the religions and to reconcile science
>and
>>religion.
>>
>
>
>
>Hooray, Juan. Again.
>
>This "Standpoint" epistemology emerges in psychology and systems
>theory under the rubric of "constructivism."
>
>I think it also has ancient roots in epistemology.
>
>In my novice exploration of the history of this idea I came across a
>concept like "habitus" from St. Thomas, I think. Can't find the
>reference any more. Habitus is where you sit as you look out upon
>what your are seeing. It is your perspective.
>
>Since it's impossible for ordinary mortals to think about anything
>without it being from some perspective, or within some context, we
>have the idea of habitus, or Standpoint epistemology.
>
>I loved the way you've used the metaphysical planes to explain how
>differing lines of thought and argument might be fully correct and
>also incompatible.
>
>On a more mundane plane, this same concept is used in Family Therapy
>to explain how various members of the family can all disagree and yet
>all be right. The positions don't have to correspond to a common
>reality, all they have to do is fit, as a key fits a lock.
>
>I think the Master often argued in this way, saying that some
>arguments were meant to be understood materially, but others
>figuratively.
>
>I know you said that we shouldn't be to strict and rigid about this
>classification of levels, but I know how learning works and I suppose
>we will go through a period of trying out our understandings and ---
>for me, that involves making charts and trying to create a grid.
>
>And by the way, on what level does the five level scheme exist?
>Logos? Is logos (male) the same as matrix (female)?
>
>-------------------------------------
>Name: Philip Belove
>E-mail: belove@sover.net
>Date: 11/14/95
>Time: 15:03:38
>
>This message was sent by Chameleon
>-------------------------------------
>Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
>Einstein
>
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/21/95
Time: 19:25:44
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein
From belove@sover.netWed Nov 22 11:25:23 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 07:37:11 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Robert Johnston ,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Native Messengers
On Wed, 22 Nov 1995 22:43:45 +1300 (NZDT) Robert Johnston wrote:
>Chris wrote:
>
>"We can't have it both ways. We cannot use the same text in two
>separate memoranda to argue two contradictory points!"
>
>But we can. For instance,if my memory serves me correctly,
Baha'u'llah
>said that we should be kinder to humans than to animals because
human were
>endowed with speech and could complain, and 'Abdu'l-Baha said we
should be
>kinder to animals than to humans because animals weren't gifted with
>utterance.
>
>Robert.
>
>
Wouldn't this support a form of standpoint epistemology.
Actually, it would demonstrate that the habit of using many "language
games" is very much a part of ordinary discourse. So of course, it
would also be a part of the discourse on holy matters.
Isn't there a quote in literature about "consistency being the
hobgoblin of small minds".
But Chris is right within a certain language game or semiotic. Robert
in another.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/22/95
Time: 07:37:11
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 22 11:25:47 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 08:10:12 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: trumatic effects on Sherman
Dear Ahmad,
Sorry, I am not in a charming, poetic commentator mood these days.
But, do not take everything so serious. We are just becoming friends.
>However, I take joy in the fact that our writings are reach and if one followes the
>deductions I made from the writings He or she should come to the same
>conclusions.
We have to get the assistance of our scholars and scientists on this.
>As to describing me as a lookalike of the writer Salman Rushti, I have
>to say that he wrote *satanic verses*
I thought that it was just the title of the book. Did you read it?
>Perchance his lucks may turn around and a heavenly angle may drop in
>on his door-steps.
Would you be interested in being my son-in law? My daughter Ayla is
a very deepened Baha'i. She is 24 yrs. 5'9" and absolutely beautiful.
She is gonna kill me for this one, of course. But, I will sign the consent papers
just before my last breath. She always talks about Australia.
>As a matter of fact, he is a desperate unmarried bachalor who will wellcome
> whole heartedly and seeking at all times the pleasure of companionship of those
>lovely ladies you mentioned.
>As to a search by the ladies Posse in Australia goes, what else can
>he wish for, is he mad to hide himself of such a bounty. Please send
>them in from the other side of the world, nay from the whole world
>perchance he may get lucky.
Wait a minute! I hear some Freudian slips here. What happened to
*no polygamy" etc. etc. etc.?
>Has evolution changed
> *mankind* ???
>so much that ladies on the other side
>of the world have transformed into a different
> *human female spceies*????
>and they differ greatly from those in down-under.
HMMMM??
lovingly,
quanta...(*_*)
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 22 11:26:15 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 08:32:51 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review of "Seed of Creation"
> please do not read my post to
>derek as it will giggle you to death.
I read it and sent you a very lively message.
>Attacking my personal life would not change any thing.
I have no clue about this one! Can't you get a joke?
>No! But I like to see an acknoweldgment that based on my deductions
>from the writings one could come up with my conclusions.
Okay! Send me just references (titles of books and page #'s)
and I can look them up myself and arrive at my own conclusions.
>1. Is it better to beleive in so called "Big Bang" as a causeless
>event for creation of Universe?
I never said it was causeless. We agree on the causative formation,
only differ on the concepts of the process itself.
>Also, Is it not why we beleive in Manifestations of God, don't they
>originate concepts from God and don't we adapt them and consult on them
>and use them. Aren't these concepts originated from one single person
>at their inception? Shouldn't you deny them the truth?
1- I do not equate you, or what you say to the Manifestation of God
and His Words.
2- The reason for women not serving on the House of Justice has not
been given by Baha'ullah, Abdu'l'Baha and the Beloved Guardian.
