Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 11/95b (7)

From jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 25 16:58:27 1995

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:23:10 -0500 (EST)

From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

To: kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Subject: Re: Science, unity, diversity, and religion

Ken:

Thanks for your message. I'm especially interested in what practicing

scientists think about all this.

Actually, ironically enough, probably the best feel for what Baha'u'llah

has to say on standpoint epistemologies can be gained from a book on Ibn

al-`Arabi.

I recommend William C. Chittick, *Imaginal Worlds: Ibn al-`Arabi and the

Problem of Religious Diversity* (Albany: State University of New York

Press, 1994), especially the last chapter. It is in paperback and any

good bookstore should have it. I am unable--and Nima I think agrees with

me here--to discern any substantial way in which Ibn al-`Arabi's theory

of maqams and his standpoint epistemology differs from that of

Baha'u'llah. It was deeply infused into Persian religious culture via

Mulla Sadra & etc.

The Tablet to Jamal-i Burujirdi was translated in Baha'i Studies Bulletin

and Steve Lambden might be implored to post it to Talisman . . .

cheers Juan

From jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 25 16:58:27 1995

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:00:04 -0500 (EST)

From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

To: Vivien Hick <HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ie>

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 jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 25 16:58:27 1995

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:14:06 -0500 (EST)

From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

To: talisman@indiana.edu

Cc: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>

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 jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 25 16:58:27 1995

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:05:50 -0500 (EST)

From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

To: an assistant to the auxiliary board

Subject: RE: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code

Obviously, legal issues are always subjective. However, it is quite

clear that the Dialogue editors were railroaded by the NSA in 1989. When

they wrote heartfelt and human letters of appeal to the House, the House

xeroxed them off and forwarded them to the NSA, which then had these

personal letters read at National Convention! This is the same House

that in reply to my inquiries on historical sources says I cannot see

historical documents from 1910 because they contain personal details of

believers' lives! Although the Dialogue editors were at that

convention openly and publicly accused of "negative campaigning" by

some NSA members, in fact this charge was never proven and the NSA

never removed their administrative rights, though their right to go on

pilgrimage appears to have been temporarily revoked (this is all very murky

because the NSA says it was revoked, but the House wrote Payam Afsharian

that it never was. So *whether* they were sanctioned is not even clear,

except that in actual fact David Langness was stopped from going on

pilgrimage by the NSA or at least by the NSA secretary, who alleges he was

acting on instructions from the NSA and the House, while other members of

the NSA said at the time that they knew nothing about it and the House seems

to have denied they ordered it). If you can untangle this spaghetti,

you're a better man than I. But it is all very unedifying and certainly

not any way to run a religion. 1) It is not clear that there is such an

offense as "negative campaigning", which some NSA members apparently use

to refer to any criticism of NSA policies! 2) It is not clear that the

article prepared for Dialogue entitled "A Modest Proposal" was in fact an

example of negative campaigning; Jim and Dorothy Nelson were shown it and

thought very well of it. It was other members of the NSA that it

angered. 3) It is therefore not clear that David or the other editors

ever did anything wrong, or anything for which they deserved to be

personally attacked on the floor of the national convention. They

submitted the article for *review*! In fact, Tony Lee was a delegate that

year and a prominent believer eligible for election to the NSA himself, and

for him to be personally attacked strikes me as an example of negative

campaigning in and of itself.

The House refused the Dialogue editors' appeal, returning the

matter to the NSA, which had acted in a highly dictatorial and arbitrary

fashion toward these sincere believers, who were merely trying to put out

a magazine and make suggestions for improving the situation of the Faith.

As for Counsellors' being nervous about making waves for fear of

not being reappointed, I have what I think of as excellent evidence for

this assertion; but I cannot, obviously, reveal it without hurting the

interests of the counsellors involved. I think it is clear from a number

of recent incidents that Counsellors, instead of challenging arbitrary

actions by the NSA, simply acquiesce in or even cheerlead for them.

You were earlier angered by my comparison of the way the Baha'i

faith works to a Middle Eastern political party. But you have to realize

that I have in fact lived under one-party rule and I know what it looks

like, while you have not. Here in safe America with all the rights

guaranteed by the Constitution, Baha'is feel free to scoff at liberty.

But in Iran they would be shot simply for their beliefs. I cannot

understand why the Bill of Rights, which is what keeps us from being shot

in the US, is so evil and the Iranian way of doing things, by secrecy,

clique, ad hoc rulings, arbitrary judgments, the absence of effective

legal codes or checks and balances, is so great.

The US is the cradle of the administrative order, which is still

evolving. American Baha'is such as yourself, instead of defending the

status quo in an automatic manner, should be at the forefront of efforts

to bring to greater maturity the community of the Most Great Name. Maybe

the persecutions of the Iranian friends for the last 15 years and the

tremendous reaction to this among human rights groups is God's way of

telling us something. The future lies with human rights, and it is time

for the Baha'is to think seriously about human rights, inside and outside

their community. I have demonstrated in my ABS paper that virtually

every important article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is

supported in the Baha'i Writings. If this is so, why should we not apply

these God-given ideals to the administration of our own communities.

As for attitudes, I am very nervous about someone being punished

for an attitude rather than for an act. Impressions are notoriously

subjective, and a person's attitudes are *very* easily misunderstood or

misinterpreted. Remember, when you first came on Talisman, people

responded to you as though you were opposed to Talisman as a medium of

discourse; it took a while for it to become clear that you were committed

to this discussion and wanted it to succeed and be useful to the Faith.

I think the only safe way to go is to punish visible actions, and only

when these can be confirmed by reliable witnesses.

cheers Juan

From jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 25 16:58:27 1995

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 23:21:56 -0500 (EST)

From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>

Subject: Re: Buddhist theology

Bruce: I can see you really are the essence of detachment, and I am so

grateful to you for sticking it out on Talisman and patiently replying to

misconceptions of Baha'is concerning Buddhism. What has astonished me is

not so much what they do not know ("immortal soul" indeed!) but that

their ignorance does not stop them from confidently making assertions.

We desperately need voices like yours, and I hope you will stay around.

I hope, too, to get back soon to my comparisons/contrasts with Zen.

with Compassion cheers Juan

From jrcole@umich.eduSat Nov 25 16:58:27 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:02:26 -0500 (EST)

From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

Subject: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code

This is private. I thought the following message which I

received, (and to which I do not object to having received) contained

some very interesting clues to how the hardliners view me. I am

"demonstrating a spirit of opposition to the NSA" which is ipso facto

evidence that I must be somehow privately violating some Baha'i laws

(well, no doubt my thoughts are insufficiently pure, but, alas, I can't

think of any excitement in my life that would live up to this person's

expectations).

Fulan/Cole:

I feel that as an article of faith, the path out of the darkness lies in

trust of the institutions; not in trust in a code of laws designed to make

the NSA conform to our view of fairness. I assure you that I know of

examples of excesses, and abuse of power. But I have been at odds with my

NSA, and I have been in harmony with my NSA, and harmony is better. The

deeds get done in the Cause when the spirit of trust is present.

Our point of departure from one another is really at the very first step:

The underlying assumption. You assume that the NSA cannot be trusted. I

assume, regardless of what you know, regardless of what may be established

incidents you are familiar with, that you have not got a clear grasp of

what these institutions are, or the principles of self-purification under

which they operate. I trust Baha'u'llah's Order to not self-destruct.

I am not afraid to apply "old world" principles to the institutions of the

Faith: In consultation, in money management, in efficiency, in justice.

I find that these "modern" insights are implicit, sometimes explicit but

overlooked, in the Text. . . <snip>

But I do not share in the Don Quixote approach to the Baha'i Institutions.

I do not find it admirable to defy them. I do not believe it is accurate

to condemn them, or their motives.

You have been exhibiting a spirit of opposition to the NSA. It has not

been healthy. Juan, sometimes I love you and my spirit soars, as I read

your musings on the Text, and the gifts you give through your translations

and your histories. And sometimes my heart grieves as I read you bleeding

away your devotion. I do not stand with you in your approach to the NSA.