So, my question is who are you to say that you know the answer?
As you remember, a few months ago you stated that leadership
was an inherently male thing and I should not wait for something
that was not "inherent in nature", in response to my poem.
lovingly,
quanta...(*_*)
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 22 11:32:59 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 09:03:35 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Socrates
May I now claim vindication on the Socrates issue? They cited the same
secondary sources as I was using.
john walbridge
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 22 11:37:12 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 08:35:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Both/and thinking
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Philip -
You wrote:
B >I think you are muddling Juan's model. Model muddling is a grave
B >action.I can't figure out why you would want to do it or what you
B >gain intellectually from your position.
Your assumption seems to be that Juan's model is the correct one,
and that anyone who would oppose it must have a hidden motivation. In my
case, that is certainly not the case. However, if I have misrepresented
a particular position, which was certainly not my intention, I welcome
corrections.
What I think should be obvious is that Baha'i academics do not agree
on these matters. There is no *consensus* on this, and many other,
issues - which, it seems to me, has sometimes been assumed on this
forum. Actually, the only thing that I "want to gain intellectually" is
a fuller sharing of diverse perspectives. I believe that we are taught
that it is only "by the clash of differing opinions" that truth is
revealed.
B >this both/and business and this nesting of heirarchies undoes the
B >whole concept of standpoint epistemology and also undoes the idea of
B >separate language games or separate semiotics. I don't find any
B >virtue in it.
As I see it, we are only talking about words. Knowledge is not
fixed, and, honestly, I doubt that I have the ability to undermine
anything. My desire is to share my own perspectives on reality. Are you
suggesting that we should all simply accept whatever views are put
forward on Talisman without questioning them?
B >Even when you have a nested heirarchies of language games, as in
B >geometries and mathematics, you still have local languages in which
B >statements true in one language (parallel lines never meet) are
B >untrue in another language (Parallel lines on a sphere may either
B >meet or not meet depending on their size relative to that of the
B >equator).
Yes. That is true, which is why I said that we need to develop a new
discourse which will integrate all of these approaches. To me, it is an
essential element of the Baha'i metaphysic of unity in diversity.
Warm greetings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From belove@sover.netWed Nov 22 11:39:01 1995
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 19:32:01 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Both/and thinking
Dear Mark, I think you are muddling Juan's model. Model muddling
is a grave action.I can't figure out why you would want to do it
or what you gain intellectually from your position.
this both/and business and this nesting of heirarchies undoes the
whole concept of standpoint epistemology and also undoes the idea of
separate language games or separate semiotics. I don't find any
virtue in it.
Even when you have a nested heirarchies of language games, as in
geometries and mathematics, you still have local languages in which
statements true in one language (parallel lines never meet) are
untrue in another language (Parallel lines on a sphere may either
meet or not meet depending on their size relative to that of the
equator).
I think your arguments against this postion ought to then address the
epistemology in the Tablet of All Food.
Love
Belove
On Sat, 18 Nov 1995 17:26:07 -0600 (CST) Mark A. Foster wrote:
>To: belove@sover.net
>I think that we might be
>able to map reality, as it has been revealed to us in our teachings,
as
>follows:
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>
> *Purpose and Power* (Spirit):
>
> This dimension of reality is "seen" with the eyes of faith and
intuition.
>
> (High Gear)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
> Origin ------> Life Pattern -----> End Objective
>
> This dimension of reality is "seen" with the eyes of the intellect.
>
> (Middle Gear)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
> Immediate Acts and Attributes
>
> This dimension of reality is seen with the five senses.
>
> (Low Gear)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
> As I see it, the higher dimension of perception incorporates the
>lower one or ones. Therefore, IMHO, if one can see reality from
third
>gear, one can also see it from first and second gears. Now,
certainly,
>one may attempt a phenomenological reduction or epoche, i.e., to
>bracket, for instance, one's (high-gear) spiritual awareness and
examine
>a particular object, such as the revealed words of the Prophet,
*only*
>from low or middle gear. However, it seems to me that the House of
>Justice has been discouraging that type of approach to the
Revelation.
>
> You wrote:
>
>B >I want to take you've thought about either/or and both/and
thinking
>B >and run it through the model of standpoint epistemology, named by
>B >Juan Cole and found in the Tablet of All Food.
>
> Yes, certainly. As I wrote in a recent message, I do not
disagree
>with the concept of a "standpoint epistemology" itself, only with
the
>particular application summarized on Talisman. IOW, I tend to favor
the
>both-and approach to the either-or approach. From my POV, the latter
>commits the logical fallacy of bifurcation (also called the
>black-and-white fallacy) and is a profoundly second-gear mode of
>perception.
>
> Again, let me qualify, second-gear does not, as I am using the
term,
>mean _rational_. Rather, it refers to a mode of thinking which uses
>rationality apart from faith and intuition (inner vision). As the
Master
>said to Laura Clifford Barney, the human spirit (the purposeful
power of
>rational accomplishment), unless assisted by the spirit of faith
(the
>purposeful power of conscious knowledge and good deeds), will never
>"become acquainted with the divine secrets and heavenly realities."
>
> You wrote:
>
>B >1. I think that Standpoint Epistemology is another word for
Semiotic.
>
> Well, I do not want to put words into another subscriber's
virtual
>mouth - especially one who is as profoundly capable of
representing
>and explaining his own viewpoint as Juan - but I agree that a
cojoint
>use of the term "standpoint epistemology" with a Wittgensteinian
concept
>of "language games" would appear to point to semiotics.