It is not that I turn a blind eye to its deeds. It is that the Master's

view of that body overrides any jaundiced view I might have.

<snip> . . . Let me be frank, and you see if it applies

or not. I have found that when I break a Baha'i law, it blinds me. If

you are breaking any laws, they are distorting your view of the

institutions. I find this in my relation with others. When I break a law

or a spiritual principle, I start picking at my friends and family. I

lose sight of truth, and I get into disharmony. Thankfully, I have

learned somewhat to recognize that spirit of unhappiness when I am

immersed in it, and am slowly learning to not project out onto others my

own inner dissatisfaction.

From belove@sover.netSat Nov 25 23:27:34 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 10:21:56 PST

From: belove@sover.net

To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>,

talisman@indiana.edu

Cc: 748-9178@mcimail.com

Subject: RE2: Socrates hitched his wagon to a Star

Dear Robert,

I hope we don't niggle this to death,... and, that we've already done

relativism once,... this gives me pause, but doesn't stop me. I'll go

it another round or two.

First, you did seem to be making some point about it being possible

to be wrong and you used Socrates as an example. Your rejoinder, that

his "rightness" brought his death, doesn't seem to support your point

that "it's possible to be wrong." So I'm lost.

Second, your point about the "fact" of geese flying south needs to be

parsed out a bit before discussing how context fits and whether is is

"secondary" or "Primary" or whatever.

(Now these thoughts are new and so I don't want to take complete

responsibility for them. I'm just trying stuff out here.)

I think that the term "fact" is not going to work. I suggest trying

something like "observations" and distinquishing them from

"explanations.) This type of analysis comes from Gregory Bateson.

The observation is that Geese Fly South in the Winter. Or that

Baha'ullah died in a certain corner of the world generally named by

many as "the Holy Land."

( The way I've re-worded the observation about Baha'ullah ...

"certain corner...generally named... etc. -- all this is to make

visible the context.)

However, in addition to the context of "observation by certain

people," there is another context: explanation. The geese do what

they did, Baha'ullah died where he died "Because..." And whatever

follows the "because," that is the "explanation. And the explanation

is a set of connnections which refers to and implies an underlying

tautology, a schema, an epistemological standpoint, etc.

My further sense is that the fact/observations are at the standpoint

of Nasut. I'm not yet settled on where the other four levels come it.

Thanks, Robert, for the occassion to sort of some of this. It's

difficult to know what value all of this might be to you, my sorting

out my own position.

But, I do think that we are a bit of a way apart in terms of

fundamental vocabulary here.

Respectfully yours

Phililp

On Sat, 25 Nov 1995 21:50:17 +1200 Robert Johnston wrote:

>Dear Philip,

>>Sorry Robert, I don't see it. Sounds like you are saying that

>>Socrates was wrong because he was put to death? Jesus, that sounds

>>like a cynic's point.

>No. What I am saying is that Socrates' "rightness" (or

"righteousness")

>brought his death. This was the price he paid for his virtue. The

>sophists on the other hand were like those who ask for the truth but

don't

>wait for an answer, and don't occupy high positions in the Baha'i

pantheon.

>>I do think it is possible to be wrong about certain things. But I

>>also think that rightness and wrongness is determined in reference

>>context.

>We have discussed the case for relativism before on Talisman.

Clearly, the

>matter has not been resolved. But I think that we can agree there is

very

>little that is "relative" about the fact the geese in the North

Hempisphere

>fly south in the winter, or that Baha'u'llah died in the Holy Land.

It is

>simply wrong to assert otherwise, and in relation to this factual

>correctness, contextual considerations are a secondary.

>(If I am not mistaken Popper would have claimed that the assertion

that

>geese in the North Hempisphere fly south in the winter was not a

scientific

>fact because it could not be proven true in every case. ;-}

Correct me if

>I am wrong).

>Robert.

-------------------------------------

Name: Philip Belove

E-mail: belove@sover.net

Date: 11/25/95

Time: 10:21:56

This message was sent by Chameleon

-------------------------------------

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.

Einstein

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSat Nov 25 23:28:29 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:22:01 -0800

From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>

To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>

Subject: Re: A message

You wrote:

> My dear Juan

Let me give you a little insight that John Ferraby once gave me.In

dealing with the Administration in matters that are causing growing

strains and the like . He said keep tacking close to the administrative

wind don't sail against it. The reason for that is quite simple you

never allow yourself to be silenced on any matter . You always go in

the direction you want to go and eventually get there intact . Trust me

it works .

Warmest Regards

Derek

>Derek: I'm glad the list has arrived; it will be my privilege to help

>Bosch expand its collection--and If we can trade so that mine is

>improved, as well, cheh behtar, what better?

>Oh, this stuff with National will most likely blow over eventually,

even

>if some of us get our rights removed for a while. We have entered an

>open-information age, and it cannot be repealed, and it will take the

>Leninists within the Faith a little while to adjust. Baha'u'llah will

>see to it that the experience strengthens the Faith in the long run.

>cheers Juan

From sindiogi@NMSU.EduSat Nov 25 23:29:14 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 18:08:47 -0700 (MST)

From: "S. Indiogine" <sindiogi@NMSU.Edu>

To: Peter Loehndorf <wp.loehndorf@essen.netsurf.de>

Cc: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: Re: Mani - a prophet?

I do not know very much about him, but,

On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Peter Loehndorf wrote:

> as far as I know Mani is not regarded as a prophet in the Baha'i Writings. I

> don't know if his name is mentioned at all.

I do not either. He might not be mentioned since his religion has not

survived.

> What do the friends think of him? He had IMHO all the characteristics of a

> prophet: he founded a *universal* and religion, which had intentionally

> ecclectic and synchretistic features. He promulgated his teachings in a

> manner which can only be compared to Paul - regarding his missionary zeal.

> He left written teachings, a theology, a *world-wide* community at his time.

> Diocletian et alii did their best to wipe out this religion. A few hundered

> years later the Mani-community (now called Catharers (spelling correct?))

> vanished for ever. - Of course he was a radical concerning the way of life

> of his Electi, but nobody had to become an Electus...

I found very interesting that Mani called himself a 'Manifestation of

God'. It might have very well been the first time in history that

someone has done this. I wonder whether the Bahai use of this term was

dependent on Mani?

There are two features about Mani that make his person quite problematic

for me. 1. His misogyny (sp?). He considered women inferior creatures and

helplessly tainted by sin.

2. His elitist structure of the community. There was an upper class. I

think that the Druze have a similar structure. Maybe he did this for

security reasons. His religion was quite persecuted until the Albigensis

Crusade where they were all killed and their books burned. Everything

was sponsored and blessed by the pope and carried out by the French

aristocracy intent on robbing and looting of this very prosperous community.

Bye,

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 LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduSat Nov 25 23:30:03 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 20:48:17 EWT

From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu

To: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: lace

Dear Derek, now you even have Sheila Banani - someone whom I sincerely respect

and wish to think well of me - referring to my lace! Really, Derek, there are

things you must learn to keep private - my lace is one of them!!!!

How could I ever show up at the Mysticism Conference now after this

embarassment. Everyone (when they weren't watching Sherman twirling around in

his little turban and robes) would come up to me inquiring about my lace.

This doesn't bear thinking of!

Now, if Derek could keep his comments to himself for a few minutes, I would

like to comment on the posting about ritual prayer that apeared two or three

days ago. The poster, whose name I cannot recall, said that perhaps we should

not even hold hands and sing Allah'u'abah because of the restriction against

communal prayer.

John then posted an explanation based on translation of Baha'u'llah's exact

term for prayer - salat. I have wondered about this restriction for a very

long time. Coming together for prayer is a very powerful expression. Having

shopkeepers close up and people leave whatever they are doing to go to the

mosque to pray is quite dramatic show of community solidarity. However, I also

see a problem with it. If everyone leaves off working or whatever to go off to

pray, that means that those outside of that religious system are quite

conspicuous for their absense. So, if a majority of a community were Baha'i,

but say 10% or so weren't, this would accentuate the difference between the

Baha'is and non-Baha'is and cause tension.