>
> Actually, for the most part, I concur with much of what has been
>said. I consider myself as, among other things, a structuralist and
>would argue that a collective "narrative framework" is identical
with a
>group's social structure and that one's individual narrative
framework
>is synomymous with one's mental structure. However, to use the above
>terms, I think that we need a new "language game" which would
>incorporate all epistemologies through the Baha'i metaphysic of
unity in
>diversity.
>
> You wrote:
>
>B >As I recall the philosophical debate on semiotics, it was said
that
>B >this tools arises because our mind can't take in everything at
once
>B >from all perspectives. The Human mind can't achieve a -- to use
your
>B >word's Mark -- God's eye view.
>
> I agree that the human mind cannot achieve that on its own.
However,
>what I mean by seeing from a God's-eye viewpoint is, using high gear
>perception, to look at existence using the model of reality given in
the
>Baha'i teachings, which, IMHO, may be hinted at with the the reality
map
>I sketched above.
>
> You wrote:
>
>B >St. Thomas, I remember, talked about this saying that reality and
God
>B >were ultimately simple and One, but for us to think about it, we
had
>B >to make it more complex. We had to break it up into manipulatable
>B >pieces. Because that is how our mind works.
>
> Yes. It is a shame that we all need so many words to describe
what
>is really quite simple. However, as the Master said to Dr. Forel,
"The
>mind comprehendeth the abstract by the aid of the concrete ...." It
is a
>casuality of living in the world of outward appearances.
>
>B >In the science and religion conversation, we are talking about
>B >"explanations" and whether those explanations can be
simultaneously
>B >mapped onto both the Religion Grid and the Science Grid.
>
> Precisely. And I feel that the investigation of reality (the
>Master's definition of *science* and Baha'u'llah's definition of
>*justice*) is, ideally, a holistic enterprise. According to my
>understanding, the science of reality or divine science (religion)
and
>the material sciences are, from a God's-eye perspective, dimensions
of
>oneness.
>
>B >We have to use semiotics. As humans we can't attain the God's eye
>B >viewpoint, but might know it is there. We don't currently have
>B >semiotics that recocile the apparent contradictions. The
divisions,
>B >like tools, are artificial, but are necessary.
>
> Philip, IMHO, the new language exists in the divine teachings -
>especially in `Abdu'l-Baha's letters and talks to Western believers.
It
>is in these communications, I believe, where He instructs us in the
>language of the Kingdom - a higher level of "speaking in tongues"
than
>was previously possible.
>
> He explains the degrees of spirit and their manifestations, the
>nature of the soul, the worlds of God, and the dynamics of
individual
>and social transformation. My three dear friends, all now in the
Abha
>Kingdom - Elizabeth Thomas, Marian Lippitt, and Henry Weil - spent
years
>studying the nature of reality as it has been revealed to us in this
>great Day of God. From my standpoint, all of it is there for the
taking.
>
> Loving greetings to you,
>
> Mark
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * *
>*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion
*
>*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society
*
>*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on
Request) *
>*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society
*
>*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College
*
>* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A.
*
>*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home)
*
>*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1;
14.4 kbps) *
>*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us
(Internet); *
>* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
>* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
>* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>
>___
>* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
>
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/19/95
Time: 13:48:38
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 22 11:40:18 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 09:44:21 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a few responses
I have barely started reading this morning's e-mail and already feel compelled
to write a few words.
First, Rick, please do not be so sure that some people on Talisman do not know
"what went on" in cases of the removal of administrative rights. I personally
know for a fact and would swear on every holy book that people have lost their
rights without a hearing and without even being properly told why they were
losing their rights. When certain individuals have asked for documentation and
explanations, they have been refused! Please do not ask me to produce my
evidence. I have it in hand but would so prefer that I not be forced to share
it. But, if people persist in insisting that human rights are recognized in
the Baha'i Faith, I think I will explode (then have to face Burl and Derek's
satire ont he subject.)
I see two major problems here. First, is what Juan has so patiently outlined
for us. The lack of respect for human rights (and in many cases for Baha'i
law) is growing in the American Baha'i community. Second, the Baha'is
themselves are so terrified of being called Covenant Breakers - are so imbued
with this idea that unity must be achieved at all costs - that they distort
what is before their very eyes. They refuse to believe what they are seeing.
They delude themselves into thinking that everything is really all right. If
we are not vigilant, if we are not thinking carefully and fairly, we might have
a unified body, but it will be a deformed, decrepit thing. If we don't stand
up for what we think is right, we will be less than human - whether we call
ourselves Baha'is or not. I did not become a Baha'i so that I could be led
blindly into following ways that I know in my heart of hearts is wrong.
Perhaps it would be helpful for all of us to reflect back on how and why we
became Baha'is. Maybe it would be good for all of us to refresh our memories
and ask ourselves what it was we were looking for. I know I was not looking
for an overwhelming bureaucracy that threatens people's position in the Faith
if they don't fall into strict accord with every whim of the NSA. (And I am
not using hyperbole here. I am referring to actual cases. Juan is not
exaggerating about "looking squint eyed at an NSA member.")
Sorry, this is not a posting for the faint hearted, but it is one that comes
deeply from the heart. I spend a good deal of my time who have suffered the
consequences of human rights violations. I cannot bear to see my own
co-religionists suffer from such actions from their own institutions.