I think it is important that we understand that the restriction is only on

obligatory prayer, though, because of the positive force of collective prayer.

There is a difference between everyone going off to pray at noon in a publc

manner and people gathered together in each other's homes or in temples

chanting prayers together.

And, finally, Bev, I found your description of African eating habits as they

relate to female and male roles to be very interesting. Often a particular

item in a society - be it food or something else - will gain great significance

because it is associated with higher status groups. Also, you seem to be

saying that, while women are gaining in independence and are not so willing to

carry out acts that reflect subservience, they are even more burdened now with

responsibility than before (if this is possible.) Linda

From brburl@mailbag.comSat Nov 25 23:30:17 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:51:08 -0600

From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>

To: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: R*****'s talk with the Buddha

Robert Johnston.

> 'Dear Bruce,

> '. Are you implying by your

>"currently" that the Buddha is still around somewhere?

> 'Yes.

> 'Robert.' <

That's nice, where is he? Talk to him lately? Don't be shy, you can

share it with us.

Bruce

From brburl@mailbag.comSat Nov 25 23:32:44 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:52:31 -0600

From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>

To: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: Buddhist theology

Bev,

> " > 'Yours in "that word and all it implies",' <

> " That's scary.

> "Yeah, it is scary to think about people TRYING to be of service

using what they understand of Spirituality. It means taking a risk, and

often being wrong. By the way, I NEVER sign letters that way, I was

simply being sarcastic regarding the use of the word God. That was less

than honourable, and I apologize." <

No need to apologize. It _is_ scary for what "that word" implies.

> 'Don't you think it is a little pointless to argue semantics? Whether

you use the word God, or whether you use the phrase "mystery of

existence", can you not accept that we are trying to discuss something

that we all do not fully understand? If you can't, there is no point of

discussion. The use of words or labels is necessary only to facilitate

verbal communication.' <

For some reason I don't think you are quite catching the point of my

objection. Simply, what you've implied by stating, > '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," < is significantly different from what Buddhism would

look like if it were cast it into a god talk mold. Words facilitate

communication, and they are the basis by which we form our

understanding of a given subject. Your understanding of Buddhism may

be that our spirit or soul is created perfect in the image of god, but that

simply is not what Buddhism would say about its self. Why do you have

difficulty in understanding that? Unless your words don't mean what

they seem to mean?

> "I can also recognize that the Buddhist viewpoint does not recognize

the historic idea of God. I'm not sure that Baha'is do either." <

Historic idea of god? Whatever could that mean? Is the Baha'i notion of

god so unique? It certainly does not seem so.

> "I don't, which was why I was asking you to rethink the assumption

that my view of God was a historical one...how could you know what

my idea of god is? Perhaps there was an assumption on your part that

my words meant a set of ideas, and this may or may not have been

true." <

How could I know what your idea of god is? All I know is what I read,

and I read them as they are written. Perfect soul in the image of god

reads a great deal differently than of the same nature of god,

undifferentiated therefrom.

> 'I wasn't aware that the Buddha had commented on all extant

religious ideologies. But since his comments are now captured into a set

of carried on teachings, does that mean that there is a Buddhist theology

and a Buddhist "Church"? Doesn't that make Buddhism one of those

extant religious ideologies? And how could Buddha comment on

Baha'u'llah? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am asking.' <

The Buddha commented of the various ideologies extant during his time.

Theology would actually be the wrong word given the Buddha's and

Buddhism's rejection of the god notion. Part of the problem with this

question is that Baha'i has virtually no history of ideas from which its

followers are informed, which seems to make understanding the older

religions' history of ideas a bit difficult (unless the Baha'i in question

has a broader understanding of the phenomenon of religion and the

notion of a history of ideas).

The Buddha didn't comment on Baha'u'llah, but he left behind a

framework by which such commentary could take place.

> "Could the Buddha have been commenting on our reactions to those

teachings, and our making an icon of the manifestation? Or do you

think he was being more direct?" <

More direct.

> "I don't feel any mission to run out and insist that Buddhists view

spirituality through my chosen path." <

You may not, but more often than not Baha'is do by the very way they

try to redefine Buddhism and the Buddha to fit their framework. Moojan

Momen's BUDDHISM AND THE BAHA'I FAITH is a perfect example

of this, as is the piece of silliness from the Australia/New Zealand NSA

you quoted:

"The Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but His followers

do not possess His authentic Writings."

Here we have Baha'is telling us they know better the reality of the

Buddha than do the Buddhists who have his teaching alive for the last

2,500 plus years. It is a very arrogant and self serving and ignorant

thing for the NSA to say. It shows no understanding or sensitivity to the

actual history of Buddhism. And I have heard variation of this from

Baha'is over the years, and I have yet to hear a Baha'i actually make

an informed comment on this issue.

> "As far as how the Baha'i faith views Buddhism, well, I don't know.

I'm sure there others on this list who can answer that better than me,

perhaps even yourself." <

Other than a very few individuals, the attitude in general has been one

Baha'i attempting subsuming Buddhism and the Buddha, spiritual

imperialism.

> "You are claiming to judge my views from your perspective, and yet

insist that I can not comment on yours through my perspective." <

I am claiming to judge your position? Hardly. I have done no more than

respond to what you have written. Of course you can comment on my

position through your perspective, but if you cannot accurately present

the Buddhist position from its own perspective, your comments from

your perspective are rather meaningless. And that is my point.

> "I had assumed that we had some dialogue in common

with Buddhists which could allow an exchange of ideas, and that I,

personally, as a Baha'i, would benefit from such a dialogue and

questions." <

Certainly there is room for dialogue, but not if you are making

assumptions about what Buddhism is from your perspective before you

understand it from its own perspective. That takes work.

> 'And yes, I believe Hitler and his crones were also part of God's

creation, like it or not. So is HIV and mosquitos. What role they serve

is a whole different discussion which I am not qualified to get into. But

it does strike me that when you look at "creation" and "nature", HIV

acts true to its nature. So do mosquitos. We humans seem to be one

part of the creation who have choices about what aspects of our nature

we will develop.' <

Yes, there is a whole long discussion here, and it is here that I find the

idea of god so repugnant.

Bruce

From brburl@mailbag.comSat Nov 25 23:34:14 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:54:07 -0600

From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>

To: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: Buddhist theology

Juan R Cole,

> "Bruce: I can see you really are the essence of detachment, and I am

so grateful to you for sticking it out on Talisman and patiently replying

to misconceptions of Baha'is concerning Buddhism. What has

astonished me is not so much what they do not know ("immortal soul"

indeed!) but that their ignorance does not stop them from confidently

making assertions. We desperately need voices like yours, and I hope

you will stay around. I hope, too, to get back soon to my

comparisons/contrasts with Zen.' <

I am going to take this as it is written, though I am not so certain there

might not be a bit tongue in cheek. Confidently making assertions

Buddhism (or whatever) on the basis of what Baha'i is telling -- but

never mind not having a clue as to what Buddhism actually says -- is

what I have found to be the norm. I'll stick around. Yes, I am interested

in your Zen comparisons.

Bruce

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Nov 26 00:57:24 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 21:45:29 -0700 (MST)

From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>

To: JWALBRID@indiana.edu

Cc: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: Re: Misuse of the list

On Fri, 24 Nov 1995 JWALBRID@indiana.edu wrote:

> I am unsubscribing all the members that I know of at the Baha'i

> National Center.

> I am reporting the details of the incident to the relevant officials

> here at Indiana University.

Ah. The snowball starts rolling.

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduSun Nov 26 00:58:08 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 21:55:03 -0700 (MST)

From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" <gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu>

To: JWALBRID@indiana.edu

Cc: talisman@indiana.edu

Subject: Talisman bill of rights

On Fri, 24 Nov 1995 JWALBRID@indiana.edu wrote:

> An individual at the United States Baha'i National Center has misused the

> list and threatened another member of the list. At least one subscriber

> was also involved. The members will understand that for both ethical and

> legal reasons, I cannot condone such conduct.