On a lighter note, Don, I fully agree with you about the need for individual
and community prayer and devotion. I was simply making the point that a
religious community needs devotions and rituals that bring them together and
make them "a people."
Linda
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 22 11:41:17 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 09:44:21 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a few responses
I have barely started reading this morning's e-mail and already feel compelled
to write a few words.
First, Rick, please do not be so sure that some people on Talisman do not know
"what went on" in cases of the removal of administrative rights. I personally
know for a fact and would swear on every holy book that people have lost their
rights without a hearing and without even being properly told why they were
losing their rights. When certain individuals have asked for documentation and
explanations, they have been refused! Please do not ask me to produce my
evidence. I have it in hand but would so prefer that I not be forced to share
it. But, if people persist in insisting that human rights are recognized in
the Baha'i Faith, I think I will explode (then have to face Burl and Derek's
satire ont he subject.)
I see two major problems here. First, is what Juan has so patiently outlined
for us. The lack of respect for human rights (and in many cases for Baha'i
law) is growing in the American Baha'i community. Second, the Baha'is
themselves are so terrified of being called Covenant Breakers - are so imbued
with this idea that unity must be achieved at all costs - that they distort
what is before their very eyes. They refuse to believe what they are seeing.
They delude themselves into thinking that everything is really all right. If
we are not vigilant, if we are not thinking carefully and fairly, we might have
a unified body, but it will be a deformed, decrepit thing. If we don't stand
up for what we think is right, we will be less than human - whether we call
ourselves Baha'is or not. I did not become a Baha'i so that I could be led
blindly into following ways that I know in my heart of hearts is wrong.
Perhaps it would be helpful for all of us to reflect back on how and why we
became Baha'is. Maybe it would be good for all of us to refresh our memories
and ask ourselves what it was we were looking for. I know I was not looking
for an overwhelming bureaucracy that threatens people's position in the Faith
if they don't fall into strict accord with every whim of the NSA. (And I am
not using hyperbole here. I am referring to actual cases. Juan is not
exaggerating about "looking squint eyed at an NSA member.")
Sorry, this is not a posting for the faint hearted, but it is one that comes
deeply from the heart. I spend a good deal of my time who have suffered the
consequences of human rights violations. I cannot bear to see my own
co-religionists suffer from such actions from their own institutions.
On a lighter note, Don, I fully agree with you about the need for individual
and community prayer and devotion. I was simply making the point that a
religious community needs devotions and rituals that bring them together and
make them "a people."
Linda
From dpeden@imul.comWed Nov 22 11:42:37 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 18:32:01+030
From: Don Peden
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Peace by 2000? What is that!
I can't help but to respond (emotionally, I might add) to this issue. I
have written a couple of letters full of anger and negativity on this
thought, citing dozens of things which are not improving for every one which
is mentioned as a "sign" of peace in the year 2000. I have discarded them
(thank God for the discard button) for the sake of brievity and sanity.
I could write volumes on corruption, betrayal, greed, cruelty, rape,
brutality, injustice, and the continuance of corruption, betrayal, greed,
cruelty, rape, brutality, injustice, etc., and the political breeding
grounds we are setting up for even more corruption, betrayal, greed,
cruelty, rape, brutality, injustic, etc. There are not enough adjectives to
describe what I have witnessed...and I am only the witness on the fringes.
God help the people who suffer! Only someone who has experienced war,
genocide, and violence on a sensless scale can begin to understand the
nature of this insanity. I wish I could sit in North America and read about
situations in different parts of the world and do some armchair diagnostics
using the healing powers of the faith. But I stepped over a line...and
there is no innocence left for me...I truly rejoice for you having yours.
Maybe I am even a bit envious. At the same time, I am grateful for the
opportunity of experience. It helps to build compassion...a "knowing".
(Although there must be an easier way to learn that the burner is hot than
sticking your hand on it.) I stopped doing more than glancing at headlines.
To be honest, they horrify me...and I feel helpless before them. They
incapacitate my ability to get up in the morning and function. I don't even
listen to a radio anymore. I hate canned music, I hate advertising and am
sick of "world news".
If I spend too much time thinking about it, I go right strange. I dissolve
in tears, and finally end up in a spiritual meditation of myself seated at
the foot of 'Abdu'l-Baha, and give it all to him. It is too much for me.
When I look into the eyes of these people who perpetrate this kind of
behaviour, I look into a mirror. We ALL possess this dichotomy of being.
There is not one of us on this earth who is not capable of similar behaviour
as sickens my sight, me least of all. The only difference are the choices
we make. How else can you explain a person who is a loving father and
husband, and who doesn't think twice about bayoneting someone else's baby?
We all have the capacity for violence, whether "justified" or not. It is
the nature of defence. How about the defence I wear everyday, which is
walking past the problem, isolating myself from the overwhelming needs which
I am powerless to do much about. It is a floodgate! What about the guilt I
acquire every night when I ask myself, "Could I have done something today
that I chose to ignore? Could I have made a difference?" When I can do
something, I do...but I can't begin to solve the needs of everyone in need,
and so I am selective. Again, guilt: am I being selfish?
This is not hypothetical violence, this is real, happening now, every day.
It has gone on in the past, and is continuing into the future. No one seems
to be looking at the calendar.
I'm sure that someday I'll have to spend time somewhere with someone and
take all this baggage out and deal with it. God will provide the time, the
place and the person when it is appropriate. I can not begin to describe
the deep wound in my heart...not from any one incident, although there are
many, but from the steady diet we eat each day of this garbage. The
senslessness of the suffering and death here are beyond language. And
"here" is only one relatively quiet spot on this planet. I don't dare allow
my imagination to run rampant about what is going on in other places.