Let's see. Deprivation of Talisman rights. I recall reading the list of

rules, but don't recall that specific violation as being grounds for being

removed from the list. We might consider an exhausive list of possible

acts that would lead to deprivation of Talisman rights. If the act in

question were not on the list, the list owner would be powerless to

deprive the individual of his subscription.

Or, perhaps the list owner recognizes that he has a responsibility, to

academic freedom, to his position as a professor, to the taxpayers of the

state of Indiana ... and recognizes that sometimes he must act swiftly

when to his eyes it is in the "best interests" of the list, whether the

act was a specified violation or not.

Cannot others with responsibility also be accorded the freedom to act,

when they are the bearers of a sacred responsibility, in accordance with

their charter, their guidance, and their authority? The one in authority

must be allowed some latitude; he is, after all, the one who is

accountable.

From SFotos@eworld.comSun Nov 26 01:25:21 1995

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 22:20:16 -0800

From: SFotos@eworld.com

To: Talisman@indiana.edu

Cc: ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au

Subject: Foods and "Seeds"

Dear Talismans--particularly Ahmad,

Bev's posting on dietary restrictions for women in Uganda applies to a number

of other traditional societies. In Heian era Japan, women were forbidden so

many sources of animal protein that artwork of "beauties" of that era show

pale women with strange, elongated bone structure, obviously malnourished.

Traditional Hawaiian society had similar restrictions. It is interesting that

most pre-agricultural, hunter and gathering societies had/have no such

dietary rules. It can be argued (and is, especially among ecofeminists) that

suppression of women began at the time of agricultural surpluses, which meant

that their full and equal participation in securing food was no longer

necessary.

Which leads to a few comments on Ahmad's "Seeds of Creation." His argument

is based on a presumed dualistic nature of living organisms, with males as

the active force and females as the receptive force. Thus, only

the"active"males can be Manifestations or members of the Universal House of

Justice. I hesitate to be too critical of charming and unmarried Ahmad's

thesis, since, like Quanta, I, too, have a beautiful young daughter,

intelligent and a deepened Baha'i, but I would like to point out a few

inconsistencies.

I. Dualism in all three kingdoms: That dualism is a universal phenomenon is

simply not true for many animals or vegetables, and doesn't apply at all to

minerals.

Leaving aside consideration of simple division in unicelled forms of both

plants and animals, among various groups of algae ( seaweed), there are often

three "sexes", haploid (half the number of chromosomes) "females", haploid

"males" and diploid forms with the full number of chromosomes. The haploid

and diploid generations alternate. In higher plants and animals the only

haploid forms are the gametes. Furthermore, certain lizards, such as the

gekko, are only female and reproduce parthenogenetically for generations.

IMHO, dualism as an organizing principle has always been over-generalized

and has a sexist overtone. It was especially prevalent in societies where

women were dreadfully repressed, e.g., the yin and yang in China during the

footbinding era of last century, where upper-class women had their feet

folded over and crippled so that they couldn't walk--the terrible "golden

lilies."

2. Males as the highest level of the physical world--the active force in

reproduction.

("Active" has not been defined or operationalized.)

At present, it is possible to extract human gametes and have fertilization

occur in a petri-dish. So how "active" does this make the male today? In many

lower life forms, gametes are not differentiated as to size, but higher forms

tend to have large, stationary eggs (containing plenty of food for embryo

development) and smaller mobile sperm. I don't consider that sperm motility

necessarily endows males with more "active" qualities. If anything,

successful carrying and releasing the new generation, which is performed by

the female, would seem to be more "active" is the sense that a new entity is

produced.

Furthermore, I believe that human embryos are female until hormone production

develops male sexual characteristics. If this is true and "ontogeny

recapitulates phylogeny", then males are derived from females.

3. "Manifestations have always been in the form of male individuals...this

pattern will always continue because...it is a fact of creation."

We don't know that this is true. Threads on Talisman have raised the

possibility that women have been spiritual leaders in the past. And we don't

know that membership on the Universal House of Justice will always be

restricted to males. This is probably just a social law and we have seen how

temporary those have been in previous Revelations.

Best,

Sandy Fotos

From SFotos@eworld.comSun Nov 26 01:25:50 1995