Whether it is daily being confronted with poverty and despair which is
beyond our power to change and can only leave one spiritually ill, or the
real physical horrors of the sheer inhumanity of the Rwanda massacre which
the world watched helplessly. Two weeks ago, in downtown Kampala, a man was
hit by a car in a busy round-about. He lay there for half a hour while
three more cars ran over him. People watched. Finally, a foreign doctor
entered the intersection, stopped, and with the help of another foreign
doctor, put the man in their car and drove him the TWO BLOCKS to the
hospital. One person came forward and offered that he had been run over
three times while they were watching. The man died on arrival. Can you
tell me what is missing in this picture?
Another case which jumps to mind is one of rural neighbours ignoring the
needs of an old woman for shelter, unless they are "paid" to help her
(another lesson learned from development!) The list of stories is endless.
I see mentally disturbed people wandering the streets of Kampala, naked,
dirty, disoriented and removed from reality. I think, "Gee, you found your
solution, at least for a little while." And I wonder what they have seen
which made such a retreat necessary. Then I drive on. I become one of the
many, because there is nothing I can do. And I feel heartsick. There is no
help for them...no facilities, no psychiatrists, no family. Are the streets
of our "modern" inner cities any better? Maybe we have a few "institutions"
we can sweep a few "problem people" into, but are we really dealing with the
issues? Do we even know what the issues are?
There are no "sanctuaries", save peace of mind gained from quiet, healing
prayer and meditation. "Remember My days during thy days, and My distress
and banishment in this remote prison. And be thou so steadfast in My
love..." The tears that well in my heart when I think of those lifelines,
and the suffering of Baha'u'llah! It is the only thing which helps keep
things in perspective for me. I have suffered nothing by comparison.
Perhaps the victims I see each day can approach Baha'u'llah with a claim to
empathy. In the meantime, I CLING to the writings. I try as best I can to
put into practice what Baha'u'llah says...especially the parts which deal
with compassion, love, honesty etc. I try to make sense of what I
experience through the writings. I try to "polish my mirror" a little
everyday, hopefully some light can reflect out to another mirror somewhere.
I try and find something and someone each day who is doing something good
and decent. I FILL my eyes with their presence, and I dwell in their
memory...it is the only thing which gives me hope. Little by little, step
by step.
And for all this, I love this place passionately! Not necessarily Kampala,
but through my experience of Uganda, all of Africa, and all its peoples, and
all the world and its peoples, even you folks. You see, we really aren't
any different. Not really. Not when you get right down to this level.
Folks are folks, with all their warts and smiles. Their very humanity is
their saving grace. The only thing I can do is recognize the potential for
good and evil in myself, in others, and, hopefully, set the best example I
am capable of for those whom I am in contact or relationship
with...especially God, where "lies and pretend" get found out real quick.
Burned out? You bet. But, unfortunately, there is no getting off this
boat. I haven't the courage or the time to leap into the water. Besides,
it has already been done, for love of Baha'u'llah.
UN conferences don't impress me too much. Just a great opportunity for the
converted to get together in a gaggle and pat each other on the back...at
great expense I might add. It is also an opportunity for political figures
to do some posturing, and everyone goes home feeling good. Meanwhile, the
suffering continues. Good idea once or twice to compare notes, but a real
waste of money on a regular basis. (Did I hear someone out there whisper
"cynical"? Perhaps, but also, perhaps, informed.) Conferences are good and
fun and a great "high" for those who attend, but the ripple effect ain't
felt too far down.
If there is going to be a peace by the year 2000, well, I'll be delighted if
someone would do it. I'm just too damned tired to do much more than put one
spiritual foot in front of the other, and hope, (pray) for a little
enlightenment, a few less tests for my character and spiritual benefit, and
a real unfoldment of what peace might look like.
Why am I dumping all this on Talisman? I really don't know, except,
perhaps, emotional overload. Sorry for that. There was just something
about that phrase "Peace by the year 2000" that really set me off, and I am
reacting. I freely admit it. I'm not even sure what I am reacting too,
because it is hardly fair to rain on someone's parade. The comment was made
in all honesty, and I really don't mean to put anyone's ideas down. But I
just have reacted so strongly to this, I had to get it out. I think I'd
need a shrink to figure out why my button got pressed.
Love (really,)
Bev
P.S. Although I claim my right to feel what I feel, you don't need to take
it on. Feel free to use the trash button.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 22 11:45:57 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:38:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Science & Epist.
Dear Rooz and All,
All this time that I have not seen you, you must have been
reading a lot of books - not bad for an Aggie ;-)
I am not sure which camp I fall into but the way I see
it, it is the story of the blind men describing the
elephant - each gives a different description based on
what part of the animal he is describing.
This means that while there are "conflicting" descriptions,
there is still one standpoint where the one reality is seen in
its entirety - obviously no one is occupying that position.
The difference between the blind men describing the elephant and
Baha'i scholarship is, I think, whether or not there exists a
hierarchy of standpoints: are some of the observers granted a
wider field of vision? As the comedian Steven Wright says, I
myself am a pheripheral visionary - I have great insight but
just off to the sides.
I am not sure if the following adds anything but I will share
it anyway ;-)
When the Universal House of Justice announced the plans for the
construction of the remaining builidings of the Arc and the
Terraces on Mount Carmel, I had quite a difficult time understanding
why - the main reason was that I did not understand how Baha'is
could be contributing to the economy of a government which I felt
was unjustly treating a significant number of people.
However now, it is crystal clear: there is a tenuous but emerging
peace in the region. Who knows, in a few years we may not have
the chance to build these buildings.
Reading this, Burl may say: MAN, you've gone OVERBOARD.
regards,
sAmAn
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 22 11:47:45 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:25:43 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Ahmad's message
Dear Ahmad, I fear that I somehow missed the "Seed of Creation" posting. I
have been trying to follow the discussions between you and Quanta and Derek. I
did see your statement about leadership being a male thing.
Did I read this correctly? Or were my eyes playing tricks on me?
Dear Ahamd, I do agree that leadership has been in the hands of men for a long,
long time, but there are sociological reasons for this. An introductory
anthropology course would go a long way in explaining why this is so. It would
also help in understanding that such a situation does not have to maintain
forever.
We now have female leaders. They are found in everything from local
organizations to nations. I personally find it incomprehensible that women
in today's world would not be viewed as leaders. There are so many arenas in
which we act. Here in the U.S. it has only been about 20 years since women
were permitted to participate in all spheres of life. Women were forcefully
kept out of all occupations that would have given them the money and clout to
have influence and to act as leaders. As women enter into every profession, we
see them "leading."
However, I concede that this must be very frightening for a lot of men. Linda
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieWed Nov 22 12:00:14 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:38:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: Vivien Hick
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: spilling the beans
Juan wrote:
> What MacEoin does not report here is that he wrote a chapter for the
> Penguin Handbook of Living Religions on the Baha'i Faith, and thatsome
> members of the UK NSA attempted to intervene with J.R. Hinnells, the
> editor and a prominent Persianist, and with Penguin, not to publish it.
> Hinnells now has an extremely low opinion of the Baha'i Faith.
Dear Juan,
The NSA of the UK had not only a right but a duty to attempt to
intervene on behalf of the Baha'i Community in Britain, since MacEoin
is recognised for his anti-Baha'i polemic. He sets himself up as
*the* authority on the Faith (which according to recent citation
statistics he certainly is not), and the National Assembly had a responsibility
to attempt to rectify the bias against the Faith that was obviously going to be
introduced in this quite widely distributed book. I do not see
anything wrong in their attempted intervention. Naturally they may
have gone about it in the wrong way, but the intervention itself was
completely justified.
D.
Darach Watson,
Dept. of Exp. Physics,
UCD,
Ireland.
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 22 12:16:10 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:00:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Vivien Hick
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: spilling the beans
Darach:
On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Darach wrote:
> Dear Juan,
> The NSA of the UK had not only a right but a duty to attempt to
> intervene on behalf of the Baha'i Community in Britain, since MacEoin
> is recognised for his anti-Baha'i polemic. He sets himself up as
> *the* authority on the Faith (which according to recent citation
> statistics he certainly is not), and the National Assembly had a responsibility
> to attempt to rectify the bias against the Faith that was obviously going to be
> introduced in this quite widely distributed book. I do not see
> anything wrong in their attempted intervention. Naturally they may
> have gone about it in the wrong way, but the intervention itself was
> completely justified.
> D.
> Darach Watson,
> Dept. of Exp. Physics,
> UCD,
> Ireland.
>
This is Juan: I find it completely baffling that someone who advertises
himself as being in a department of experimental physics should defend
the practice of religious bodies attempting to intervene in academic free
inquiry through complaint and intimidation. How would you feel if you
had written a chapter on the Big Bang and a group of Christian
fundamentalists came to your editor and publisher and argued it should
not be published because it was contrary to the book of Genesis?
In the world of intellectuals and academics, there is only one legitimate
response to the academic writing of Denis MacEoin about the Baha'i Faith,
and that is to write other articles in which his sources, allegations and
conclusions are critically examined. (I am, incidentally, the only
Baha'i historian actually to have engaged in some of this critique of
MacEoin in print, so I am practicing what I am preaching).
The attempt to intervene in the publication of an academic book was
ham-handed, stupid, and scandalous, and unless Baha'is begin to
understand that they have not been given some sort of divine sanction to
act like boors, they will simply go on alienating thinking persons the
world over. Then they complain about the "apathy" toward the Faith in
the West!!
Burl's point should not be lost sight of. This sort of thing goes down
very badly with thinking people, and with the increasing publication of
such stories by people involved in them such as MacEoin, the incidents
and policies are becoming widely known and being spread via e-mail. The
Faith is being hurt.
So, Darach, I plead with you and with other like-minded Baha'is to
rethink your position here, which transparently is one that damages the
good name and best interests of the Baha'i Faith.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 22 13:23:07 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:16:03 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Peace by 2000? What is that!
Dear Bev,
Is that me speaking in you? I live in US and do not envy me.
I know of many converted american sisters in our Faith who have been
so brutalized by unspeakable horrors from childhood on,
that one even have the tendency to stab herself out of anger.
I know of some who were victims of multiple crimes, rape,
incest, sexual harassment, molestation who either turn their
anger inward or outward to society. This is no heaven my dear.
They find no comfort from their fellow believers, for they are
ashamed of being the victims of these horrors and blame
themselves. Why did I deserve this? is their painful question.
I believe it is more painful to suffer in a country that prides
itself with having so much of everything. It is like suffering
of Sisyphus of Tantalus without deserving their punishment.
But, I hear and feel your pain and those of others as well.
Political peace does not have a trickling down effect on the
millions of innocent people, yet. Think of the champagne
glass, the top has the most and the bottom practically nothing.
Trickling down is not enough!
Baha'is are in a state of empathy, not compassion. I have not seen any description
in the prayers which says "O Thou Most Empathizer!" It is always "The Most Compassionate!"
Do we understand the difference? In my experiences, NO!!
This is what I have been told by two young men from India and
Costa Rica who have relatives and close associates as Baha'is,
"Baha'is are good at intellectual stuff, but I don't see them
full of love and compassion for others". Although, they like
the "ideas" they decided to become Christians instead, where
they found more caring and a place where they also could
systematically and individually put their compassion to work.
I am sorry, if I added more salt and pepper to your wounded heart.
Please forgive me.
lovingly,
quanta...(*_*)
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 22 13:35:03 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:14:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
Brent: I very much respect your expertise in legal matters and take your
warning that a Baha'i legal code would have to be carefully crafted very
seriously.
However, I am somewhat baffled by your argument. You admit that the loss
of administratie rights is a very serious affair. And you say that you
would not want it to become possible in any particular instance because
of a badly-worded statute.
But you seem unconcerned that the "law" governing the removal of
administrative rights at this point is *even more vague and problematic*
than any crafted statute can possibly be. Moreover, there is no default
in the current system. *Any* controversial speech *could* be
sanctionable. Every case is dealt with on an ad hoc basis. There are no
precedents and no case law (which is also true in Islamic law and is one
of the things `Abdu'l-Baha complained about in Secret of Divine
Civilization).
Basically, as things now stand no Baha'i can ever know when they might be
breaking the law. For all I know, it may be illegal to complain about
the lack of codified human rights law in the Faith, or it may be illegal
to say that NSAs have in some instances acted arbitrarily and have not
been overturned by the House. (This is certainly the case, and I can
document it if challenged; the question is whether I can say it).
So I am *more* worried about ambiguities than you are. The difference is
that the current system frightens me to death with its ambiguities and
potential for abuse, and I think *any* legal code that made a good-faith
attempt to specify clearly which actions are illegal and which are not
would be a vast improvement.
Some respondents have been concerned that a legal code would tie LSAs'
hands, forcing them to prosecute when they might be more inclined to be
lenient. And it is pointed out that the attitude of the accused is very
important in the implementation of Baha'i sanctions. My response is that
the legal code can easily be worded so as to give Baha'i prosecutors wide
leeway in whether to press charges. And even in civil law, prosecutors
and judges often take the attitudes and demeanor of the accused into
account in sentencing.
In short, I think a legal code could be produced that retained all the
virtues of flexibility enjoyed by the current system, but which removed
some of the potential for abuse by having clearly-specified crimes
spelled out. That way, we could know for sure that a mere e-mail message
that objected to some NSA policy or act was not sanctionable.
Or is it?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From rvh3@columbia.eduWed Nov 22 13:40:21 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:29:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: Juan R Cole , StrayMutt@aol.com, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, [G. Brent Poirier] wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about a comprehensive list of sanctionable offenses.
> On the one hand, if I were going to lose something so precious, I would
> want every opportunity for fairness, and as a lawyer, we are trained to
> make sure that the offense is actually proscribed in the language of the
> law.
>
> On the other hand, doesn't that lead to prolixity? Doesn't this
> inevitably lead to massive tomes, and written opinions distinguishing
> this incident from that one, and the development of more "regulations" as
> the Guardian said, and an over-emphasis on legalisms, which he
> discouraged at the present time?
>
> Where is the balance? On the one hand, of course we don't want
> deprivations of rights based on whim. On the other hand, we don't want,
> or at least *I* don't want, the cases where technical imperfections in
> statute-drafting result in injustices either way...[stuff deleted]
Brent, I share your concerns, both of which, I think, have a basis in the
Baha'i writings and the writings of the Guardian. On the one hand
Baha'u'llah did not hold in high esteem the legalism of the Shi'ism and
surely did not want legalistic nitpicking to occupy the energies of his
own community. On the other hand, he placed the highest value on
justice, and justice according to the Baha'i as well as other
definitions, would seem to require written laws, for two reasons. First,
in Baha'i jurisprudence, ignorance is of the law is a valid defense.
The enforcement of Baha'i law cannot, therefore, take place in any
meaningful way without these laws being written, published, and
promulgated. Unwritten laws, it seems to me, have not only been out of
fashion for a number of centuries, but are contrary this principle of
Baha'i jurisprudence. Baha'u'llah wrote down the laws that he revealed
and had them published in his own lifetime, and, it seems to me, the
institutions that were established on the basis of his writings would be
well-advised to follow his example. It is true that the entire Kitab-i
Aqdas was not widely circulated in the Western Baha'i community until
recently, but this principle was upheld by circulating information about
all of the law that were to be enforced within the Western Baha'i
community.
A second principle of Baha'i jurisprudence that is indirectly related to
written law is that of equality before the law. According to this
principle, elucidated by `Abdu'l-Baha, it would be an injustice to
enforce a law in an unequal way--at least this is my understanding of its
implications. How could it ever be determined if laws were enforced
equally, rather than selectively, if they are not written and published?
Although I think the Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi all
wished to avoid an overly-legalistic bureaucracy with a mass of rules and
regulations, each of them put their own legislation and judicial
decisions in writing, and, when they had implications for the generality
of the Baha'i community, they had them circulated. Hence, I don't think
that having a written code of laws necessarily has to result in massive
tombs of legislation. I would hope not, anyway.
Having said that, I am not sure that these kind of legal reforms are
really going to bring about the results their advocates seek. From the
perspective of efficient administration, I think it would be useful for
NSA's in large national communities to develop better record keeping
systems for the documents that state their official policies and various
matters--many organizations have numbered administrative or
policy memoranda that are periodically reviewed and updated. This would
avoid the embarassing and confusing situation of have contradictory
policy statements without anyone necessarily knowing about more than one
of them, or, if they do, knowing which one is in effect. But, while I
certainly do not opppose the idea of putting in writing those offenses
for which a person may be deprived of his/her adminsitrative rights, or
any of the other reforms suggested here, they all seem to me to be geared
to reform a different kind of administrative system than the one we have.
It is my opinion that, unlike parliamentary democracies as they have
evolved in Europe and North America, Baha'i administration is very
delicate and is based on different assumptions about the human character
of the elected and the electorate. While the former are rooted in the
assumptions that everyone will have the tendency to pursue personal
self-interests in all social positions--hence the need for checks and
balances to minimize individuals' and factions' ability to abuse their power
and privilege--the Baha'i system is based on the assumption that
individuals in all positions can transcend their personal and corporate
interests, at least to some extent, for the greater good. Perhaps the
Baha'i ethos incorporates the anachronistic notion of enlightened
self-interest. At any rate, while the adverserial politics that have
evolved in Western democratic systems may mitigate some of the worst
abuses of power, they have also made effective leadership a rare
commodity. Now, I do not intend to set up Baha'i administration, as it
is currently practiced, as a model that the nations of the world should
emulate, but I don't think it will be very useful to import
refroms from these other systems either.
In my view, the reform that is imperative for the effective fucntioning
of Baha'i administrative institutions is the development of a culture
in which certain standards of conduct are upheld through unwritten rules
and peer pressure. Let's face it, the Baha'i system of administration is
more easily abused by corrupt persons in positions of power than Western
democratic systems. But such persons are not, for the most part, going
to be constrained by constitutions, by-laws, or bills-of-rights. To reform
Baha'i administration, we have to develop a culture in which it is
unthinkable, dishonorable, and shameful to use positions of power with
the slightest taint of self-interest. In such a culture, it might
become customary for assembly members to recuse themselves during
consultation over something in which they have a personal interest, for
example. In the absence of such generally accepted standards of personal
conduct, which would make many current practices simply unthinkable, Baha'i
administration may, at times, be worse than Western democratic
systems. In short, I think it is cultural change and moral reform that
will be the more effective agent for improving the functioning of Baha'i
administrative institutions.
Richard Hollinger
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 22 23:14:26 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:39:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Tone, Words, Utterance
Allah'u'abha!
In response to a thread on "tone" (which I confess to not
having followed closely, although I posted on it earlier), I
would like to offer a few thoughts. I conclude with a suggested
amendment to list rules.
Perhaps it would be most instructive to shift the focus of
discussion from "tone" to utterance and choice of words, and to
refer more frequently to the Writings on the subject.
"Tone" seems hard to define, especially on E-mail, where all
the physical aspects of tone are absent. It is easier to focus
on choice of words (and I do not hold myself up as a positive
example in this category). How does one change one's tone? By
choosing one's words. So why not focus directly on that?
I have also made reference to "tone" but after reading some of
the postings on the subject I'm wondering if they miss the real
point: that especially on E-mail careful choice of words helps one
to 1) get a point across clearly, 2) not generate reaction to
unintended messages read in uncareful wording, and 3) to avoid excess
noise in the list. Even (or perhaps especially) strong words, when
deemed necessary, should be carefully chosen.
Baha'u'llah stressed often the power of words and utterance.
A couple of quotes, I think, make the point clearly:
"Every word is endowed with a spirit, therefore the speaker
or expounder should carefully deliver his words at the
appropriate time and place, for the impression which each
word maketh is clearly evident and perceptible."/1
"Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its
influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this
is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent
upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its
moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as
prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets."/2
As far as the list rules go, I'd like to suggest that it be
suggested that list members (re)read Lawh-i-Maqsud as it treats
words & utterance, education ("Man is the supreme talisman"), and
communication by the wise/learned/scholars. Perhaps this (and
other Writings?) could serve as a source of unofficial guidelines
for each to observe in posting on the list.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
1. Lawh-i-Maqsud, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 172-3.
2. Lawh-i-Hikmat, Lawh-i-Maqsud, & Lawh-i-Siyyid-i-Mihdiy-i-
Dahaji, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, pp. 143, 172 & 198.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 22 23:14:50 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:40:09 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Socrates and the Rosenberg Tablet.
I would like to thank Robert for posting the information regarding
Socrates etc. As I posted recently the Rosenberg tablet which is quoted
from in the Letter from the House is the key element . It just shows we
all need to be a little less dogmatic and more aware of the wealth of
knowledge that is available to us all in the Writings . I do believe
John if you need it you as an historian are on the right track .
History is an area of academic knowledge that looks into the known and
unknown and discovers new truths . Truth and the celebration of it is
what the Revelation of the Blessed Beauty is about.
Kindest Regards
Derek cockshut
}
}
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
Last Updated 5-1-97
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu