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
to
>>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
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 robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Nov 26 11:07:13 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:42:06 +1200
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE2: Socrates hitched his wagon to a Star
Dear Philip,
On the basis of "language game" analysis you suggested that
both Chris and I might be right about North American Manifestations. I
am saying that this kind of argument is sophistry, and that right and wrong
explanations exist, albeit relatively, perhaps. ;-}
Further, I am linking intellectual correctness with ethical virtue and
suggesting the price one might have to pay for not being a sophist. I yawn
at my own capacity for complexity, my friend!
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Nov 26 11:07:21 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:46:34 +1200
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: R*****'s talk with the Buddha
Bruce, responding to my assertion that Buddha wasn't dead, wrote:
>
>That's nice, where is he? Talk to him lately? Don't be shy, you can
>share it with us.
Answers: (1) in the world of spirit; (2) no.
No problem sharing this amigo!
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzSun Nov 26 11:07:50 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:58:20 +1200
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist theology
This letter wins second prize for humour... Qanta got first with her
letter to Ahmad. However, as I am sole judge, the decisions are probably
rash and hasty. Nevermind!
I'm glad you and Juan know what you're both talking about!
Robert.
>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 dpeden@imul.comSun Nov 26 11:12:53 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 95 17:33:57+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhism
Dear Bruce: (This is too long, but please be patient with my struggle to
understand.)
'According to my understanding...our spirit or soul is created
perfect...it is God's image," <
To me this implies that the spirit is created/given/breathed or whatever
into man. That spirit has many latent elements which can grow and develop
given the right environment, and the elements can develop in any combination
of ratios. I don't see it as a static thing. My understanding of the role
for the "soul" or spirit after you leave this life is tht there are many
ways and means that this "energy" (for lack of a better word) might become
part of that ongoing movement. It is rather staggering and awesome. I don't
think I believe in a personified "God". Even the act of giving "God" a
personified identity which says it is "doing something" doesn't feel right.
The concept is so elusive that to personify it is a reflection only of our
limitation of understanding.
My idea of "created perfect" is an inherent one...a seed is a perfect tree,
(unless it is a dud to begin with) but there are conditions which must be
met in order for it to reach it's maturity, and many things can happen to
alter its form along the way. The process of its development is it's
"journey". My idea of God is so broad, vast, faceted, fragmented, cohesive,
etc., that it is beyond my capacity of words to try and convey. I feel like
a little kid standing beside the Great Rift Valley, spreading my arms out
and saying "And it was THIS BIG!" There is so much going on inside of the
idea of "Great Rift Valley" that go beyond physical appearance, to all the
relationships that keep it happening, any puny attempts I make to embrace it
are futile. I can only look at phenomena related to it. It up to me to
figure out what elements are available to use to be an active part of that
whole. The Manifestations or Fully Enlightened Ones, be they Baha'u'llah or
Buddha help us by providing guidance to that end. I can't be writing
volumes of adjectives every time I want to address this phenomena which I
can't describe anyway, and so I use the word, God. So does Baha'u'llah.
I have chosen a set of words which have an unfortunate implied meaning for
you. It doesn't necessarily hold that the same meaning is there for me. I
think your point is valid. I am learning that there are associations which
people hold to certain sets of words which don't necessarily have the same
idea behind them as I have. But, then, how do we get past this problem of
language?
Juan, you stated that you were amazed at the ability of so many on Talisman
to make statements about something they didn't understand. Did I ever say
my understanding was the correct one? How do you expect me to expand that
understanding if I don't open my mouth? We don't exactly have a Buddhist
scripture library down the street here in Kampala, and I'm too old to start
trying to learn Sanskrit to read them even if I had them. I am dependant on
interpretation by others. Dan May has been able to increase my
understanding more in one short posting than all of this bickering back and
forth could possibly have done, and he did it in a very direct but sensitive
way giving me access to passages from Buddhism which demonstrate the point
and gives me a chance to correct any misconceptions I had. I'm grateful to
Dan for taking the time. I have no problem about being wrong in my choice
of words. Dan said, in essence, "you're wrong, here's why, this is
something of the Buddhist Scriptures that give you insight as to the
perspective." Bruce has just said "You can't say that." Being contentious
to begin with, my immediate reaction is "Why not! Who are you to say what I
can and can not say, and what gives you the right to attach your
interpretation to what I am trying to express. How arrogant."
>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.<
My point exactly. How could you know what I am seeing? You are reading
what is written and judging them by your associations with those written
words. I've still not acquired that set of ideas, my understanding is still
in formation. So other than an association with the "THIS BIG" concept, I
don't have a fixed idea of the God word. I don't think a static idea is even
desirable.
If I "tell" you about street children I saw on the street yesterday, about
their ragged clothing, and the look of suspicion and defiance on their
faces, a culture apart and a community drawn together for the necessity of
survival, I will have one picture in my mind. My words will convey a "set"
to your mind's eye, and your mind will fill it in with all the details
available to you in your learned experience. The pictures, if we could
project them, would be very different. You would wonder if we were talking
about the same thing, but in essence we are. It is the experiences we
attach to them that are different, and if, instead of arguing about which
picture is right, we try and see the pictures for what they are, we both learn.
When I do a painting, one of the very fascinating things for me which keeps
the painting "alive" is the fact that I can be standing there looking at it,
and another person can come along and be looking at the same painting and
see something entirely different in it according to their experience. I
never "correct" them, because their experience of the painting is just as
real as mine. I learn from their experience, and it adds to my own, and to
my own continued enjoyment of the painting. Otherwise, the painting is
"finished" for me when I have put all my understanding into it, and it stops
talking to me. It becomes a dead thing. The "vision" of what another sees
when they see it gives it creative dynamic life which continues beyond me.
If no one sees anything in it, it is not a dynamic painting, because it ends
when my involvement ends. It would be nothing more than self therapy. But
if I had never painted the picture, or spoken the words, and risked mistakes
or fumblings, there would be no place for dialogue and sharing to begin. It
is a learning process. So, I risk foot in mouth disease, and will continue
to do so.
>From your assumption that I can't start with "that phrase" because you have
a different set of associated experience with those words than I do, you
are essentially saying there is nothing I could appreciate about Buddhism, I
don't have the right words to open the door. Door closed. The difference
between your style and Dan's style is that he has given me the message,
"Not an appropriate choice of words, here is a better selection and some
ideas behind them to start with." Door open; BIG difference.
> The Buddha commented of the various ideologies extant during his
time. Theology would actually be the wrong word... Baha'i has virtually no
history of ideas from which its followers are informed, ...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.<
Perhaps the word philosophy would be more fitting to the concepts of
Buddhism as it is understood. That way it deals with ethics and moral
practices, not God. Theology would entail more along the lines of enquiry
into the nature of God and a systematic study of religious teachings. Does
this mean that Buddhism is not included in the realm of religious teachings?
I understand the mistake I made in my choice of words there. But where did
Buddha receive his inspiration from?
I don't see Baha'is as "not having a history of ideas from which its
followers are informed". Baha'is are coming from so many different
traditions and backgrounds, that the pool of knowledge can be very rich. It
can also bring a lot of baggage associated with historic ideas. Also,
Baha'u'llah comes from an Islamic background, and if you want a concrete
history to base Baha'i from, I guess you could seize on that one.
There is nothing in my background which would instill in me the slightest
curiosity about Buddhism, except for Baha'u'llah's recognition and praise of
Buddha as a manifestation of God, and his encouragement to consort with
people of all faiths in a spirit of fragrance, love and unity. I think that
the Baha'i teachings deserves a little appreciation for being a catalyst to
a desire for understanding.
Because the idea of even trying to understand the older religion's history
of ideas from their perspective is a relatively new one, yes, we are all
clumsy at it. We do need a broader understanding. On this comment I
happily seize a point of agreement. So help me out and give me something I
can learn from. I am more than willing to be informed. Help broaden my
understanding in a way which doesn't try and belittle me.
>> "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.<
How? Can you elaborate?
I haven't read the book you mention written on Buddhism by a Baha'i, and
therefore must plead ignorance. But it does occur to me that it is doubtful
that teachings which have been kept alive for 2500 years have not acquired a
few embellishments on the way. It isn't human nature to keep things that
pure. Rather than get bogged down in nit picking on that, I would rather
understand the intent and purpose of the Buddhist writings and try and
understand the true principles involved. That probably has survived.
As for the quote, please read my reference. The quotation was in a letter
to the N.S.A. from the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi. As to how much he knew or
didn't know, well, I'm not in a position to judge that. Anyway, don't blame
the N.S.A. or the Baha'is for the statement. Another quote I have found is
from 'Abdul'-Baha, who listed Buddha amongst the great Manifestations of
God. Of those Manifestations, he said:
"...They establish a new religion and make new creatures of men; They change
the general morals, promote new customs and rules, renew the cycle and the
Law. Their appearance is like the seasons of spring which arrays all earthy
beings in a new garment, and gives them a new life." - Some Answered
Questions, p. 165.
>Other than a very few individuals, the attitude in general has been one
Baha'i attempting subsuming Buddhism and the Buddha, spiritual
imperialism.<
Am I to assume that when the Buddha made comments about the religions of his
time, as you have stated, that his followers did not try and fit their
understanding of those religions into their Buddhist framework? Are you not
trying to fit your understanding of Baha'i into a Buddhist framework? Could
it be possible that Baha'is are trying to do the same? Whether it is a
legitimate way of relating a past teaching with a present one is another
question. But then, both communities would be guilty, wouldn't they?
However, I would not be so quick to accuse Baha'u'llah of "subsuming"
Buddha, or the Buddha of "subsuming" religions of His time.
I can't speak in either defence or condemnation of the attitudes of the
other Baha'is, but I rather resent being made the target of your anger
towards their attitudes. I also don't appreciate being tarred with the same
brush because I am a Baha'i. Isn't that a bit prejudicial? I get enough of
that inherited colonialism stuff here because my skin is white...I'm
expected to be responsible and apologize for a lot of rotten stuff other
people I don't even know did. It doesn't wash. Imperialistic? Well,
Shoghi Effendi did use the classical archetecture in constructing the world
centre. This is documented in Baha'i World. The associations he wanted
drawn were quite deliberately based on classical ideas. He wanted the
archetecture to reflect the timelessness of the Faith, that it was a thing
of renewal and of lasting influence. There is a political structure mapped
out in the Baha'i administrative system. Whether this extends to spiritual
knowledge is another question. As you have seen on Talisman, the
relationship between the political structure of the Faith and how it is
influenced by spiritual principles is something Baha'is are struggling to
understand.
It is unfortunate that some parts of history lend such a distinctive sour
taste to "imperialism". It would be interesting to explore some positive
attributes of imperialism before we shun the whole thing. I, for one, don't
know enough about the concepts to see it in either a positive or negative light.
>I am claiming to judge your position? ... your comments from
your perspective are rather meaningless. And that is my point<
Does that mean I must be a scholar of Buddhism before I can participate in a
dialogue? To assume that someone needs a complete and operating knowledge
of Buddhism and it's terminology before they dare a comment of perspective
or appreciation keeps it to a pretty elite few, don't you think? And it
certainly doesn't allow for my growth of understanding.
>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.<
If you really mean that, then I would suggest that we are already working
trying to find some basis to start from...at least I feel I am, or I
wouldn't be wasting my time writing all these responses. (Don is laughing
at me for becoming embroiled in this controversy. This kind of
confrontation is one I usually avoid like the plague. He wants to know why
I continue. I don't know, except that I have enough respect for Buddhism
through my exposure to it through the Baha'i Faith to want to know more.) I
want to understand. If I can't start from where I am standing, you'll have
to direct me to where you would like me to view this picture from. Place me
in the picture, keeping in mind that I am not a scholar and do not have that
background, and don't even have access to a decent library. However,
another assumption I am making is that Buddhism is meant for more than just
scholars. Perhaps I am wrong here, too. If so, then it has a very limited
capacity to influence the hearts of humanity, and I needn't waste my time
further.
Bev.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpSun Nov 26 11:15:31 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 0:31:18 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Subject: Buddhism and monotheism
Dear Bruce:
Your comments and critiques of our various understandings of Buddhism
are very welcome to me. Speaking personally, they have inspired to me
to study more deeply and have raised important questions.
Two questions that I will address later concern the Bhuddist
acceptance of non-Buddhist creeds (as addressed in the lesser Lion's
Roar sutta), and some of the implications of Buddhist concepts of
emptiness (sunyata). But now, I would like to make a few comments
about similarities between Buddhism and monotheistic religions.
First, while it certainly true that great "religious" teachers can
create new concepts and meanings, they must start the process using
established concepts and ideas. The reasons are the same as why
teachers must use the language of their pupils. If a culture does not
have a *viable* concept of monotheism, then such a concept has to
either be developed, or an equivalent concept established.
This is true, as religions always strive to reveal universal
truths, truths which are the same for all people, *monolaws*.
For Christ and Mohammed, monotheism was a well-established
concept, and readily served as a vehicle for what they wished
to teach. In the time of the Buddha, monotheism was not
established. Rather, his followers believed in the existence of many
deities and gods, and this served as an inadequate philosphical
vehicle for His teachings.
Given a need to advance forwards from polytheism, the teacher has
several options. He (or She) can take one of the gods of the
polytheistic canon, and promote that god to the God, instilling in the
teachings seeds that blossom into monotheism. The Mosaic dispensation
seems to have done this. He can proclaim that there is but one God,
and that the existence of multiple gods is a lower level of
understanding: Zoroaster seems to have done this. Or he can do as
the Buddha did: teach that the many gods are impermanent - even though
they are real, they eventually die. They are not the highest level of
reality, which is beyond the gods.
The question, then, is whether Buddhism and monotheism are distinct
and different, or whether they are the same. On the face of it, as
the Bhudda taught the (relative) nonexistence of gods, Buddhism would
seem to be totally different than, say, the Baha'i Faith, where the
correctness of the concept of monotheism is taken for granted. The
difference is very important to the survival of Buddhism. If Buddhism
is not unique and distinct, then the very reason for its existence is
lost (the threat was, and still is, Christianity and Islam, both of
which have made large gains at the expense of Buddhism). The opposite
point of view, that Buddhism is the same as the monotheistic
religions, is problematic, as you have pointed out.
My own conclusion is that Buddhism and monotheism both made similiar
transitions from polytheism, but that they did it on the basis of
different philosophies. Both, in my opinion, carried out the same
step of abstraction, moving from particular to more universal truths.
This process of abstraction can be illustrated by considering what we
do when we move logically from particular cases, say our experience
with something in our work, to the step of making universal claims. A
physician, for example, might notice that eating limes prevents
attacks of scurvy among sailors on long ocean trips. He might then
hypothesize that limes contain something that prevents scurvy, say
substance X. He then might further hypothesize that substance X, not
the limes, are all that is necessary to prevent scurvy. The process
of increasing abstraction can be conceived of negatively: each step
moves from a complex, particular, unique, multi-parameter state of
affairs towards a simpler, less complex, more universal state of
affairs. And it does so by negating, or denying, the importance of
the details, as our physician did in discovering vitamin C.
Abstraction is a process of increasingly denying the importance of the
many variables.
Monotheism teaches that God is an indescribable reality: an
abstraction far and away above any knowledge that we might know.
Compared to God, we are as absolute nothingness. Of God, we can know
only what His teachers teach. The words are indeed different, and the
*positive* movement from polytheism is different, but, operationally,
the movement is the same as the *negative* movement in Buddhism.
So, when the Baha'is say that the Buddha is a manifestation of God,
for me it is an affirmation that for Baha'is, the *philosophical*
direction taken in Buddhist discourse is equal and equivalent to that
in the ancient monotheistic religions, and is not to be viewed as an
aberration. Rather, both methods of abstraction must be understood to
have equal validity. This is not a trivial conclusion.
An important modern school of philosophy in Japan, the Kyoto School,
started by Kitaro Nishida and including Hajime Tanabe, Keiji Nishitani
and Yoshinori Takeuchi, apparently arrives at similar conclusions,
although I haven't studied its thinking yet.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From dawnliqu@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduSun Nov 26 23:58:04 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:32:22 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT <dawnliqu@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Foods & Seeds (poem)
>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,
Dear Sandy,
I just received a strong chastisement from one of our beloved
talismanian sisters for auctioning off my daughter to an old and
maybe a homely man. I think she has a point, or she is jealous.
We have no idea how this charming Ahmad looks like.
I hear horror stories of e-mail encounters. My daughter insist
however to see a picture of this man. We'll see what happens.
May the most smart beauty win to be the queen in the mansion,
breezing through with the fastest car on earth.
Poor Ahmad becoming the "point of adornment" of talismanian mommies.
Do you remember my poem on Eve?
--here is a sample
Men worship beauty,
women compete for it.
Women love matter,
men slave to get it,
to have more beauty.
*************
But, my daughter
wants a big heart,
not a mansion.
Fast arms,
not cars,
to reach out
to ones in need.
For in life,
you leave behind,
that which you take,
and take that which you give.
To other worlds, I mean.
lovingly,
quanta...(*_*)
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 00:05:42 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:39:58 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist theology
Robert,
> "Bruce, responding to my assertion that Buddha
wasn't dead, wrote:
> ">
>That's nice, where is he? Talk to him lately? Don't be
shy, you can
>share it with us.
> "Answers: (1) in the world of spirit; (2) no.
> "No problem sharing this amigo!
> "Robert." <
World of spirit. Hmmm, that statement must be the
result of a long and careful study of the Pali texts.
No, maybe not. Rather it seems to be what you are
talking about is the "Baha'i Buddha," which is related
to Buddhism's Buddha the way one's reflection in a fun
house mirror is related to what one actually looks
like.
Thanks for neatly illustrates Juan statement:
> "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." <
Anytime you wish to further make a fool of yourself,
please don't hesitate to write.
Bruce
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 00:09:10 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:41:32 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist theology
Bev,
> "To me this implies that the spirit is created/given/breathed or
whatever into man. ... So does Baha'u'llah." <
Which is what I would have assumed you were implying by your
statement by the fact of your being a Baha'i. You are not saying
anything that unique, really.
> "all of this bickering back and forth" <
If anything, you've seemed to have gotten your uns in a bundle, which
has hardly been necessary. My point has been very simple concerning
how you have presented Buddhism in god language as opposed to how
it would look if it Buddhism was forced into a god language mold.
Rather than taking look at what I was saying and wanting to explore
that, you got unnecessarily defensive.
> 'Bruce has just said "You can't say that." Being contentious
to begin with, my immediate reaction is "Why not! Who are you to say
what I can and can not say, and what gives you the right to attach your
interpretation to what I am trying to express. How arrogant."' <
Just said? I didn't "just said." I gave a very concrete response to what
you were presenting, using god talk, which very neatly contrasted with
your presentation. And as I have said before, I took what you wrote at
face value.
> "You are reading what is written and judging them by your
associations with those written words." <
Judging? Hardly. What I would have assumed was behind your words
was what you've expressed in your two opening paragraphs of your
present missive. If words don't have associations, then they have by
definition no meaning. When a Baha'i says "god" there are a set of
associations I can make in that particular context. That you might have
additional personal associations is certainly not unreasonable, but you
have no right to jump down my throat because you have not spelled
them out and because I can't read your mind. But let me spell this yet
again: whatever personal associations your use of the word god might
carry, from the Baha'i context and by the very words themselves you
are implying (which you have subsequently confirmed) there is an
important difference between god and its creation, a difference that
would be meaningless if Buddhism were theistic. Why is that difficult
for you to understand?
> 'From your assumption that I can't start with "that phrase" because
you have a different set of associated experience with those words than
I do, you are essentially saying there is nothing I could appreciate about
Buddhism, I don't have the right words to open the door. Door closed.
The difference between your style and Dan's style is that he has given
me the message, "Not an appropriate choice of words, here is a better
selection and some ideas behind them to start with." Door open; BIG
difference.' <
What is obvious here is that you have not been responding to the content
of what I have been saying, and you have grossly misinterpreted the
tone. You said This is how I see Buddhism. What I said, That misses
the point of Buddhism, try looking at it this way. And I did so using
god-talk, which better than anything brought the differences into clear,
sharp relief. Why you have difficulty with this, I don't know, but no
door was closed by what I said.
> "Theology would entail more along the lines of enquiry
into the nature of God and a systematic study of religious teachings.
Does this mean that Buddhism is not included in the realm of religious
teachings? I understand the mistake I made in my choice of words there.
But where did Buddha receive his inspiration from?" <
Does a religion have to have a god notion to be a religion? Buddhism
seems to be the exception. Why do you assume that the Buddha received
"inspiration" from some place or some thing or one? The Buddha denied
any inherent efficacy for revelation, and he states quite clearly that his
being a buddha is the result of his own efforts, and such an awakening
is open to his followers.
> "except for Baha'u'llah's recognition and praise of Buddha as a
manifestation of God" <
Did Baha'u'llah actually mention the Buddha?
> "So help me out and give me something I can learn from. I am more
than willing to be informed. Help broaden my understanding in a way
which doesn't try and belittle me." <
If you've been listening, you have seen that have given you a great deal
to work with, a starting place, a wide open door. I have not belittled
you. If I say that god talk is not really appropriate for Buddhism after
I have used it to make a point, don't you think the natural response
would be to ask Then what idea are you using god in place of?
> "As for the quote, please read my reference. The quotation was in
a letter to the N.S.A. from the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi. As to how
much he knew or didn't know, well, I'm not in a position to judge
that."<
Shogi Effendi knew not of what he spoke, and my criticism still stands.
India of the Buddha's time was very much a culture of highly
refined oral traditions, and it would be more than somewhat foolish to
think that the Buddha in his 45 years of teaching was not concerned with
the preservation of his message. In light of this the first thing we can
look at is the founding of the monastic order: "The first function of the
Sangha was to preserve the Doctrine and thus preserve Buddhism as
such [Gombrich: THE WORLD OF BUDDHISM]." One of things we
find in the texts is that the Buddha is quite concerned that his teachings
be accurately presented. When it was asked of the Buddha if his
teachings should be preserved in the classical Sanskrit Vedic form, the
Buddha said, no, that teachings should not be limited to any one
language, but translated as needed. We find the Buddha and Sariputta in
the Digha 23 commenting on the turmoil in ranks of the Jains after
Mahavira died because their teaching were "not well proclaimed" by
him, but the Buddha states that in contrast he had "well proclaimed" his
doctrine, then Sariputta goes through a long summary of the doctrines
taught by the Buddha. There any number of other things within the texts
that point to the fact that the Buddha's teaching was a well organized,
"well proclaimed," affair. And as Gombrich states: "I have the greatest
difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts] is not the
work of one genius."
Now, if we take the Pali Texts, we see a body of literature that was
obviously translated from another related language. Pali was obviously
a _sadhubhashya_, a language used by wandering ascetics in a particular
territory. An equivalent body of texts exists in Chinese translation (the
others being lost due Islamic and Hindu persecutions). These texts
belonged to a different school that was located in a different
territory using a different _prakrit_, Sanskrit relative as is Pali. This
particular body of texts then was Sanskritized before it was translated
into Chinese.
Now the both the traditions of the Pali Texts and the Chinese equivalent
were separated by much distance, and importantly not interacting, and
it is obvious that both these bodies of texts underwent a lot of handling
before they found their final forms, the Pali in the first century BCE and
the Chinese 5 cent CE. But when they are compared the
correspondences are nothing short of remarkable, being often identical
in the phrasing and wording in the doctrinal issues, and there are no
doctrinal discrepancies. The point is that the monastics who preserved
the word of the Buddha took quite seriously the charge given them by
the Buddha.
In the later Mahayana texts, we can find passages that are identical in
content and in phrasing to those found in the Pali, even though the
composers of the Mahayana texts were not using the Pali source. Again,
the point is that the monks and nun took very seriously their job of
preserving the word of the Buddha.
To simply say that the words that the Buddha spoke are lost to us, is to
not understand how carefully these texts have been preserved.
> "Are you not trying to fit your understanding of Baha'i into a
Buddhist framework?" <
I could, Baha'i would come up very short, as in fact Buddhism does
when Baha'i does it, though Baha'is will vociferously deny that is the
case. But I don't need to do that.
> 'Whether it is a legitimate way of relating a past teaching with a
present one is another question. But then, both communities would be
guilty, wouldn't they?' <
It is not that one religion shouldn't comment upon another. My point is
that the comment be accurate as possible.
> 'However, I would not be so quick to accuse Baha'u'llah of
"subsuming" Buddha, or the Buddha of "subsuming" religions of His
time.' <
I am not quick about it all. The Baha'i approach, at least represented by
the run of the mill Baha'is (and what I have seen in the texts and official
documents) point to that, and that we can discuss. Of course, I might be
completely wrong. Though the Buddha took over certain terminology
that was popular coin at the time, he did not subsume the religions of his
time.
> "I can't speak in either defence or condemnation of the attitudes of
the other Baha'is, but I rather resent being made the target of your anger
towards their attitudes." <
Anger? I am not the one angry here.
> "Does that mean I must be a scholar of Buddhism before I can
participate in a dialogue? To assume that someone needs a complete and
operating knowledge of Buddhism and it's terminology before they dare
a comment of perspective or appreciation keeps it to a pretty elite few,
don't you think? And it certainly doesn't allow for my growth of
understanding." <
No, but it does mean some work needs to be involved. It ain't easy.
> "If you really mean that, then I would suggest that we are already
working trying to find some basis to start from." <
Of course. All sorts of doors are open here.
> "If I can't start from where I am standing, you'll have
to direct me to where you would like me to view this picture from.
Place me in the picture, keeping in mind that I am not a scholar and do
not have that background, and don't even have access to a decent
library." <
Tell me a little more of what you might need, and I'll try to draw some
clear pictures, and rather than the unwieldy shotgun msgs this exchange
is developing into maybe we can focus it to the question of what concept
did I have in kind when I said god in terms of Buddhism.
Bruce
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 00:10:35 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:42:46 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist theology
Stephen R. Friberg,
Good msg, good questions.
> "In the time of the Buddha, monotheism was not established. Rather,
his followers believed in the existence of many deities and gods, and this
served as an inadequate philosphical vehicle for His teachings." <
Not quite true. Monotheism, as we find it in the Bhagavad Gita (a text
which in good part was a Brahmanical response to Buddhism), finds its
roots in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad among other texts and traditions.
The level of thought of pre-Buddhist India was quite sophisticated, and
hardly can be simply dismissed as a mere simplistic polytheism. It was
much richer and more developed than that with a very strong absolutistic
thrust. If the Buddha had wanted to teach a monotheism, an absolute
divine principle of some sort, he certainly would have had very
sophisticated concepts to draw from if that had been his insight.
> "Monotheism teaches that God is an indescribable reality: an
abstraction far and away above any knowledge that we might know.
Compared to God, we are as absolute nothingness. Of God, we can
know only what His teachers teach. The words are indeed different, and
the *positive* movement from polytheism is different, but,
operationally, the movement is the same as the *negative* movement in
Buddhism.
I am not all convinced that this is operationally the same. Let me replay
something I said earlier, which picks up on your "Compared to God, we
are as absolute nothingness."
- The difference is between a presupposition of a static ontology of
Being of theism where it is important who you know and who you
propitiate (some sort of absolute Being, a god and in contrast which we
are nothing), and a presupposition of a dynamic ontology of Becoming
were salvation depends upon what you know. To illustrate:
- For the Baha'i [or whatever theistic devotional stance] the
experience of god-filled selflessness, not acting in a self centered,
god-contrary way, for the human comes from confronting the
absolute mystery of an absolute god and while I may abase myself
to get my self out of the way of god's grace, and in good part I am
then dependent upon the grace of that god. For the Buddhist,
however, selflessness is not an abasement of the self, it is the
transformative experience of seeing the way things are as they are
in their true (buddha-)nature, which, is to say, empty of any self
existent thingness, that there is _no_ eternal essence behind the
world of experience, but rather we see a dynamic interdependence
with no absolute essence to be found. Baha'i posits an eternal spirit,
which is what we in our essence are, but Buddhism rejects such a
notion.
- For the Baha'i selflessness comes from the total abasement of the
self as a totally abject, insignificant thing (think of the full Jesus
prayer) in face of the totally powerful and significant, which allows
for an alignment of one's will (as in a being a "hollow reed") with
the will of god (and the Hindu takes this to an identification [_tat
tvam asi_]) with god, the totally powerful. In other words, this
"selflessness" can only take place in terms of relationship
to an absolute, immutable Being.
- The Buddhist experience comes from active meditative insight into
the conditioned nature of the self and the impermanence of
experience that allows us to let go of the limitations of defining, of
identifying, experiencing in terms of a self no matter how subtle or
rarified or supposedly spiritual it might be considered by whatever
name, allowing us to act in full accordance with the Dharma, the very
nature what we are.
- Interestingly enough Buddhism has rejected the Baha'i/Christian
(and Hindu bhakta) type of experience as a form of self-_full_-ness.
Big differences, and the differences here cut to the very heart of the
issue of unity of religions.
Bruce
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:11:02 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:02:23 +1200
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist theology
Dear Bruce,
The following sounds suspiciously like an ad hominem statement:
>Anytime you wish to further make a fool of yourself,
>please don't hesitate to write.
Now, I don't mind at all, but I am mindful of the list rules, senor. Like,
you wouldn't wanna hit a guy when he wasn't looking, would ya?
More substantially, you appear to equate Buddhism with Pali. Northern
Buddhists -- in a Mahayana tradition -- are more theistic, I understand...
So far as the immortality of the sould is concerned... Consider: the Old
Testament does not mention the immortality of the soul, except in the
[later] books of the Apocrypha. Yet, as has been proved here, Socrates
learned of the immortality of the soul from the Jews. My point: the
non-mention of this in certain texts does not prove that that the people
did not believe in it. I think this rather DOGMATIC atheism and and lack of
belief in the soul's immortality is probably fairly modern phenomenon,
encouraged in the soul-less west...
Your friend,
Robert.
From jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.eduMon Nov 27 00:11:27 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 15:13:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Joan Jensen <jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: bahai-singles
Dear quanta and Sandy,
Thank you for bringing up a subject very close to my heart; that is
finding and/or assisting in the spiritual growth of Bahai-Men. I, too,
have unmarried daughters, albeit they are only 9 and 14, but I surely do
not want another generation of Baha'i women to struggle with what I had
and continue to struggle with... and probably women of all Faiths have
this same concern. I think it was Sherman who pointed this out to his
scribe, who then mentioned it to Ahmad; that there are quite a few
eligible lovely ladies for every eligible lovely man within our ranks.
The issue for women is two-fold.
Initially, it is a problem of meeting and really getting to know the
character of the lovely Bahai men in a community whose adherents are
(relatively) few and scattered.
Secondly, and probably more important, because of the relative scarcity
of the commodity (!!!), and some of the economists in the group can help
me on this, shouldn't supply and demand be entering into this equation?
I can understand the feelings of disheartenment that our African-American
sisters feel in our racist society when another eligible black man
begins to date a white woman, regardless of my love of the concepts of
racial harmony and unity expressed in inter-racial marriages. In my
earlier youth (as opposed to my currently more mature youth) I was
incredulous when Baha'i men would date women who were not Baha'is. I
still feel that *ping* of incredulosity and sadness when hear this today.
I've spoken of this subject to women for years, and we all have a lot
of theories, experiences and thoughts that are useful. But I would
especially love to hear some of the thoughts and reactions of the
intelligent *men* of this group, both those who are married and single,
both those who are Baha'is and those who are in this group to help us
learn something about other Faiths and traditions. Burl, can the men
in the barber shop lend us some of their wisdom? Derek, would you
please ask Sherman what his advice to the lovely ladies would be? Bruce,
is this a topic that Buddhist men and women are as concerned about as
I am?
I think that our individual spiritual growth, and the growth of our
communities, are largely dependent on how we address this question
individually and collectively. Marriage is not required for spiritual
growth, but it is an assistance to ourselves, and a foundation for our
communities.
Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Jensen
Baltimore, Maryland USA
<jjensen@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
*******************************************************************
"...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 belove@sover.netMon Nov 27 00:15:17 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 95 13:03:03 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE2: Buddhist theology
Ditto from me as well.
These blithe assertions in cheerful ignorance are an embarrasment.
Reminds me of how white people used to be so certain they understood
black experience. Reminds me of one of the most infuriating sentences
I know in English: "You are a (Insert ideological sub-group, such as
Baha'i, Jungian, Republican, etc.) and don't even know it.
Bruce, I appreciate your tenacity and steadiness. Keep it up.
Philip
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:54:07 -0600 Bruce Burrill wrote:
>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
>
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/26/95
Time: 12:51:20
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A. Einstein
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:15:43 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:01:25 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu, jrcole@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu
Subject: RE2: Buddhist theology
(1) My dear Philip,
Anything worthy of such contempt as my viewpoint should not
be dignified with a response as venemous as yours. Sounds like some of us
feel that they have Buddhism cornered... Ha!
Remember the Alamo senor!
Robert.
(2) Juan apparently wrote to Bruce:
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.
As Juan no doubt is aware, I find such statements unacceptable. Previously
they have gotten him into trouble. It seems the lesson has not yet been
learned. Sigh!
Robert.
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 00:17:10 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:25:48 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist theology
Robert Johnston,
> "The following sounds suspiciously like an ad hominem
statement:"<
Oh, dear, I am the naughty one, but it certainly did (does) seem
appropriate.
> "More substantially, you appear to equate Buddhism with Pali.
Northern Buddhists -- in a Mahayana tradition -- are more theistic, I
understand..." <
Well, it does seem that Juan's observation is appropriate here.
And just to add here, as the eminent buddhologist Herbert V. Guenther
states: "Buddhism, however, is a thoroughly atheistic doctrine. ... The
fact, however, is that no phase of Buddhism ever had theistic or
pantheistic tendencies...." PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY IN
THE ABHIDHARMA, p. 114-5.
And as Buddhologist Roger Corless, who is a Christian monk and a
practicing Buddhist, points out in his excellent introductory work, THE
VISION OF BUDDHISM: "Buddhism, on the contrary, claims that
belief in God leads to moral and spiritual degradation."
I would have say from what you have said concerning this subject you
really haven't a clue what the Buddhist traditions teach concerning these
issues. For you the Buddha is in some sort of spirit world, but that has
nothing to do with what Buddhist themselves hold to be the case.
Actually, it would be helpful for you to say something if it has
something useful to add to the discussion, otherwise, why bother?
Bruce
From clarkre@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduMon Nov 27 00:17:38 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 19:14:06 EST
From: RUTH E CLARK <clarkre@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist theology
Dear people!
As a new-comer to this group, I am a bit uncomfortable about
the excess and unkind use of manners to prove one's intellectual prowess.
Or, is this discourse on religion a manifestation of
male hormones at work?. Perhaps, I should recommend
a daily plan of spiritual gymnastics by prayers, meditation
and some altruistic activities for additional strength.
A deepening on the "Fire Tablet" which describes some
aspects of Talisman and provides prescriptive measures,
might also be a valuable addition. I received it from a
dear friend who is a Baha'i of this uncommitted one.
cheerfully yours,
Ruth
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Nov 27 00:18:03 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 95 19:05:46 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: More on mating services
Dear Joan, I was impressed with your message about the state of marriage and
mate finding in the Baha'i community. The only problem I found with it was
your request for "words of wisdom" from Sherman. Now, this is a cat who spends
his hours reading the tabloids, as witness the scandalous things he says about
our little Guli. If you want advice, go to someone who knows something - like
me for instance.
Seriously, I can appreciate much of what you say. I have heard many an African
American woman bemoan the fact that so many AA men end up marrying white women.
Some women have told me that they were raised by their mothers to stand by
Black men and do not look at white men as potential mates. It is very
discouraging, then, for them when these same men do not feel the same loyalty
towards them.
But, more broadly speaking, I really think that the Baha'i community could use
some sort of service by which men and women could meet people in the larger
community. How often, for example, do men and women in little Mid-Western
towns get to meet Baha'is from other communities, let alone other states or
countries. The problem intensifies as a woman enters her 40s or 50s and the
number of men available for marriage continues to shrink.
Why not a "personals" section in the American Baha'i? Is there an e-mail
service for single Baha'is? I haven't heard of one. Since marriage and
families are the bedrock of Baha'i communities, I do see the value of
communities putting a little bit of thought into this. I know a number of
wonderful Baha'i women who, no doubt, would make splendid wives but simply
aren't finding the opportunities to meet suitable gentlemen.
Once again,I want to reiterate, that I don't care to hear Sherman's opinions on
this matter or a commentary on what I have just written. It will not be
appreciated. We know how these cats behave. It would just not be mentionable
on a respectable service such as Talisman. Linda
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:18:12 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:46:01 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist theology
Dear Bruce,
The vituperative content of your letters is excessive I think.
How does this square with Buddhistic compassion for all sentient beings?
Do you really think that it is possible to be intellectually right and
ethically wrong?
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:18:27 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:56:14 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: RUTH E CLARK <clarkre@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist theology
Ffolks,
If Ruth does not wish to be splattered with cream and merangue, I suggest
refrain from adopting a holier than thou position on top of the fridge, and
leave the kitchen!
Robert ("Cruel Jester") Johnston.
From dann.may@sandbox.telepath.comMon Nov 27 00:18:41 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 95 19:00:47 -0600 (CST)
From: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Anatta and Baha'i view
Bev wrote to Dann:
>Thank you for your input. Yes, I can see the concept. Is this in conf
>with the Baha'i Writings? Is there a difference? Does Baha'u'llah sa
>anything which is in conflict with this description of the soul? The i
>of the elements or aggregate of the soul being in constant flux and pro
>is understood. I once got thrown out of a science class on evolution f
>insisting that nothing was constant, but always in a state of either
>materialising or decaying. And as an artist, I am constantly aware of
>whole being made of elements...I never assumed the nature of the soul t
>different. How else could I accept the dichotomy of human nature?
Bev, I haven't spent much time either thinking about or searching the
writings for any Baha'i parallels with the Buddhist notion. I will
certainly spend some time now. Perhaps Juan, Chris, Rob or others may wish
to comment. I suspect that there will be very little that is similar, since
the Baha'i world view seems to be at odds with the early Buddhist world
view.
Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * All true wisdom is found in taglines
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:19:07 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:45:35 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: soul immortality & Buddhism
Ffolks,
In the face of rude derision from Bruce and Juan (et al) I continue to
maintain that some Buddhistic traditions assert the immortality of the
soul. Maybe not in the manner of the Faith, but enough to assume that some
Buddhists at least accept the possibility of human existence apart from the
physical body. Try the Tibetan Book of the Dead, for instance....
And as we stand on the edge of darkness
Let our chant fill the void
That others may know
In the land of the night
The ship of the sun
Is drawn by
The grateful dead.
-- Tibetan "Book of the Dead," ca. 4000 BC.
The soul leaves the body and returns to another body after a time. In
similar works, the goal of not returning to a physical body is stated.
That a Supreme Creator exists is also clearly articulated in the Book of
the Dead.
Laugh on fellas,
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:19:52 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 15:07:17 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: soul immortality & Buddhism (11)
The following is by one y Jouni A. Smed:
The Tibetan Book of the Dead, or Bardo Thodol (meaning Liberation by
Hearing on the
After-Death Plane) was first committed to writing in the eighth century AD,
although the editor, Dr
W. Y. Evans-Wentz, has no doubt that it represents 'the record of belief of
innumerable
generations in a state of existence after death.' It is thought that its
teachings were initially handed
down orally, then finally compiled and recorded by a number of authors. The
book is used as a
funeral ritual, and is read out as a guide to the recently deceased. It
contains an elaborate
description of the moment of death, the stages of mind experienced by the
deceased at various
stages of post-mortem existence, and the path to liberation or rebirth, as
the case may be.
The Bardo body, also referred to as the desire- or propensity-body, is
formed of matter in an
invisible and etheral-like state and is, in this tradition, believed to be
an exact duplicate of the
human body, from which it is separated in the process of death. Retained in
the Bardo body are the
consciousness-principle and the psychic nervous system (the counterpart,
for the psychic or Bardo
body, of the physical nervous system of the human body) [Eva60]. Due to its
nature, the Bardo
body is able to pass through matter, which is only solid and impenetrable
to the senses, but not to
the instruments of modern physics; and the fact that the conscious self is
not embedded in matter
enables it to travel instantly where it desires. Flights of the imagination
become objectively real, the
wish comes true.
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 00:20:32 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:09:12 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: BT
Robert J.,
> "The vituperative content of your letters is excessive I think.
How does this square with Buddhistic compassion for all sentient
beings? Do you really think that it is possible to be intellectually
right and ethically wrong?" <
And you grouse about my supposed ad hominem statements? You
inserted yourself into this discussion with your flippant little messages
that added nothing to the content of what was being said, and when I
take exception to your behaviour, you get cranky. Spare me.
> 'Try the Tibetan Book of the Dead, for instance.... -- Tibetan "Book
of the Dead," ca. 4000 BC.' <
4000 BC? And you want us believe that you understand what is actually
going on in this work?
Okay, have it your way, there are Buddhists who believe in a soul.
Gosh, maybe the Buddha did to, because here we have this text that
supposedly advocates a soul, though you have not shown that it does,
but never mind that. But the Bardo Thodol, The Tibetan Book of the
Dead, hardly a text of central importance, does, so all of mainstream
Indian Buddhism is wrong in its strident rejection of the idea of soul or
atman. I am certainly humbled by your superior buddhology. Really.
Bruce
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comMon Nov 27 00:20:42 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 19:13:01 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson" <margreet@margreet.seanet.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: More on mating services
Yes, there is a Bahai Singles email forum. For more information, just email
me and I will assist you in getting set up with the service.
Margreet
Semi/part-time, sometimes/whenever/ moderator for Bahai Singles.
At 07:05 PM 11/26/95 EWT, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu wrote:
>
>Why not a "personals" section in the American Baha'i? Is there an e-mail
>service for single Baha'is? I haven't heard of one. Since marriage and
>families are the bedrock of Baha'i communities, I do see the value of
>communities putting a little bit of thought into this. I know a number of
>wonderful Baha'i women who, no doubt, would make splendid wives but simply
>aren't finding the opportunities to meet suitable gentlemen.
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 27 00:21:50 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 06:32:23+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhism
Dear Bruce:
Okay, what concept did you have in mind when you said god in terms of Buddhism?
Thank you for the historic view of some of the development of Buddhist
scriptures, but I still don't see any "guarantees" that they are absolutely
100 per cent accurate. Or if we assume the text themselves are accurate, my
suggestion was that it would be pretty hard for 2500 years to have past
without some "embellishments" to the practice being added. I'm sure the
monks and nuns were sincere in their efforts...so were many monks and nuns
in the Christian church who were charged with transcribing and keeping safe
the scriptures of christianity. It still didn't prevent a lot of stuff
being added in terms of ritual, dogmatism and plain ol'
interpretation/variation.
Do you mean that there are no rituals, no interpretations, no different
notions of what the Buddha said in Buddhism? All Buddhists agree completely
on what the Buddhist scriptures say and how to practice?
What I did suggest is that the fundamental truth of those writings probably
survived, and I would like to know more about them.
A religion can be either a system of belief based on a supernatural source,
or it can be a system of belief based on teachings of a spiritual leader.
You seem to be placing Buddhism in the latter. Is there another
understanding of the word religion that needs to be considered?
If I have misinterpreted your tone, I apolgize. The difference between what
you responded and what Dan responded was his use of the Buddhist viewpoint
to explain his point. That is what made it clear to me, just as your use of
explaining how the Buddhist scriptures have passed down through the
centuries has given me something solid to consider.
As to what I might need, let's assume that my mind is a clean slate with no
assumptions. I am sitting at your feet, and I am listening. What do I need
to understand?
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comMon Nov 27 00:22:00 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 19:49:18 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson" <margreet@margreet.seanet.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: More on mating services
Love is in the air on Turkey Day; thank the pie read the article in our
little town paper.
So I read it, as I am one of the best matchmakers I know, having married off
4 of my girlfriends, and 2 of my former males I used to date. I can do for
others, but not for myself. I am not picky either...*
"The nutmeg and cinnamon-laced scents of pumpkin pie not only whet the
appetite but also arouse male ardor. So claims Alan Hirsch, a Chicago-based
neurologist and psychiatrist who directs the Chicago Smell and Taste
Treatment Foundation. Studying people who had lost their sense of smell,
he discoverd the great majority (90%) also complained of sexual dysfunction".
"Hirsch took 25 students volunteers and covered their noses with scented
soaked surgical masks. He then measured their responses, monitoring their
blood, and penile blood flow. He had theorized flowery perfumes would
stimulate the volunteers. As a control, he compared perfume with cinnamon
rolls."
"Cinnamon rolls won."
"Men's scent preferences varied by age, as well as their reported sexual
experience, he said. For example, the older the individual, the greater his
response was to vanilla. Men who claimed being most sexually satisfied
responded to strawberry. Men who claimed the most frequent rates reacted to
oriental spice, lavendar and cola."
"Have women gotten it wrong all these years? While they were trailing
clouds of Joy or Chanel, should they have dabbed essence of pie or popcorn
on their pulse points? "
"For now, his research suggest blending spices into pumpkin puree may make
guest do more than salivate. Especially of there's a sprig of lavender in
the floral centerpiece on the Thanksgiving table. So proceed with cautious
delectation."
Well, I just threw out my $50.00 a bottle perfume *Sung* by Alfred Sung.
Been using it for the past 4 years... Still single. Just pass the nutmeg,
cinnamon, vanilla, and lavendar... and that pumpkin pie behind the knees..
That should do it!
*wants kids, comfortable with self, financially stable, substance free, and
sense of humor.
is all I ask.....
Warmly, Margreet
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 00:22:21 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:48:31 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: BT
Dear Bruce,
You wrote:
>I am certainly humbled by your superior buddhology.
On that note I leave this (Buddhism) discussion. I have no energy for
waging another futile intellectual battle. Been there, done that. I trust
you will be able to maintain some kind of discussion with like-minded souls
...ooops ...bodies.
BTW, did you know that 'Abdu'l-Baha has stated that the original teachings
of the Buddha have been lost? (I can hear a re-sounding "So what!" :-})
Sincest best wishes,
Robert.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Nov 27 00:22:45 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:39:23 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, burlb@bmi.net
Subject: Reference to Mating Services to become poor Ahmad's fate!
My dear Linda
Once more I see that our Beloved Leader Sherman is having his
good name smeared by Linda. This is a lady whose exploits at the
Philly AAR shindig we have tried to keep quiet . Try as one might
to preserve the Walbridge's good name it seems as though things
carry on coming out. Did I mention that in addition to throwing an
egg at my dear friend Christopher 'watch me sell my book' Buck .
You chased him twice around the Reunion Sports Bar demanding
the locals to horrible things to visiting Canadian Scholars .
Shouting your future doctorate won't help you here sonny boy is
hardly the action of a serious Shiite theology scholar.
I did not mention that did I Linda. What about those phone calls to
the Seven Day Adventists Room at 3 o'clock in the morning
yelling " Judgment Day is now , guess who guessed wrong"Also
replacing the sacramental wine for the early morning Mass with
raspberry juice really was a low blow. But the worst of all was the
painting of a big black spot on the back of the Archbishop's
Cassock with the sign pinned on :Smack the spottie now. I have
not mentioned any of these antics of yours out of respect for your
long suffering husband and there are a lot more I can assure you
that can be mentioned .
But I will not post these details on Talisman they will be our little
secret Linda , you , Burl and myself and I just hope John does not
find out for his sake .
As far your little Guli is concerned Sherman as always is full of
Wisdom . He says : A dog is a bit like some men , not even toilet
trained . Bring them in the home and what do they do they drink
out of the proverbial toilet all the time . They slobber all over
everything , stick their noses where it shouldn't be , always want
to go for walkies when you don't , and make a general mess of
everything and are useless at catching rodents . Then just sit and
wait for the food to be put in front of them with big helpless eyes
and their tongues hanging out dripping on the floor . Sound
familiar to the ladies out there you should ask them that Linda .
As far as the mating rush for Ahmad is concerned . The poor chap
is already terrified out of his mind for if the Ahmad Ladies
Hunting Posse catch up with him unless he recants the 'Seed' . I
hear 6th hand so dangerously correct that they intend to perform
some sort of ancient ritual involving the removal,of certain things
. I do hope this 6th hand rumor is incorrect and they only intend to
brand him with red-hot irons. Two Boeing 747 have already been
chartered to take the Ahmad hopefuls to Australia one flying from
LAX the other from New York's Kennedy Airport .
This was a man who has never been on a date with a woman and
keeps E'Mailing me for advice on what to do . So far he has had
425 and a half marriage proposals , three death threats , A lawsuit
from two women claiming he fathered their seventeen children in
Chile , another lawsuit from a woman in Walla Walla Texas
claiming he intends to ravish her next week and a child will result
<the child is a little boy called Billy aged 3> and Dan Orey says
he will never speak to Ahmad again for leading him on.
Naturally you can come to Bosch wearing whatever you like , lace
or otherwise . Sheila Banani is coming so you can discuss the color
with her not me red , black , pink or white it is your lace my dear.
But you did surprise them at AAR with it twirling around in the
Cassock Twirl Contest . Because of your actions I understand the
Catholic church are now considering allowing the Bishops to wear
bright red lace as an alternative undergarment . So how does it feel
to be a trail blazer .
As far as the get together of available wonderful ladies and
gentlemen is concerned the Relationship Weekend at Bosch
December 8th through 10th is designed for just that . $85.00 food
and lodgings . Book now while space remains tell them that Linda.
Phone 408-423-3387
Fax 408-423-7564
or E'Mail me here .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Nov 27 00:23:09 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:54:13 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Ruth Somerhalder Wonderful Bosch Volunteer.
Dear Talismanians
Ruth Somerhalder is known to many on this list so rather than post to
individuals I decided to do a general posting. Ruth from the start of
Bosch some twenty years ago has been directly associated with the
school giving freely of her time and energy . It is true to say hers
was a real labor of love and the way she expressed her service to the
Twin blessed Ones.For the last 16 years she has battled against a
variety of Cancers . 10 days she informed the Local Assembly on which
we both served she had decided to stop fighting and had asked Hospice
and ourselves <the Assembly> to assist in her passing.It was the most
poignant , painful and moving Assembly meeting I have ever attended ,
the sense of honor and helplessness was humbling combination . ruth
passed from this plane of existence just after 6.00 o'clock Pacific
Time. I would ask for prayers for her dear soul and her family.
Kindest regards
Derek Cockshut
From jrcole@umich.eduMon Nov 27 00:58:17 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:39:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: talisman rights
Brent:
1) It is simply untrue that John in removing two subscribers from
Talisman is acting arbitrarily. The List Rules clearly state that
subscribing under false pretenses or forwarding messages not for
intellectual purposes but for purposes of monitoring and punishing speech
is impermissible. John has stated this principle on a number of
occasions, and everyone on Talisman knows or should have known the principle.
Those who have read Michel Foucault's *Discipline and Punish* might enjoy
the image of the Panopticon here, Jeremy Bentham's plan for penal
reform. You see, you not only lock up criminals, but you set up
observation booths so that they are under constant observation and
deprived of any privacy at all. They will then not dare do anything
wrong. And after a while, this fear of doing anything wrong because it
would be observed will become internalized, and they will go straight.
Foucault thought that the disciplinary institutions--medical,
psychiatric, educational, governmental--of modern society themselves
formed a sort of panopticon. And, of course, Foucault interrogates the
authority of these institutions to determine right and wrong. The Baha'i
panopticon is quite extensive.
2) Talisman's structure implies that communicative rationality is at the
foundation of Baha'i consultation. If someone does not like what
Stanislav posts, then she or he can post a message disputing Stanislav's
facts or argumentation. That is the only acceptable response to a
posting with which one disagrees, not threats and intimidation and
attempts to alienate a believer from his own conscience.
The Talisman way is entering into consultative democracy and
relying on the power of true utterance (baya:n), which is also the Baha'i
way, as emphasized over and over again by Baha'u'llah.
As someone who works in the area of law and defends the rights of poor
immigrants, you of all people surely cannot condone coercion of speech.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 11:44:46 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 01:10:10 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: goodbye
Robert Johnston,
> 'BTW, did you know that 'Abdu'l-Baha has stated that the original
teachings of the Buddha have been lost? (I can hear a re-sounding "So
what!" :-})
> 'Sincest best wishes,' <
Sincere best wishes? After that statement? You just can't leave it alone,
can you? You think you are funny, and you have to make one little
gratitutous jab on your way out.
As I said before, if you have something interesting to contribute to a
discussion in which I am involved, then please do so, but as of yet there
has been very little. Otherwise, please don't bother me your self
indulgent attempts at being clever. It is a bit too cloying for my taste.
Bruce
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 11:45:30 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 01:12:12 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist a-theology
We can start from the begining. I'll make an opening comment, and see
where it goes from there.
The Buddha did not teach Buddhism, he taught Dhamma (Skrt.:
Dharma). The Dhamma is the Truth that is the manifestation of the
Buddha's Bodhi, his Awakening. This Dhamma he taught intensely for
forty-five years, and by it led his followers to experience bodhi for
themselves. After the Buddha's death what gave rise over the centuries
to the multitude of schools that we know as Buddhism was the struggle
for the achievement of bodhi and the need for understanding this
struggle. The history of Buddhism is characterized by a formulating and
defining of this struggle, the path of practice, and a reformulating and
redefining it in response to internal and external pressures in order to
keep the path open and alive. Buddhism is as much a product of the
Buddhists who came after the Buddha as it is of the Buddha himself. It
is a continual, dynamic and organic expression of the Dhamma flowing
out of the Bodhi of the Buddha and his followers, manifesting itself
in the varieties of human institutions and expressions we find in the
Buddhist world.
Bruce
From burlb@bmi.netMon Nov 27 11:47:30 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 01:07 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: The Mating Game
"I am single, alone and lovely..."
Years ago my buddy Chet came to me and bewailed the papaucity of single
Baha'i females available for dating. He was most concerned as he desired to
be a married man. A wonderful chap with a charming disposition and love of
children, he would be a fine husband and father. Dr. Burl gave him a sage
piece of advice that went something like this: The Baha'i Faith calls for
the elimination of prejudice, and that includes religious prejudice.
Limiting your sphere of romantic consideration to the existing Baha'i
community is in direct conflict with one of our most basic principles. I
suggest you be open to any woman of any race or religion whom you find
pleasing. especially if she seems to also find you pleasing. Soon, Chet was
dating a fundamentalist Christian woman who was, if you will pardon the
expression, hell-bent on saving him. She became a Baha'i. They got married,
had kids, adopted kids, are still living happily ever after, and that's
that. So, the moral of the story is: beware of prejudice, it may keep you
from the love of your life.
I just returned from teaching at Menucha Winter School in Oregon. If you
have not been there, go there! What a marvelous location! What a charming
atmosphere! What a shame that more Baha'is did not join us! The finest
Winter School I have ever attended, and I am not just saying that because I
was on the program -- although that reason would suffice -- and I kicked
things off by quoting from Juan Ricardo Cole's letter (with his permission)
about 19th Century population demographics of Iran and the cholera
epidemics. That was sort of the color cartoon before the main feature, and
they all appreciated it. It sparked some good, lively discussions.
Talkin' 'bout my girl: WOW! My daughter Anea just came home from the local
psychedelic shack where she had the delightful opportunity to teach the
Faith for three hours to two contemporaries -- she is on cloud 9 and is in
7th heaven...which is better than 7 rooms of gloom which is what you get for
yielding to Temptations. I just want to celebrate!
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From belove@sover.netMon Nov 27 11:51:27 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 95 15:54:28 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>,
talisman@indiana.edu, Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Socrates, history and mystery.
On Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:42:06 +1200 Robert Johnston wrote:
>Dear Philip,
> On the basis of "language game" analysis you suggested
that
>both Chris and I might be right about North American
Manifestations. I
>am saying that this kind of argument is sophistry, and that right
and wrong
>explanations exist, albeit relatively, perhaps. ;-}
>
>Further, I am linking intellectual correctness with ethical virtue
and
>suggesting the price one might have to pay for not being a sophist.
I yawn
>at my own capacity for complexity, my friend!
>
>
>Robert.
>
>
Dear Juan, the second part of this posting talks about intersections
between realms of discourse. It suggests areas where the different
standpoints of epistemology may over lap. What do you think?
Dear Robert,
I wish I could remember what you and Chis said about the North
American Manifestations and about which I thought you two might be
both right even though you both disagreed. Unfortunately, I can only
remember the process by which I could make such an assertion. I'll
repeat it here, but I don't know how much it will move this
conversation along. If you come back to me with your position again,
maybe I can do a better job of holding up my end.
I do have some common examples of two language games, or semiotics,
which are both correct and which could often disagree. I'll offer it
out. The example would be dreaming and waking. In the dream, you,
the dreamer are "in" the dream. In waking, you might feel that the
dream was "in" you. Both are correct. In dreams you can fly.
Cultural Myths and cultural histories work in the same relationship.
There is a similar relationship between prose and poetry.
Often two realms fit. This issue of fit is important.
Here is an example of fit. In myth, Saturn is a god who eats his
children. Saturn was said to rule Time and, going from poetry to
prose and back to poetry again, we could say that Time is a God who
eats his/her own children.
And then there is the Picasso story of the man who stopped him and
showed him a picture of his wife. "See, this is what a woman looks
like, not like in your paintings." And Picasso said, "Oh, I see, she
is rather small and flat."
So here are two realms of discourse which co-exist like parellel
universes.
I assert that instinctively, we make subtle judgements about fit. I
think there is a discomfort that emerges in us when poetry is too far
from prose. And there is also a discomfort that arises in (some of)
us when poetry becomes too close to prose.
So I could imagine how you and Chris could make parellel assertions
about North American Manifestations and both be right in your own
ways. (Since I'm being hypothetical here, it is, I know, a very weak
argument. )
I'll note in passing that the designator, "American Manifestations"
seems to be one of those terms that straddles realms of discourse.
This business of Straddling Realms of Discourse leads to another
exploration and related to your second point about ethics:
>
>Further, I am linking intellectual correctness with ethical virtue
I suspect that part of Monotheistic religious living is that it does
straddle realms and that is its glory and mystery.
(I don't know the implications of this for "standpoint epistemology
-- more on that some other posting)
According to Joseph Campbell, in the tradition of the Great Goddess,.
there was no historical progression and a very different kind of
ethical tradition. The Gods and Goddesses behaved dishonestly and
unethically with one another. They stole, murdered, incested and so
on.
With the advent of Zoroaster, according to Campbell, there emerged
into human mythology the powerful idea of a holy ethical call to
goodness.
Here is Campbell in his book, The Inner Reaches of Outer Space::
Page 38: The mystgery of the night sky...had delivered the
revelation..of a cosmic order, and in response, from the depths of
the human imagination, a reciprocal recognition had been evoked. ...
A vast concept took form of the universe as a living being in the
likeness of a great mother, within whoe womb all the worlds, both of
life and of death, had their existence.
....
Campbell goes on:
Well and good enough, one might suppose! However -- and here is where
the West begins -- a radical and enormously infleuential ethical
protest against the uncritical submission to the will in nature that
is implicit in this finally mystical world vision broke forth in
Iran, sometime in the second or first milenium BC in the dualistic
religious view of Zarathustra (or Zoroster).
....Thus a completey new mythlogy arose, .. an idea of good and evil
and the prohecy was announced of a progeessive restoration to
righteousness of the order of nature. (page 42)
Campbell goes on and on page 61 makes this statement (which I have
abridged):
"The historical fact of the Crucifixion, has been throughout the
Christian centuries miraculaized as the medium of "Salvation," ....
where by a mytholigical Fall has become historicized as a prehistoric
fact of a 4004 or 3760 BC, and a historical crucifixion, C AD 30,
mythologized as reparation for that Fall. The result has been a blend
of history and mystery of such compelling fascination that both the
psychological and the metaphysical connotations of the metaphoric
symbols have been all but lost in the pathos of the screen."
This is an amazing observation. Campbell recognizes the fact of the
"compelling fascination" but sees it as resulting in something being
lost. I would have thought he would be drawn to the numinosity of the
"blend of history and mystery." Why he wasn't is another issue. But I
am drawn to that numinosity and I suggest that this is one of those
windows between the worlds and hence is great transformative power.
But back to Campbells first observation, that Somehow, with
Zoroaster, The God of The Good entered human consciousness of
history. What humans did mattered and mattered beyond simply the
boundaries of our individual lives. History, rather than Nature, or
trans-personal Psyche, was the realm in which God's ethic was to be
played out.
I get to this at a personal level when I start to --- what verba to
pick for this realitionship to God? -- believe
-in/wonder-whether/run-from/cry-against/beg-for -- all of the above a
God that Knows Little Me and Cares About What I Do and How I Do It
and What Happens To Me -- and to Whom I answer.
And this ethical window is where the World of Science and the World
of Psyche flow into one another.
But Robert, for me this is a kind of worm-hole-of-the-inner-universe.
A mysterious connection for me. I shy away from the more certain
connection you seem to make when you say that intellectual
correctness and ethical virtue are equivalent.
I think that equation leads to abominations. Violence done in the
name of God. Like the Inquisition.
Let us pause to remember the Bahai who said to the person who cried
in pain:"When you have been a Bahai as long as I have, you will
understand. "
It's possible to be intellectually correct and be a selfish
egomaniac.
That's all. Thanks for the chance to think a little further about
this stuff.
I do hope this as interesting for you as it has been for me to work
out these ideas. I think that, like squid and horseradish, it is an
acquired taste. If it's tedious, I apologize.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/26/95
Time: 15:54:28
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From belove@sover.netMon Nov 27 11:51:56 1995
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 95 22:43:57 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: RE2: Buddhist theology
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:01:25 +1300 (NZDT) Robert Johnston wrote:
>(1) My dear Philip,
> Anything worthy of such contempt as my viewpoint
should not
>be dignified with a response as venemous as yours. Sounds like some
of us
>feel that they have Buddhism cornered... Ha!
>
>Remember the Alamo senor!
>
>Robert.
Difficult here to sort out where I owe the apology but I'm sure I owe
it.
Forgive me, I can be venemous. I am aghast at what I seem to have
done. I assure you, I do not mean to be contemptuous of your
viewpoint. I went back and reviewed my posting. I guess I got
careless. Please forgive me.
The position I do wish to support is as follows: I think people have
the right to define their view point and to insist, in any discussion
that their viewpoint is acknowledged and expressed to their own
satisfaction.
If Bruce feels that his own viewpoint is not appreciated then I don't
believe we have the right to expect him to appreciate ours.
It seems I've been quite clumsy in taking my position.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/26/95
Time: 22:43:58
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From belove@sover.netMon Nov 27 11:52:16 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 06:35:55 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:FW: goodbye
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995 and on Sun Nov 26
Bruce.
You seem to be in a rage.
I believe I understand the points you are making and even agree with
many of them.
However, many of your comments on Sunday have read like personal
attacks on your interlocutors and I wonder what that is about and why
you would find it necessary to introduce something so extraneous and
distracting into your arguments. I do hope the recipients of your
attack do not take them personally.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/27/95
Time: 06:35:55
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From Alethinos@aol.comMon Nov 27 11:53:34 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:01:49 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: All dressed up & its 3 O'Clock in the morning & nobody's in the place
Is it not interesting that Talisman continues to twist and turn in agony
regarding the (no doubt) immaturity of the American Institutions and yet
gives a complete misdiagnosis of a possible cure?
In saying this it is not to deny the pain that any have suffered because
of this lack of maturity - many of us here have been pained by it. But again
it seems necessary to point out that the problems is not in the stars but
rather in ourselves. The institutions are made up of people - who may be
suffering serious spiritual immaturity and which causes considerable
difficulties for the community.
Given this . . . does it make any sense to be sweating it out here about
all sorts of *great reforms* that we should be instituting - reforms that
would make any newly emerging third world government proud - when we have
really no sufficient reason to do so? The pain and suffering that has been
caused by this immaturity aside, (and not lightly) the disease is not
institutional and neither is the cure.
Why do we keep ignoring the central issue facing us as a community? Why do
we allow ourselves (just as America does in general) to be caught up in all
the secondary and tertiary issues while brilliantly ignoring the fundamental
problems? Do we seriously believe that we will attract any significant notice
by the American public if we bring about these grand reforms? Do we really
think any of the millions who are suffering from variuous spiritual diseases
and the terrible psychic pain that is their symptoms are going to give a damn
that we have a national constitution that more clearly resembles the one
which we all swear alliegence to as citizens and which has failed to protect
its adherents from the slashing winds of the spiritual Storms that sweep this
land?
This is like some pitiful scene in a play . . . where the poor fellow
dresses up . . . sets a beautiful table, lights the candles and waits for his
heart's desire. Of course she never arrives. And why should she? She isn't
interested in a man who is obsessed with her; she desires another who can
deliver her and others from the tyrant.
There is no doubt that the community (and this means also the insitutions
which are the frame of this community) is in dire need of reforms. But the
reforms will come from spiritual maturity. My God folks, hasn't it sunk in
yet?! IF the community . . . IF WE were spiritually mature and fulfilling
our destiny much of these problems would not exist! That they do is an
statement on our failure as a community to arise. No amount of wailing and
nashing of teeth will bring about the maturity we need to implement any
reforms. LOOK AT AMERICA! Look at all the legislation, reforms, political
correctness, amendments, bills, political outcries, demonstrations . . . has
ANY of this brought any relief from the ills inflicting this nation? Has it
brought about the spiritual maturity that would disallow the death of MLK
jr., or the beating of Rodney King? Has it reduced to zero the growing youth
violence? Has it ended the brutal and disgusting behavior that assults our
hearts and minds every time we turn on the news??
If you really want reform then work for it - REALLY work for it - show some
courage and face the biggest challenge there is - helping the community face
its destiny and embrace it, act on it, and see it through. Until this is done
no amount of complaint will move us - it will only embitter us and divide us.
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 11:53:52 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:10:47 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: goodbye
Philip,
> "You seem to be in a rage." <
If you say so; however, impatient would be a better word to describe
having to deal with the snideness of the original recipient of this
particular ("goodbye") thread. My style of writing tends to be quite
terse, for which I am not going to apologize. And in looking back over
my recent msgs, I see nothing that I would do differently, nor nothing
to apologize for.
Bruce
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Nov 27 11:54:45 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 10:06:03 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: More for Brent
Dear Brent, Juan beat me to the "attack" but I would just like to add that,
when I read your posting chastizing John for dismissing people from Talisman, I
was reminded of my childhood experience in Catholic school. The nuns who
taught me were fanatically anti-Communist (of course, they were not alone in
this) and, one of the things they drilled into us was the fact in communist
countries, children were taught to squeal on each other and on family members if they suspected
if they suspected that someone was doing something "against the people."
I accepted the fact that Baha'is reported on other Baha'is to "protect the
Faith" for a long time. However, that repugnance drilled into me as a child
has resurfaced as I have seen so many people hurt by this practice. One can
always make a "cause" sound so precious that hurting human beings seem minor in
comparison to allowing the "cause" to be harmed. However, time and again,
history has shown that placing any "cause" ahead of how we treat other human
beings leads to disastrous results.
Juan is absolutely right. We can disagree all we want on Talisman and heaven
knows we do that. Turning someone in for saying something "suspect," though is
just what the good nuns taught me it was - repugnant and so very hurtful.
Linda
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 27 18:12:15 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 20:12:36+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist a-theology
Let me try and rephrase what you are saying so that if I am applying a wrong
concept we can nip it in the bud, so to speak.
Buddha taught "Truth" or a set of insights which had their source in his own
meditations, or his own enlightenment. He did this for forty-five years.
The manner of his teaching was to teach the process of reaching
enlightenment through "practice" (we will come back to that later), so that
his followers could achieve bodhi themselves, and have the experience
themselves.
After his death, his followers continued to struggle for the achievement of
bodhi, or enlightenment, or insight, and also to understand the process
involved in achieving bodhi. This is not a "concrete, finished practice,
and continues through history and even now to be able to respond to the
inner needs of the individual and the outer needs and historical pressures
of the community in which the individual is.
So even though the Buddha was the original source for the process and
original insights, the practice has continued and been carried on by his
followers who have continued to strive for bodhi, while allowing the process
to evolve. The form (institutions and expressions) which this takes varies
according to the insights the followers have experienced probably influenced
by their environment and inner needs) and the needs dictated by historic
events and community development.
I'm probably using the wrong words, yours are better, but I think I get the
idea. Sounds great!
Practice: If my understanding is correct, Bodhi is not something you can
"explain". It is something, (I think,) which would be recognized when
achieved, but not something you could tell someone about. It is like
meditation or prayer (from a Baha'i perspective).
Practice, on the other hand has many possibilities. I am still listening.
By the way, thank you for taking the time to do this. I appreciate it, very
much.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduMon Nov 27 18:13:27 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:38:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi <s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu>
To: talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Removal of Administrative Rights ( was Re: More for Brent)
Dear Linda, John, Juan, Brent and All,
I don't think that Brent was chastising John. I think he
was simply noting a parallel:
The Institutions of the Faith are criticized for making
decision which they feel are necessary. From the outside, it seems that
John has done the same. Granted that John, Linda and probably
Juan know more about the matter, but I think it is understandable
for others to see it differently from the outside.
Now I have a suggestion in relation with the reforms that have been
suggested with regards to the removal of administrative rights:
That there be an automatic appeal of all caess in which an
NSA has removed a person's administrative rights.
(This would be similar to laws in the U.S. where cases
ending with the death penalty are automatically appealed -
at least I think I have heard this - Brent?)
Now, I am not aware of the number of cases; this may mean
that some sort of Baha'i Court - as has been suggested by
Juan (and I would agree with Ahang that this is a task that
the Continental Board of Counsellors can perform) would be
necessary to handle the bulk of material.
take care,
sAmAn
From Member1700@aol.comMon Nov 27 18:13:50 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:36:24 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: It's 3 O'Clock in the morning
I believe that this is the second or third of Jim's long and tortured (and
obviously sincere) pleas that those on Talisman stop talking about peripheral
matters and do . . . well, something.
And while I have read your messages carefully, Jim, I must confess that I
do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I am left with
Juan's question: "OK, now what?"
Actually, I probably agree with your analysis. The need for more
spiritual maturity is urgent. OK, now what? Just what are we supposed to do
at this point?
Warmest,
Tony
From dpeden@imul.comMon Nov 27 18:14:21 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 20:55:31+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist a-theology
Bruce, something just occured to me while I was studying a few of your last
postings. Your last posting still doesn't address how "god" fits in with
Buddha. Yea, yea, I know it doesn't, but you have linked the term god talk
to Buddhism in your postings. This may be a key point where I am getting
confused. (No doubt, you are sighing "Ah: the penny drops!", but don't get
too excited yet, I may still be way off base.
In reading your last posting which is a simple explanation of Buddha seeking
enlightenment and empowering his followers to do the same, it still doesn't
address the issue of where Dharma originates. Yes, it is within ones own
self, but what is that which is within? I am not trying to associate it
with "god" or "soul", and it is not a "Baha'i trick question". But I think
it may be fundamental to what you are trying to communicate to me.
What is the nature of Dharma? What did Buddha have to say on this? I have
asked what practice means, but it occurs to me that perhaps these questions
come first.
From HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ieMon Nov 27 18:15:14 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:23:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: HICKC89 <HICKC89@ollamh.ucd.ie>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hinnells & UK-NSA. The FACTS?
Hello,
Since I live in Ireland I am reasonably familiar with the UK-NSA,
and my association with, and knowledge of them made me feel that they
would not attempt to "blackball" any author critical or otherwise of
the Faith, however Tony seems to have evidence to the contrary, as
does Juan from his postings, and I would very much appreciate if they
could post them citing ALL their sources, since obviously more or less
weight will be given to facts from certain quarters.
I must freely confess that I am not wholly familiar with the case,
and that any more commentary on it on my part would be very unwise,
until the facts are made very plain. Consultation with the editor of
an introductory book which the NSA feels to be biased is very
different from what Tony alleges.
*****THE FOLLOWING IS A *GENERAL* OBSERVATION *****
By the way, I feel from my short time on this fascinating mailing-
list that perhaps what might be helpful would be a greater citing of
sources in any "case studies" or specific examples. There is far too
much haziness in some postings with regard to specific administrative
decisions/actions when they are cited for argument. Citing sources
would eliminate much unnecessary argument and facilitate a quicker
dialogue.
Unfortunately, due to academic pressures I am forced to withdraw
from Talisman for the moment, but I would be very grateful if anyone
writing on this subject could cc specifically to me, if it isn't too
much trouble.
Thank you all, most stimulating.
Darach Watson
Dept. of Exp. Physics
UCD, Dublin
Ireland.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Nov 27 18:15:30 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 12:55:05 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Derek's message
Dear Derek, I responded to your sweet posting that I found awaiting me this
morning. Yet, I do not see it on the Talisman listings. If I accidently sent
it only to you, could you post it to Talisman for me. It contained such an
important message and I want to share it with everyone. Love and great
tenderness, Linda
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduMon Nov 27 18:18:32 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:07:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhism, God, sources
Bruce wrote:
> And just to add here, as the eminent buddhologist Herbert V. Guenther
> states: "Buddhism, however, is a thoroughly atheistic doctrine. ... The
> fact, however, is that no phase of Buddhism ever had theistic or
> pantheistic tendencies...." PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY IN
> THE ABHIDHARMA, p. 114-5.
>
> And as Buddhologist Roger Corless, who is a Christian monk and a
> practicing Buddhist, points out in his excellent introductory work, THE
> VISION OF BUDDHISM: "Buddhism, on the contrary, claims that
> belief in God leads to moral and spiritual degradation."
Jamshed Fozdar published a book entitled _The God of Buddha_ (Asia Publishing
House, New York, 1973) which offers a different perspective and may be of
interest for the thread on Buddhism. Aside from the main theme obvious from
the title, the book also deals with Hindu-Buddhist relations. Can anyone who
has read the book comment on it?? (I have not seen it--our university
library's copy is "missing.").
Fozdar also published a book--with which (Talis)many are perhaps more
familiar--on Baha'u'llah as the return of Buddha: _Buddha Maitreya-Amithaba
has Appeared_ (Baha'i Publishing Trust, New Delhi, 1976).
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Nov 27 18:18:43 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:08:22 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Refer to Mating service
My dear Linda
The program at the school that is going to be for people to develop
an understanding of what they need to work on themselves so that
Relationships can occur that are constructive. It is not a lets get
married weekend , relationships are at all levels in society not just
in marriage .
We live in the jolly old USA in a society that now encourages the
'nuclear' person , the nuclear family being out of date . The reason
why it is difficult for single people to find a suitable person is the
very often they have the expectations for the potential person but
not looked at themselves to see if they are suitable. By that I mean
you need to be clear what you are really looking for in a person
and who you are .
Children from a divorce situation find themselves displaced , they
need help in making new relationships as adults do.
Frequently even 'deepened' Baha'is when the subject of marriage
comes up fail to study with that intended person the Writings , to
see if they have a common ground on which to base their
relationship.
So these and many more things we will be doing at the weekend.
Relationships are about life and you can not get more exciting than
that.
We will of course be having afternoon tea at 3.30 with scones
<with clotted cream and strawberry jam > , cucumber, cress and
cheese sandwiches <with the bread crust cut off naturally > and
lots of lovely cakes and oodles of hot tea . So you are trying to get
an old girl-friend of mine to come , I doubt Amanda would leave
her horsies in England even to see me again .
It has been my experience that men will walk across hot coals just
to get the chance to talk to a women they think is listening to
them. As I am not of the view we have a male and female side to
get in touch with , the cards get in touch with your feminine side
will not be passed around .
I suspect you will find women are happy to talk to one decent man
than a thousand repugnant male human beings . I am going to post
my instructions for Ahmad poor lost soul on what to do and not to
do on the first two dates with the vast horde of women who soon
will be zooming to Australia .
Sherman says you have got a real problem over pussy cats . One of
Sherman's theories is that you are suffering from a chocolate
deficit . No doubt growing up in a Catholic background and
having to hand over your chocolates at confession as a penance has
scarred you . He as always is ever forgiving and sends his love and
wonders when can he play with your little lovebird .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS I do not run the Bosch Baha'i School only the Bookshop/Cafe
which many regarded as Bosch .
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Nov 27 18:19:03 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:11:03 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: RE: Reference to Mating Services to become poor Ahmad's fate!
---- Begin Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu>
Received: from belize.ucs.indiana.edu by ix6.ix.netcom.com
(8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
id HAA02255; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:31:21 -0800
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Received: from cluster.ucs.indiana.edu (root@localhost) by
belize.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7/8.7/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id KAA17645 for
<derekmc@ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:09:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199511271509.KAA17645@belize.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 10:29:34 EWT
X-To: PO2::"derekmc@ix.netcom.com"
Subject: RE: Reference to Mating Services to become poor Ahmad's fate!
To: derekmc@ix.netcom.com
Status: RO
Dear Derek, even the slobbering, waiting for the meal to be served with
big,
helpless eyes type is preferable to the male cat model that supposedly
our
little Sherman represents - you know, the "spreading seeds of creation
in a
very casual manner" type of thing. We women are accustomed to
suffering a
great deal but those of us who are enlightened have decided that, since
we
seem to have a choice between the "dog" model and "cat" model, the
former is
preferable.
And just what is the great attraction of the "relationship" conference
you have
planned? Couldn't you at least have given it a less threatening title?
How
many guys do you know who want to sit around and talk about
relationships?
Come one, Derek, let's get with it. Something livelier is in order.
This
sounds like a session where a guy can expect to sit around sipping tea
with
women all named something like Amanda
Willberby-Jones-Fishborn-Neggleworth. AT
tea time everyone will be presented with little cards that say, "the
discussion
for taday's tea-time will be 'becoming acquainted with one's feminine
side.'"
I am sure the phones are just ringing off the hook at Bosch from
gentlemen
dying to attend this function.
Derek, that posse of "Ladies" out chasing Ahmad is going to turn around
and go
after you if you don't come up with something that is going to attract
more men
to this function. They are relying on you Derek. Not because of any
particular merits of your own, but simply because you are the guy who
is
supposed to be running Bosch. So, a little imagination please!!
P.S. And, Derek, none of these little ritual mating dances that I
understand
are all the vogue at singles church camps. They are so, well, camp.
Perhaps
we should hear from the gentlemen on Talisman to learn what would draw
them to
such an event. (Of course, nothing too lewd. This is Talisman, of
course.
Keep it toned down.) Linda
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 18:20:31 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:45:07 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhism, God, sources
Don Osborn,
> "Jamshed Fozdar published a book entitled _The God of Buddha_
(Asia Publishing House, New York, 1973) which offers a different
perspective and may be of interest for the thread on Buddhism. Aside
from the main theme obvious from the title, the book also deals with
Hindu-Buddhist relations. Can anyone who has read the book comment
on it?? (I have not seen it--our university library's copy is "missing.").
> 'Fozdar also published a book--with which (Talis)many are perhaps
more familiar--on Baha'u'llah as the return of Buddha: _Buddha
Maitreya-Amithaba has Appeared_ (Baha'i Publishing Trust, New Delhi,
1976).' <
As for the two books by Jamshed Fozdar, I am quite with familiar them.
The first book, GOD OF BUDDHA, was published by a small
commercial firm, and the second, BUDDHA MAITRYA AMITABHA
HAS APPEARED, by the Baha'i Publishing Trust of India. I have read
both very carefully, tracking down every reference Fozdar used to
Buddhist texts, both in the Pali (which I read) and Sanskrit (which I can
muddled with), and the English sources which Fozdar used. What I
found was not simply a matter somebody presenting a position with
which I disagreed. I found that his source material consisted of
essentially only five books, one from which he quotes extensively is a
highly out of date "anthology" written in 1894. Given what is now
available in English translation (and what was available during his
penning of these books), his scholarship is less than barely adequate.
Fozdar, who arrogantly dismisses modern scholars as well as Buddhists
themselves as not having the correct knowledge of Buddhism and the
Buddha, sets out to tell us all what the Buddha really taught, and he
does this -- and I can certainly demonstrate this in detail -- by
plagiarism, misrepresentation, distortion, and in one book
passing off as Buddhist scriptures stuff in 27 instances that, though it
serves his purposes, is clearly not genuine Buddhist texts but was written
in 1894 by Paul Carus. Carus, the book's (THE GOSPEL OF THE
BUDDHA) author, carefully lists the source of each passage. There are
a number of passages identified as "EA," "explanatory addition" -- that
is, bridge material written by Carus. Fozdar takes this clearly marked
EA material and passes it off as actual Buddhist texts with citations as
if it were coming from the Buddhist canon. There is no way Fozdar
could have misunderstood what this EA material is, and to give this EA
Buddhist textual citations (something Crus does not do) is, to put in
mildly, questionable. It also worth noting that Carus imposes on
Buddhism in this work his own monistic philosophy, and it is in this
"EA" material that this most evident.
Fozdar "argues" in his prophecy chapter in BUDDHA MAITRYA [sic],
and elsewhere in that book, that Buddhists have lost the
true meaning and understanding of Buddhism, and he does this in terms
that can only be called insulting to Buddhists, and this is so particularly
in the context of Fozdar's scholastic incompetency. Of central
importance to Fozdar's argument is the Pali language prophecy text, the
Anagatavamsa, Fozdar states that this is the "oldest passage" relating the
decline of the Dhamma and the advent of Maitreya "which can be
attributed with any certainty to Siddharta [sic] Himself." (BMA 250,
282) The source for this claim? It can only be Fozdar's own
inventiveness, and certainly not any extant scholarship which attributes
this work to a man named Kassapa around the end of the 12th Century
CE. Fozdar's whole approach to Buddhist texts has nothing to do with
traditional exegesis, it has much more often than not nothing to do with
the traditional meanings of technical terminology of the Buddhist texts
he uses, and in one very central issue, Fozdar's approach has nothing
to do with the grammar of the passage in question.
On page 177 of BMA he quotes from the Anagatavamsa with the
addition of "of the Perfect Buddha":
"At the time when the Dispensation of the Perfect Buddha is falling into
oblivion, ... a 'miracle' like the Twin-miracle will
teach the Dharma."
(The deletion and ellipsis are Fozdar's.) Fozdar comments on this: "The
sense is clear: the Dharma will be taught be taught not by a single
'miracle' (Avatar), nor by two _separate_ 'miracles' ... but by the
'Twin-miracle...." Fozdar states that "the contemporaneous appearance
of Two Avatars," the Twin-miracle, will prevent false claim to
Buddhahood, and by being so unusual, it will demand our full attention.
Fozdar spends the whole of chapters 10, 11, 12, and 13 to establish that,
as announced by the title of chap 14, the Twin-miracle is manifest in the
persons of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
The full sentence from the Anagatavamsa, which Fozdar does actually
quote, reads:
"At the time when the Dispensation is falling into (oblivion), all the
relics, coming from every place: from the abode of serpents and the
deva world and the Brahma-world, having gathered together in the space
around the great Bo- tree, having made a Buddha image, and having
performed a 'miracle' like the Twin-miracle, will teach Dhamma."
Parse this sentence: what is the subject, the verb, and the direct object?
And never mind that "relics" and "twin-miracle" have very specific
meanings within the Pali literature which Fozdar completely ignores for
his own inventive interpretations, and if we follow Fozdar who needs to
consider the grammatical structure of the sentence in order find the true
meaning of it? The Twin-miracle will teach the Dharma? And this from
a man who criticizes Buddhists and Buddhist scholars for having
deformed the true teaching of the Buddha.
Understanding of Buddhism's rejection of theism will not come from the
blatant procrusteanism of Fozdar forcing Buddhism into a Baha'i mold.
Bruce Burrill
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduMon Nov 27 18:21:36 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 15:52:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: E-prime, Utterance, IAL
Allah'u'abha!
Noting the multiple and inconsistent uses of the verb "to be," some
semanticists (notably David Bourland) have proposed "E-Prime" (using English
without the verb "to be") as a solution. Although I have not read much on
the topic, and it seems quite extreme (although quite possible to learn),
I've been interested in its implications for our speech as Baha'is (in light
of the teachings on utterance) and the eventual choice / development of an
international auxiliary language (IAL).
Note that in common English usage, "to be" couples items of different
orders: for instance Mary is female, Mary is smart, Mary is Baha'i, Mary
is punctual, and Mary is tired refer to very different senses of "being."
("To be" functions also as an auxiliary in passives.) Excessive use of
"to be" can arguably lead to (or reflect) sloppy thinking. While E-Prime
attempts to resolve this by forcing us to resort to other verbs, more
modest proposals would have us at least reduce the usage of this verb.
Although I am not going to argue for the adoption of any of these (after
all, the Guardian in his translations & writings did not find such
modification of language necessary), I think we Baha'is would do well to
think about how we use "to be" as we reflect on our choices of words
(i.e., choosing words & refining utterance involves more than just speaking
politely).
Other languages have other conventions/structures which may or may not
rely heavily on a verb such as "to be." Spanish has two verbs "to be," one
used to refer, I believe, to location, and the other to "essence" (I don't
speak Spanish so perhaps someone could help me on this?), but most other
European languages have one verb "to be" which may be used as extensively
as in English (?). The Chinese "shi" works much as the English "to be."
Arabic, as far as I know, does not have a verb "to be," so either puts two
words together (the second without an article??) or uses a verb in the
various situations where English would use "to be." Fulfulde / Pulaar in
West Africa usually uses verbs based on verbo-nominal roots (a bit like
Arabic, although the languages are of different families), but also has a
particle (ko or yo depending on the dialect) which functions as "to be" in
some cases, and does without a verb for some locational references (omo to =
he/she is there). The Manding languages of W. Africa (Bambara, Mandinka,
etc.) have a couple of structures which function as "to be," X ye Y ye for
X is a Y, and A B don for A is B (he is sleepy) (don also being a
demonstrative - C don = this/that is (a) C).
It seems clear that language can function well with different ways of
expressing identity, state, etc., but that many languages rely on a single
"to be" verb to express a lot of different thoughts. What does this all
imply for the choice/development of an IAL? Perhaps whatever language
becomes the IAL should provide for different ways of expressing "to be"
&/or that instruction in that language (esp. if an existing one like
English is chosen) should stress moderate use of "to be" in speech and
writing.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
--
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:00:48 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: RE: Re: Baha'i Bill of Rights/criminal code
Dear Juan,
Please accept my apologies for having not replied earlier.
Further, I have finished typing that letter I had promised.
I need to proof it before sending it off, but I expect to be
able to send it to you soon.
I don't think I'm defending the status quo. I'm concerned
about the validity of your analysis with respect to the
problem you're trying to solve. I believe there is a problem,
and, in fact, am actively involved in several efforts to
alleviate what I see as the real problem.
Your account of the Dialogue affair is typical of the things
I see wrong in your analysis. By your own admission,
you don't know if any action has been taken by the US
National Spiritual Assembly, but you still seem willing
to conclude that the Universal House of Justice hasn't
overturned an arbitrary decision made by that Assembly.
How can the House overturn a decision that was never
made?
Certainly some individual members of the Assembly
have acted in unacceptable ways. These actions,
however, do not constitute decisions of the Assembly
made during a duly constituted meeting of that body.
Moreover, you are not privy to communications between
the Universal House of Justice and the National Assembly.
Yet, you seem rather certain that no communication from
the Universal House of Justice chastising those members
has ever been conveyed. Do you honestly believe that
the House simply Xeroxed copies of those letters without
some cover letter the content of which lies completely
outside your experience? The only observation you can
make, at this point, is that the House has never publicly
chastised those members for their actions. Hardly
sufficient evidence upon which one can base the kinds
of conclusions you are willing to reach.
Certainly, institutions can make decisions that _look_
arbitrary, but this isn't enough. Before we can come
to a reasonable conclusion on this, we need to know
how the consultation went. In short, we need to be
privy to information to which we cannot possibly be
privy.
At the heart of all of this lies the question of motive (not
yours, but that of members of these institutions). If
they are honestly motivated by a desire to fulfill their
functions as outlined by the Writings of the Faith, then
the problem isn't a structural problem. It's a problem
of education and maturation.
Therefore, I would contend that the appropriate action is
to leave issues of motive in the hands of the Universal
House of Justice on a case-by-case basis. That is, after
all, the way that the system has been constructed. It
is both their duty and their function. We, as individuals,
have neither the duty nor the function to consider the
motives of other individuals, even those who are serving
on an institution of the Faith. If we are to be sure of
the viability of our solutions, we cannot step outside
the boundaries of appropriate conduct for individuals
in the analysis of the problem itself. (We can, always,
raise the issue with the institutions themselves, in
this case the Universal House of Justice, but that
also requires stepping back from the particulars of
any case and leaving the overall decision in the hands
of the House.)
All solutions to this problem have to stem from this
presumption. If this presumption is not present, we
are in danger of causing more harm than good. In
fact, it's possible that our very act of proposing the
solution can do more harm than good because it
can undermine the authority of those institutions.
At the heart of the Baha'i notion of justice in these
circumstances lies what has been referred to as a
"scrupulous adherence to principle." The application
of Baha'i law requires the consideration and balance
of many, varied and sometimes conflicting principles.
It's not possible to codify these principles in such a
way which allows every case to be given its due
justice.
In the balance of this, there is already a small, but
effective, set of rights which applies to every case.
Among these is the right to appeal and the right to
a clear statement of the requirements one must
fulfill in order to have one's voting rights restored (the
latter must not include any admission of guilt on
the part of the individual). However, the effect of a
technical failure with respect to one of these rights
does not, as is the case in the US legal system,
result in a summary dismissal of any Assembly
action.
There has already been a considerable effort to
compile the guidance and information on the
application of Baha'i law into a concise collection
accessible to members of Assemblies. Such
effort takes time if it is to be done right. We need
to be patient if we are to see the best and fullest
fruits of this effort.
In the mean time, there is much work that can
be done on the education front. Lest you think me
of those whose words and deeds are at variance,
I will only refer you to my wife who jokingly says
that she knows I still live in her house by the food
that disappears and the laundry that accumulates.
(Note that my level of service is the result of joint
and continuing consultation between my wife and
me regarding how our marriage can best serve the
Faith.) If I were, in any way, satisfied with the
status quo, I think my wife would have much more
substantive evidence that she and I are still
married.
Warmest Regards,
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduMon Nov 27 18:30:29 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:24:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi <s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu>
To: talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Austin Baha'i Studies Conference
Dear All,
I got back from the Austin conference last night and wanted
to share my thoughts about the event.
First of all, it was great to see the friends that I have
made on Talisman in person: Stephen and Chris (from Canada), John
(from Arkansas), Nima (from New Mexico), Suzanne and Terry
(From Nebraska), Mark (from Kansas), Hashim and Bijan (from
Austin), Ahang (from Houston) and ofcourse a few of the lurkers -
I hope I did not miss anyone.
And FYI, we did eat together a few times and everyone has
impacable table manners - although Mark and Stephen did
eat a Tex-Mex goat. And if you ever do get a chance to
meet Nima, you must ask him to his impressions ;-)
We all agreed that everyone looked younger than they sound
on email - we took a group picture which Stephen will
hopefully be able to post on Talisman.
All the presentations were great and hopefully will be
posted on Talisman for everyone's enjoyment.
take care,
sAmAn
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 18:30:49 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 11:40:54 +1300
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: goodbye
Dear Bruce,
I gotta take a break to do some other things, including wipe
custard off my face. However, I shall be reading your letters carefully,
and have decided to rejoin the discussion (one way of another) later on.
Maybe a couple of days. Please don't fret during my absence.
Abundant best wishes,
Your friend,
Sweetly, [jab!]
Robert ("trying to be funny and clever but really a pratt") Johnston.
From richs@microsoft.comMon Nov 27 23:48:37 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 15:01:37 -0800
From: richs@microsoft.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu, Member1700@aol.com
Subject: RE: Re: It's 3 O'Clock in the morning
Dear Tony and Talizens,
From: Member1700@aol.com[SMTP:Member1700@aol.com]
>I believe that this is the second or third of Jim's long and tortured (and
>obviously sincere) pleas that those on Talisman stop talking about
peripheral
>matters and do . . . well, something.
> And while I have read your messages carefully, Jim, I must confess that
I
>do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I am left with
>Juan's question: "OK, now what?"
> Actually, I probably agree with your analysis. The need for more
>spiritual maturity is urgent. OK, now what? Just what are we supposed to
do
>at this point?
Thank you, Tony, for asking the question to which I had
been formulating an answer. In its core, the answer is
deceptively simple. We can start doing what the Universal
House of Justice has asked of us.
What has the Universal House of Justice asked us to
do? Well, we have about ten years worth of Ridvan
messages which give us the answer to that question.
I could give you what I think those messages mean, but
that strikes me as running counter to the principle of an
independent investigation of truth. And, it's not as though
such a study is beyond the capabilities of any subscriber
to Talisman. Those messages are, after all, addressed
to the Baha'is of the world.
Of course, if we are content to believe that the ideas of
the Universal House of Justice are silly, then we might
not find these answers to be very satisfying. We are
certainly free to come up with our own answers.
On the other hand, I believe Terry Culhane is in a
position to give us considerable insight into what can
happen in a community when we start putting some
of that guidance into practice (even if we aren't
cognizant of this alignment between our actions and
that guidance when we begin to act).
The word "serve" plays a prominent role in all of this.
I believe it deserves considerable meditation and
thought whenever we choose to embark upon any
effort.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From gec@geoenv.comMon Nov 27 23:49:50 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:46:46 -0500
From: Alex Tavangar <gec@geoenv.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mass Excommunication From The List
Dear Friends,
While I am not fully appraised of the circumstances which led to the
apparent removal of a number of the subscribers to Talisman from this list,
I did preferentially learn about this through reading a few of the related
postings including one by the owner.
I do not wish to engage in any laborious discussion about the merits or lack
thereof vis-a-vis this episode. However, I felt compelled to share with
the remaining confidants of this valuable endeavor some of the thoughts that
went through my mind as I was reviewing the postings following my
Thanksgiving hiatus.
The irony is astounding! This "heavy handed" excommunication of the
"covenant breakers" (proven or presumed) by the caretaker/guardian of this
scholarly (liberal?) discussion group was quite a sobering experience.
Particularly in view of the following quick points:
-- The protracted discourse on Talisman about the need for an
increase in freedom of expression (the exact boundaries to be left to the
discretion of the individual in order to promote a wider level of
participation and exploration) and the elimination of a review process which
can potentially be used as a means of controlling this same freedom when
exercised by those with whom we disagree.
-- Not only were the charges murky (by joining Talisman one does not
swear to secrecy), but the identity of the real perpetrators was also unknown.
-- To take solace in the presumption and expect that the postings
are only shared with empathetic individuals and/or entities seems to be
overly naive and counter productive. This self-limiting expectation hinders
the widespread "clash of ideas" necessary for a brilliant "spark of truth."
-- Since, as it has been mentioned on Talisman before, the postings
are being archived at different locations, we owe it to ours and our fellow
talismanian's integrity and scholastic uprightness to state only that which
we consider accurate and hence be willing to courageously, courteously, and
lovingly (this attribute is particularly required of Baha'is lest we be
accused of ideologic hypocrisy) present our point of view before any forum
while maintaining an open mind about it all (sorry about the long sentence).
-- I believe that removing a whole group of individuals from
Talisman by reason of association is contrary to Justice and as such, abhorrent.
-- Individuals such as Robert Stockman add to the depth and breadth
of discourse on Talisman and I will be personally offended if someone else
decides that I don't need to include him in my discussions. This same
sentiment goes for others who will have an interest to participate in and
contribute to the discourse on Talisman.
Regards,
ABT (Alex B. Tavangar)
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Nov 27 23:50:10 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 9:26:21 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dismissing people from Talisman
Dear Juan and Linda:
Could you please go back and actually *read* Brent's posting. It
might save you from appearing foolish.
Linda, our list owner has requested us not to use peoples name's in
the subject header.
Sorry to have a bit of steam on this, but we have enough useless
conflict already on Talisman. It is unwise to invent new conflicts
totally out of the blue.
Yours curmudgeonly,
Steve F.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 19:36:56 EST
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: History, Miracles, Planes of Knowing
I had unsubscribed from Talisman for issues entirely appart from
anything going on on Talisman when i came across this. I find much of
what you write at least worth reading, and often worth praising, (
not that i always agree with you.)
... anyway....
If you have time for an infrequent dialogue of whatever kind i would
appreciate some
> 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 had understood the limitation of the natural world to be not that it
indirectly reflected God's perfections but that it reflected only
some of them ( or at any rate less than the realm of humanity which
reflected "all" of them potentially.) I had also seen some comment
about the natural world reflecting "the" qualities that may
destinguish man by an issue of amount - fleetingly and of a quality
as to not be comparable with the enduring effect of said quality.
What does it mean to reflect something indirectly? SOme category of
existence is able to so reflect the qualities of God that it is the
source of illumination of material existence rather than God? I can
see how that sounds like the station of the Manifestation, and
yet.... Well i would like to see the quote that destiguishes the
station of material existence as "indirectly" reflecting God.
Hope you are well as we live in these interesting times!
:)
From clarkre@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduMon Nov 27 23:53:04 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 19:38:14 EST
From: RUTH E CLARK <clarkre@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist theology
Robert Johnston wrote:
Ffolks,
>If Ruth does not wish to be splattered with cream and merangue,
My dear Robert,
If you want to get to my heart through my stomach you must put the
pie in my mouth one bite at a time.
> I suggest refrain from adopting a holier than thou position on top of the fridge,
No, my dear I was waiting right by the fire-place for you to be
dropping in from the chimney. I am a Christian, and non-white. You
are not prejudice are you? Will you send me a Christmas pie?
>and leave the kitchen!
That's a good start. So, you don't believe in keeping women bare
foot and pregnant slaving in the kitchen, huh? Which room shall I
begin to move towards, now? I assume you are also a desperate
batchelor from Down Under. Are you?
>Robert ("Cruel Jester") Johnston.
You couldn't be cruel even if you try, my sweet pumpkin pie!
Ruth
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Nov 27 23:54:16 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 19:24:32 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Covenant Breakers?
Dear Alex, while I appreciate your flare for the dramatic -- I do love it
myself -- I thought it was a little out of place in the case of the removal of
some people from Talisman.
John hasn't thrown anyone off of Talisman for having differing viewpoints. We
have plenty of sparks going on here. No one gets kicked off because he
doesn't see life the way the Listowner does. Before this occurred, two other
people were thrown off. They were positively abusive in their speech and John
was criticized repeatedly for not kicking them off sooner.
Talisman is a discussion group - not a religious organization. One is not
committed to Talisman as he would be to his religion. To kick someone off the
internet because he has broken the rules may be unpleasant, but doesn't really
mean a diddly thing in the great scheme of life. However, when someone uses
a system such as Talisman to do real harm to another - jeopardize one's
position in something that means a great deal to him - then, that is quite
another matter.
Rob Stockman is quite capable of arguing his own position and has been in
touch. Don't worry about him. He's a big boy. John had to make a statement.
He said he didn't want Talisman misused to hurt the subscribers. It is because
freedom of speech was being threatened that John took these measures. If we
can't feel safe posting our thoughts on Talisman, then we might as well close
up shop. If I think someone is going to go around misrepresenting things that
I say, take my words out of context and report them to the Administrative
Order, then I'll just talk about the weather. (Though perhaps there are those
on Talisman who would prefer this.)
I think that, since you don't know all the circumstances and the trouble that
has been caused by someone's action, you might refrain from being so
judgmental.
By the way, I haven't seen your name on Talisman before. I wonder why you are
leaping in now with your thoughts. Have you no other opinions on anything that
is being discussed here? Linda
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 23:55:20 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:05:12 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a rhino is also a toucan
Dear Philip,
Re:
>I do have some common examples of two language games, or semiotics,
>which are both correct and which could often disagree.
It seems I am always returning to a desire to bring unity to a felt sense
of fragmentation. I have a strong sense of a unity that runs through all
"games". I see no reason why a scientist can't use poetry... [Which
reminds me: I have a Baha'i friend who is completing an engineering
Master's Thesis on wind energy. It is a dry thesis, and he has asked me to
find some pieces of poetry (with references to the wind) that he can thread
into the work. Can anyone help? I'm going to go through a few of the
Romantics, like Shelley, Wordsworth and Coleridge. Suggestions?]...I don't
see why potters shouldn't talk physics, or pig farmers speak Hebrew...
Indeed, enabling discourse among the diverse would seem to be just about
the most important thing in the world right now...
I believe there are greater and lesser realities. On a certain level a
rhino is no different to a hippo, Jesus is a mythic figure, and the earth
is flat. On that same level though, a rhino is also a toucan, Charlton
Heston is Jesus, and the earth stops at the city limits. On higher levels,
however, this diffuse sense of reality is both understerstood and remedied.
And this is done primarily to bring harmony into the world. The process
is centrally about rationality. And therein is the rub, so far as we are
concerned. Rationality has been rightly identified with patriarchal,
racist and colonialist oppression. Campbell recognised this. My central
project, then (and Campbell's perhaps), is the redefinition of
rationality.... In my view rationality is about the dance of science and
religion, concerning which I have written so much. My two non-Baha'i
heroes of rationality are Socrates and Confucius...
Re:
>
>If Bruce feels that his own viewpoint is not appreciated then I don't
>believe we have the right to expect him to appreciate ours.
True.
I notice you make an interesting distinction here: "his" and "ours". Like:
there's "Bruce" and "us". Let's say that's OK, and briefly explore a
positive implication....
Just as Bruce is one entity, it is also possible to see "us" (the
Talismanic Baha'is) as another. Within this "us" entity I represent
forces different to those which you and Juan represent. Some of the forces
I represent are unpleasant to you and to Juan -- and also to Bruce -- but
is it possible that the very forces that you find unpleasant are also kinda
useful? Like a little bit of poison, perhaps? At least they give you an
opportunity to show your care for Bruce, and facilitate of "strange
bedfellows" alliance between Juan and Bruce.
I recognise my silliness, amigo... But I also feel certain that there is
something in my story that has not yet been really understood. Let's all
keep playing our roles in this drama with sincerity, and see what
happens...
Robert.
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Nov 27 23:55:54 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 19:35:53 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: someone's message
Steve, I can't remember John ever saying that we can't use names in the subject
header. I figure if I use Derek and Burl's names in the header, then you won't
bother to have to read my messages. Thought I was saving you some time by
doing so. Will e-mail listowner and check on this matter.
As for Brent's message, perhaps I have also just failed to read Alex's accurately.
Frankly, I don't have a copy of Brent's message. But apparently Juan and I
both felt the same way about it. We both responded independently in pretty
much the same way. If Brent feels we have been unfair to him, then I would
hope he would say so.
While you might consider this business "useless," I happen to consider it to be
pretty central to many issues that have arisen on Talisman. Linda
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Nov 27 23:56:17 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:33:01 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: RUTH E CLARK <clarkre@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Christian, and non-white
Dear Ruth,
I couldn't stop laughing!
>If you want to get to my heart through my stomach you must put the
>pie in my mouth one bite at a time.
Will become more mindful of aim!
>No, my dear I was waiting right by the fire-place for you to be
>dropping in from the chimney. I am a Christian, and non-white. You
>are not prejudice are you? Will you send me a Christmas pie?
So I'm Father Christmas rather than a sinner falling into the fires of
Hell? Non-white? Hmmm. Excuse me for being very naughty, but the range
of possibilities suggested here staggers my imagination... For instance,
you wouldn't be green would you? (I can see Philip falling backwards with
embarassment!) Yes, I am prejudiced, actually. I am prejudiced in favour
of anyone than can make me laugh. And will I send you a Christmas pie?
Maybe. I'll have to think about it a bit further...
>>and leave the kitchen!
>
>That's a good start. So, you don't believe in keeping women bare
>foot and pregnant slaving in the kitchen, huh? Which room shall I
>begin to move towards, now? I assume you are also a desperate
>batchelor from Down Under. Are you?
You may have me confused with Ahmad.... ;-}
>You couldn't be cruel even if you try, my sweet pumpkin pie!
OK OK, I recognize a hiding when I've just had one!
Still smiling,
Robert.
PS you really MUST introduce yourself more fully, as is one of the list
customs. I'll tell me more about me (oh no! I hear Philip cry ;-}) when
you do!
R.
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Nov 27 23:57:46 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 20:02:08 -0600
From: Bruce Burrill <brburl@mailbag.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist theology
Bev,
> "Let me try and rephrase what you are saying ... ." <
Looks good to me.
> 'Practice: If my understanding is correct, Bodhi is not something
you can "explain". It is something, (I think,) which would be
recognized when achieved, but not something you could tell someone
about. It is like meditation or prayer (from a Baha'i perspective).' <
Bodhi can be talked about to some degree. According to traditional
statements it is full insight into the Four Noble Truths. Of course talking
about these things is not the same as having insight into them.
> 'Bruce, something just occured to me while I was studying a few of
your last postings. Your last posting still doesn't address how "god" fits
in with Buddha.' <
I know. Just setting the ground work. Dharma is a multifaceted word.
It can refer to a thing, an object of experience such as a thought, a
feeling, a smell. It also means quality of a thing. It is a word used to
refer to the Buddha's teaching, as in Buddha-dharma, the Buddha's
teaching or truth. It also is used to refer to the way the universe
functions. It is the order, principle of the universe, the norm, mean, or
law. It is an ultimate term, and this could be one of the words within
Buddhism for which the word god might be substituted, particularly in
terms of god as the orderer of the universe, of what is.
Here, however, let me point out the differences. You mentioned that
god, or the spirit of god, animates existence, implying a separation
between god and its creation, and as I understand Baha'i theology as
well as virtually all of the variations of Western theism, this separation
is actually quite central to the idea of god and its creation.
Dharma is best understood in terms of the way the universe functions.
It is not something that acts or creates or wills or functions as a willful
being in any way. It is not separate from the universe any more than is
the principle of entropy.
> "In reading your last posting which is a simple explanation of Buddha
seeking enlightenment and empowering his followers to do the same, it
still doesn't address the issue of where Dharma originates." <
It doesn't originate; it is the way things are. It is an ultimate category,
it is ultimate reality, but it is not a thing, being entity. Baha'i, as well
as many other religions, talk in various ways about the ultimate reality
behind the phenomenal world. Buddhism, however, does not make such
a distinction.
I am going to stop here and let you fire some questions at me and we'll
see if we can make this clearer. There is a great deal more that can be
said. Looking forward to your next post.
Bruce
From CLARKRE@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduMon Nov 27 23:59:38 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 21:33:05 EST
From: RUTH E CLARK <CLARKRE@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: introduction
Dear People,
I have not prepared a bio yet. But, I will tell you that I live in
Research Triangle area in North Carolina. I am not a Baha'i. I am an
African-American. I work at a large corporation and am single.
I viewed talisman for awhile through a friend decided to join.
I am good friends with Baha'is and enjoy their firesides.
Now, I like to share some thoughts between Research Triangle and
Research Triangle Experts on talisman. To begin with I think Burl is
actually Phil Donahue, Derek could be Geraldo Rivera and this Quanta
probably is either Oprah or Sally Jessy Raphael in disguise.
They keep sharing thier social research findings on talisman by
"telling it all" and I can't make a sense of what they say.
I have sympathy with Ayla and I bet she doesn't go anywhere with
Mother Yentle/Fidllerette on the Roof. I hope SHE DOES NOT HIDE IN A
CAVE
RUTH
From rstockman@usbnc.orgTue Nov 28 00:00:02 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 20:08:52
From: "Stockman, Robert" <rstockman@usbnc.org>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Throwing People Off the List
Well, John has let me back on, so I guess now I can take care of
myself. Of course, I suppose he hasn't let another five or six
innocent people back on; perhaps he should consider it.
I am fascinated by Linda's argument that we should not be judgmental
and should trust the list owner. There seems to be a similar argument
to be made about Baha'i institutions, but somehow no one listens. . .
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Covenant Breakers?
Author: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu at INTERNET
Date: 11/27/95 7:32 PM
Dear Alex, while I appreciate your flare for the dramatic -- I do love it
myself -- I thought it was a little out of place in the case of the removal of
some people from Talisman.
John hasn't thrown anyone off of Talisman for having differing viewpoints. We
have plenty of sparks going on here. No one gets kicked off because he
doesn't see life the way the Listowner does. Before this occurred, two other
people were thrown off. They were positively abusive in their speech and John
was criticized repeatedly for not kicking them off sooner.
Talisman is a discussion group - not a religious organization. One is not
committed to Talisman as he would be to his religion. To kick someone off the
internet because he has broken the rules may be unpleasant, but doesn't really
mean a diddly thing in the great scheme of life. However, when someone uses
a system such as Talisman to do real harm to another - jeopardize one's
position in something that means a great deal to him - then, that is quite
another matter.
Rob Stockman is quite capable of arguing his own position and has been in
touch. Don't worry about him. He's a big boy. John had to make a statement.
He said he didn't want Talisman misused to hurt the subscribers. It is because
freedom of speech was being threatened that John took these measures. If we
can't feel safe posting our thoughts on Talisman, then we might as well close
up shop. If I think someone is going to go around misrepresenting things that
I say, take my words out of context and report them to the Administrative
Order, then I'll just talk about the weather. (Though perhaps there are those
on Talisman who would prefer this.)
I think that, since you don't know all the circumstances and the trouble that
has been caused by someone's action, you might refrain from being so
judgmental.
By the way, I haven't seen your name on Talisman before. I wonder why you are
leaping in now with your thoughts. Have you no other opinions on anything that
is being discussed here? Linda
From richs@microsoft.comTue Nov 28 00:00:19 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:59:08 -0800
From: richs@microsoft.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu, rstockman@usbnc.org
Subject: RE: Throwing People Off the List
Dear Robert and Talizens,
First, welcome back. It's good to have you around, Rob.
From: Stockman, Robert[SMTP:rstockman@usbnc.org]
I am fascinated by Linda's argument that we should not be judgmental
and should trust the list owner. There seems to be a similar argument
to be made about Baha'i institutions, but somehow no one listens. . .
I wouldn't say that no one listens. There does, however, seem to
be a rather strong negative correlation between the extent to which
one listens and the extent to which one has already convinced
oneself that one is right.
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 28 00:00:27 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 16:15:13 -0900
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: "Stockman, Robert" <rstockman@usbnc.org>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Throwing People Off the List
Robert Stockman (echoing a thought expressed earlier by Brent) wrote:
> I am fascinated by Linda's argument that we should not be judgmental
> and should trust the list owner. There seems to be a similar argument
> to be made about Baha'i institutions, but somehow no one listens. . .
Exactly. This event may be productive of good afterall: the witnessing of
pigeons coming home to roost. The "crimes" of others become our own, in
strange ways...
Robert ("curbing savage thoughts") Johnston.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduTue Nov 28 00:04:00 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 21:21:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi <s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.edu>
To: talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Collective Punishment
I'm about to further slip and slide off my own soap box,
so I beg your patience in advance.
I think Alex alludes to a point which is important - a
double standard.
The Institutions of the Faith are accused of:
1. Making haste, unwise and unfair decisions with
regards to individuals who criticise them
2. Being thin skinned regarding any criticism and
quashing any public news of these protractions by accusing
the sources of being infirm in the Convenant
3. Being secretive about their decisions - not allowing
the accused to face his/her accusers and misusing their
inherent right of not being responsible to their electorate
to further their own agenda
They are also likened to fascist, communists, totalitarian
murders, etc.
We are further asked to accept the conclusion of others about
the alleged shortcomings of Institutions without knowing
the full story as the accusers know it.
Now when the tables are turned, we are asked to accept
the judgement of listowner and not jump to the wrong
conclusion.
I guess I am more baffled than ever before... should I
be mistrusting of all in power or is it at all possible
that both John and the Institutions of the Faith are
more right than wrong?
sAmAn
From burlb@bmi.netTue Nov 28 00:04:37 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 19:15 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Gee...I go away for the weekend and you folks get sooo frisky!
In the Advent of Divine Justice, Shoghi Effendi identifies 3 disgusting
items attacking the heart of America:
1. Racial Prejudice
2. Political Corruption
3. Lax moral standards
He also identifies 3 spiritual prerequisites which we must have to complete
our tasks
1. Freedom from prejudice
2. High standard of moral rectitude
3. chaste and holy life
the second three are the inverse of the first three. By this reversal, we
would manifest qualities and attributes at variance with the "dominant ethic
culture" and attract others by the dynamic force of example -- much as
Sherman does at Bosch, tiny turban and all -- and thereby impact the culture
in a positive and rewarding way. The Guardian also says that the better job
we do at this, the less severe will be the assaults on the Faith from its
enemies. I think it is important that we are told to see our enemies as our
friends, not just to treat them that way, but to regard them that way. So,
when attacked please remember that your inveterate enemy will be serving
with you on some LSA someday....(maybe he/she is already?)
PS: Ruth...I am not Phil Donahue. I am much better looking, have dark brown
hair, a charming lopsided smile, enchanting eyes, but I got this problem
with elf-hairs growing on the sides of my ears. It is really weird. If I
don't shave my ears, I look like Lawrence Talbot (for 25 points, tell us his
middle name) during a full moon.. As for being non-white, Nazi's say I am
not white, and the KKK says I am not white either. My son is
African-American and I am not. My wife is Norwegian, which means she is not
white, but translucent. So, what am I?
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From dpeden@imul.comTue Nov 28 00:06:17 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 07:02:58+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 3:00 o'clock
Dear Rick:
It is very heartwarming to hear comments from someone like yourself who
wants to see action, not words. Thank you for sharing them.
The Universal House of Justice, (if my memory serves me well, as I have not
had the opportunity to study their letters much in the past few years,
partly by circumstance, and partly by choice), does encourage us towards
service. They also encourage us to find our paths of service. They suggest
several areas of need, and several paths to service. But they don't say we
have to do all areas at all times. Quite the contrary, I remember feeling a
great relief when they encouraged the Baha'is to serve the faith through
whatever capacity their "personal gifts" or areas of expertise offered and
gave us permission to not have to be all things to all people. There was
also a strong encouragement for all Baha'is to become more prayerful, and
more knowledgeable about the writings.
I think the scholars on Talisman are doing what they do best. They are
being scholars. They are taking the administrative writings and turning
them upside down and inside out, and taking them down to the rocks and
pounding them a while to loosen the dirt and wash it away! This is
necessary for our own growth and correct thinking. Otherwise, if we never
question, we stay stuck in assumptions, and start handing those assumptions
out as God's truth. This function also doesn't prevent other avenues of
service from happening, and it sounds like there is quite a lot of service
the scholars are doing in their communities and at various conferences
between hanging out in saloons and commenting on each others lace, and
trying to facilitate a harmonious end to Sherman's attempts to become one
with his scratching post in the universe. They are also running a dating
service, although I agree they shouldn't just date Baha'is...eventually
weakens the gene pool. Not to mention the smile they often bring to my
heart and my prayers in the morning.
They are probing the Sacred Writings and ruminating on what they might mean.
They are putting them into a historical context that I, having been a Baha'i
for a number of years, find very refreshing and rewarding. It is rather
difficult to keep having my sum total of historical knowledge about the
Faith wrapped up in a line that says "In 1844..." What else was going on
before 1844, led up to 1844, and made 1844 possible is knowledge I have
never had access too, and I am learning a lot! I may not be able to repeat
it all, or I'd get it all jumbled for sure, but I am at least aware that it
is there. That adds to my ability to serve, to learn, to worship with
meaning and to grow. It also helps me to decide what avenue of service I am
capable of offering. If the community I am in doesn't like what I offer,
well, I defend my right to offer what I am capable of, and refuse to be
bullied into trying to be super-Baha'i. I think we need to appreciate our
different avenues of service, and to dare to weave them together, along with
the threads of a lot of folks who are not Baha'is but have different ways of
serving and being a positive force in the affairs of humankind. Who knows
what might happen. It is a canvas in process.
I think that IS doing a lot, and I am so glad you are part of it.
Thanks,
Bev.
From dpeden@imul.comTue Nov 28 00:06:52 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 07:02:46+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhism con't
Dear Bruce:
Lots of questions! Fascinating topic!
Four noble truths, please. Although I have read them (or versions of them
to be more exact), let's assume I know nothing, and I will try and erase any
concept I have of them. (I am trying to remove from my mind any
pre-concieved ideas I carry.)
In what way would Dharma apply to a thing? I see where God might be
identified as a personified figure in the term orderer of the Universe, and
how this can throw a big bucket of cold water on any attempted conversation
between Baha'is and Buddhists, but it isn't something to get hung up on, is it?
Now I am thinking out loud, so please don't take this as final thought. I'm
just walking through some ideas.
I question whether or not the term "god" needs to imply a separation. (Sorry
for my stubborness.) I accept that it implies there is a separation between
God and its creation because the word has historical associations, but maybe
our associations and understandings of the word is not correct. It is only
one facet of the god spirit. It isn't like a mother and child kind of
separation. Although we have "appeared", "been created", or just happened,
there has to be a set of operating laws that allowed us to be. They may be
physical laws, or they may be spiritual laws, or they may be both. Created
by that set of laws, and part of that set of laws, and that set of laws part
of us. It continues on as the animating force of all the universe, of which
we are also a part, and it is part of us. This is where I still don't see
why god must mean one or the other. I do accept that Dharma does not mean
creator and all that this implies, or that dharma is "busy" running the
show. It just is, and we are part of it, and it is part of us...not
necessarily a force with a will, such as implied in most scriptural writings
in the Baha'i Faith. Could "will" be another term for those laws which
operate? (I am using the term laws here very loosly; you could call them
principles, operations, etc.)
But as part of that creation, we still need to be aware of and sensitive to
that ongoing spirit, and we need to bring ourselves in line with it. If we
act contrary to it, we set in motion a series of events which will put us
out of harmony with that animating spirit, and out of sync. Potential harm
can be the result, or having to make choices and suffer consequences based
on incorrect behaviour. Or cause hardship or suffering to another through
our trying to operate contrary to the order of Universe. Drops of water can
not run contrary to a river, and water, if put out of it's element onto a
hot metal surface will be transformed to steam, and must undergo several
changes before it can regain it's form of water. There are "laws" we must
obey in order to remain part of this whole. We also don't have a choice
about whether we are water or rock or human. We just are, and must work
with what potential we have. And of course we have no idea what potential
we have until we start to explore. Dharma!
Dharma, then would be more fatalistic in the sense that it is neither good
or evil, it just is. For our part of this Dharma, we are capable of
"understanding" or "tapping into" this ongoing process, and gaining insight
and inspiration from what we see, and what we experience.
Again, if Dharma is an ultimate category, and just is, mosquitos and HIV
are also part of that ultimate category. They just do what they do. We
don't have to like it, and our paths can be rather disasterous if they
cross, but there is no reason why part of that phenomena should be any less
of the universe than we are, is there?
Am I still on track, or have I wandered off again.
From dpeden@imul.comTue Nov 28 00:10:58 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 07:03:09+030
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: excommunication
Dear Alex and all:
I guess in watching this little unfoldment, I am struck by the irony of the
reversal of roles. It is a classic technique in therapy, to play the role
of one you are in difficulty with, and it will be interesting to know what
both sides of the roles looks like.
So many are wanting to know "who, what, when, how, why", but "privacy" is
being respected.
There is no recourse except behind closed doors.
There is the authoritarian aspect to all of this.
Hmmmm.... How interesting. I'm just curious to see what will be learned by
all parties concerned. My mother use to tell me not to judge another before
you had walked a mile in their mocassins. How are the mocassins fitting
both the N.S.A. members and the talisman owner? I don't think I'm
interested in commenting or interferring at this point. It is better to
wait and see how things unfold.
Love,
Bev.
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 28 00:11:29 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 22:50:54 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Misuse of the list
Honored members:
I don't particularly want to explain the details of this situation, for reasons
that will be clear enough if I end up having to do so. I would like to
reiterate my policy on this list:
1) The point of the list is to let people say what they want without interference.
2) The list is a benevolent autocracy. You are here as my guests, but
when there are judgement calls to be made, I make them.
3) I will intervene only under two conditions:
a) Someone is behaving sufficiently obnoxiously to imperil the
functioning of the list.
b) Someone is threatening someone else.
4) I run this list as part of my research projects as a professor at a public
university. This means that ethically I am obligated to tolerate diverse
viewpoints and to protect freedom of inquiry.
This particular case involved (3b).
John Walbridge
List Owner
******
TALISMAN is an unmoderated forum for discussion of issues
related to the Babi and Baha'i Faiths: history, theology, social issues, etc.
Content can include discussion of relevant issues, queries, announcements,
advertisements of books of interest to the members, etc. The list owner is
John Walbridge, Professor of Near Eastern Languages and of Philosophy,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
1. The service is provided through the University Computer Center of
Indiana University. Participants are reminded that this service is paid for
by the taxpayers of the state of Indiana, that the fundamental purpose of
this list is scholarly, and that discussion should thus be conducted on the
basis of evidence and rational argument. The list is open to anyone
approved by the list owner.
2. The list is actually an automatic forwarding device. The list owner does
not moderate content, nor does he wish to do so. Participants are free to
argue for whatever views they wish, provided they do so courteously and
on the basis of evidence and sound reasoning.
3. Any mail addressed to the list--TALISMAN@INDIANA.EDU--will be
automatically forwarded as e-mail to all members of the list.
4. Participants are reminded that they are on the list as guests of the list
owner. Violations of decorum will be punished by being dropped from the
list. This sanction is solely at the discretion of the list owner and is not
subject to appeal.
5. The list owner being a Midwesterner of philosophic temperament,
participants are requested to refrain from abusive language, discourtesy, ad
hominem arguments, accusations of heresy, and other forms of fallacious
argumentation. On the other hand, this is an argumentative list, and
members should be willing to defend their expressed opinions against
spirited attack without taking it personally.
6. Please remember that all postings go out to all members. Sophomoric,
overly long, irrelevant, and badly thought out postings waste everybody's
time and someone's money.
7. Please refrain from unnecessarily including the text of the message you
are replying to or passages therefrom in your postings. These clutter up
the system and are a needless expense for those who personally pay for
connect time.
8. No archive of messages is available, nor is there a list of participants.
9. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to
MAJORDOMO@INDIANA.EDU.
Subj.: none
The body should contain only the command:
subscribe talisman
or:
unsubscribe talisman
10. To contact the listowner privately, e-mail to jwalbrid@indiana.edu.
11. A custom has developed on this list--based, it seems, on Maori
etiquette--that new participants should introduce themselves at some
point with a brief biography.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpTue Nov 28 00:11:57 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 13:33:02 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: someone's message
Dear Linda:
I'm looking forward to Brent's posting too. He seemed to be saying something
diametrically opposed to what you and Juan read into it - namely, that
he was criticizing John's decisions. What I read him as saying is that a
highly legalistic approach, such as a "Baha'i Bill of Rights", actually
would prevent John from properly exercising his authority. His argument,
which you seem to miss, was based, I believe, on the appropriateness
and correctness of John's responses.
Tony has made the point several times before: when an ideal takes
precedence over people, then there are going to be certain problems.
Rephrasing it, when an ideology dictates in advance what is to be
done, then justice takes a walk. Similarly, when legalisms replace
individual consideration, we can expect the same to happen. It is
this aspect of the American legal system that generates concern around
the world (but, Terry Culhane has promised to defend it when he
returns from Texas) and in America.
I well remember various blasts aimed at me based on sloppy reading of
postings I have made, so I am somewhat sensitive to the issue, perhaps
overly so. I apologize if that is the case.
Yours,
Steve
From belove@sover.netTue Nov 28 00:12:11 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 23:16:42 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a spoonful of poison
Robert Johnson wrote:
is it possible that the very forces that you find unpleasant are also
kinda
useful? Like a little bit of poison, perhaps?
A spoonful of poison makes the merry go round. Si?
You see Robert, toucan play this game.
Quoting Campbell:
In a world with only light and no shadow, you can't see anything.
I love/hate these lower levels of reality.
For me, A good dark chocolate beats a milk chocolate any time.
Ph'l'p
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/27/95
Time: 23:16:42
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Nov 28 00:13:01 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 23:12:38 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Scholarship and the Purpose of Talisman
If I may comment on Don Peden's thoughtful comments:
Among the purposes of Talisman--though not the only one--is to make
available a supply of new ideas. Now, not all of these ideas will
be right, in the view of eternity--certainly no more than half of them,
if you believe in the law of the excluded middle. Moreover, nobody
is obligated to do anything with these ideas. However, it seems to
me that Baha'i institutions may find themselves needing some of
these ideas, and Talisman helps ensure that they are there when they are eventually needed. We had
an interesting debate last winter about the role of ritual in community
life, which the LSA of Omaha seems to have taken to heart. Bosch
discovered it needed a conference on mysticism. What, if anything, the
House of Justice or the American NSA or other Baha'i institutions and
groups may find useful, I have no idea, but it seems to me prudent to
let a group of generally creative and certainly diverse people gabble
away in the corner just in case new ideas turn out to be needed. Granted,
you will have to put up with having your current ideas poked and
questioned, but it seems a very reasonable price to pay.
john walbridge
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 28 01:01:31 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:16:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: knowing the self/ Zen & Baha'i
I continue my inadequate and perhaps quixotic enterprise of reading
Baha'i and Zen texts against each other, mainly to see how the Baha'i
texts would look different. The central text I am using is Baha'u'llah's
commentary on the Saying, `He who hath known his self hath known his Lord.'
"There can be no doubt whatever that, in consequence of the
efforts which every man may consciously exert and as a result of the
exertion of his own spiritual faculties, this mirror can be so cleansed
from the dross of earthly defilement and purged from satanic fancies as
to be able to draw nigh unto the meads of eternal holiness and attain
the courts of everlasting fellowship. In pursuance, however, of the
principle that for every thing a time hath been fixed, and for every fruit
a season hath been ordained, the latent energies of such a bounty can
best be released, and the vernal glory of such a gift can only be
manifested, in the Days of God. Invested though each day may be
with its pre-ordained share of God's wondrous grace, the Days
immediately associated with the Manifestation of God possess a
unique distinction and occupy a station which no mind can ever
comprehend. Such is the virtue infused into them that if the hearts of
all that dwell in the heavens and the earth were, in those days of
everlasting delight, to be brought face to face with that Day Star of
unfading glory and attuned to His Will, each would find itself exalted
above all earthly things, radiant with His light, and sanctified through
His grace. All hail to this grace which no blessing, however great, can
excel, and all honor to such a loving-kindness the like of which the eye
of creation hath not seen! Exalted is He above that which they
attribute unto Him or recount about Him!
It is for this reason that, in those days, no man shall ever stand
in need of his neighbor.2 It hath already been abundantly
demonstrated that in that divinely-appointed Day the majority of them
that have sought and attained His holy court have revealed such
knowledge and wisdom, a drop of which none else besides these holy
and sanctified souls, however long he may have taught or studied, hath
grasped or will ever comprehend. It is by virtue of this power that the
beloved of God have, in the days of the Manifestation of the Day Star
of Truth, been exalted above, and made independent of, all human
learning. Nay, from their hearts and the springs of their innate powers
hath gushed out unceasingly the inmost essence of human learning and
wisdom." - Baha'u'llah, Commentary on the Saying `He who hath
known his self hath known his Lord.'
This passage begins by reiterating the metaphor of the soul as the sign
or mirror of mystical insight [`irfan] into the Absolute Truth. I would
suggest that `irfan can usefully be glossed as enlightenment or satori,e
though it is often translated "knowledge" by the beloved Guardian. It
is mystical knowledge or understanding. This metaphor of the mirror
recalls a passage from the great Zen master, Dogen:
"Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water. The moon
does not get wet, nor is the water broken. Although its light is wide
and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The
whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in dewdrops on the grass,
or even in one drop of water.
Enlightenment does not divide you, just as the moon does not
break the water. You cannot hinder enlightenment, just as a drop of
water does not hinder the moon in the sky.
The depth of the drop is the height of the moon. Each
reflection, however long or short its duration, manifests the vastness of
the dewdrop, and realizes the limitlessness of the moonlight in the
sky." [Dogen, *Moon in a Dewdrop*, trans. K. Tanahashi, p. 71].
In the same way that the dew-drop is a mirror reflecting the moon, so
each thing, including human beings, reflects the `irfan or mystical
insight into the Absolute Truth.
Now, what of the issue of polishing the mirror? A story about the
sixth patriarch, Hui-Neng (d. 713), who went to study with the fifth
patriarch after experiencing sudden enlightenment while meditating on
a passage from the Diamond Sutra. One day the old master asked his
disciples to compose a poem to indicate the degree of their
enlightenment.
"At that time Shen-hsiu occupied the first seat among the many
disciples, but in spite of his learned knowledge of the sutras, he had no
deep experience. With a great deal of effort he finally produced a
verse and that night wrote it on a wall in the temple hall:
The body is the Bodhi tree [enlightenment]
The mind is like a clear mirror standing.
Take care to wipe it all the time,
Allow no grain of dust to cling.
The next morning Master Hung-jen praised the verse in the
presence of all the disciples, but told Shen-hsiu to compose another
verse, for his poem showed no sign of enlightenment. Hui-neng, who
could not read, had Shen-hsiu's attempt read to him, then composed
one himself and told a temple boy to write it on the wall:
The Bodhi is not like a tree,
The clear mirror is nowhere standing.
Fundamentally not one thing exists;
Where, then, is a grain of dust to cling?
All the disciples marveled at the poem. But the master erased it, and
stated that Hui-neng, too, was far from enlightenment." Hui-neng
was nevertheless appointed sixth patriarch. [Dumoulin, Zen
Enlightenment, p. 45].
The first poem exemplified the Northern school of Chinese Zen, which
emphasized a gradual approach to attaining enlightenment, while the
second is an example of Hui-Neng's own Southern Zen of Suddenness.
(This division continued in Japan, with Rinzai more like the Northern
school and Soto more like the Southern). On the other hand, the
southern School and Soto do ask disciples for self-discipline and
meditation, and in actual Zen practice prayer, devotion and repentance
play an important part in the spiritual path.
Both approaches have their virtues. On the Baha'i side, the portion of
the Book of Certitude called by Western Baha'is the Tablet of the
Mystic Seeker emphasizes practice as a means to enlightenment and
certitude. On the other hand, Baha'u'llah in the commentary on `He
who knows his self hath known his Lord' does not say that the sign of
mystical insight into the Absolute Truth is *potentially* reposited in
every thing; rather, he says it *is* reposited. We are already signs of
mystical insight into the Absolute Truth. We have but to *see*, to
*know* our own reality.
The efforts we can make to clean our mirrors in Baha'i `Irfan
or mysticism are obvious. Meditating on Scripture, praying, reciting
the Most Great Name, eschewing immoral behavior, serving
humankind and working worshipfully are among the elements of this
discipline. Shoghi Effendi encouraged the Baha'is to learn to meditate,
though he was concerned that these practices not develop into a fixed
ritual.
In the above passage Baha'u'llah says that the mirror can be
polished by *mujahadat-i nafsani* or psychological effort, and by
spiritual meditations or attentiveness [tavajjuhat-i ruhani], which will
allow us to draw near to the holy gardens of the All-Merciful. I don't
think we yet fully understand within the Faith what psychological
effort and spiritual attentiveness might really mean. But these are Sufi
technical terms, and I do not think Baha'u'llah meant by them a sort of
"Protestant go-to-church-on-Sunday and occasionally say a short
prayer" spirituality.
Baha'u'llah points out that during his lifetime, Baha'is could
attain `irfan all on their own, without a teacher. The group of Sufis
who found mystical insight and self-extinction independently of any pir
(guru) were known as Uvaysis. It seems to me that Baha'i `Irfan needs
to continue to develop without the pir-murid, Master-disciple
relationship. This "independent" approach to the path resembles the
Zen Southern School and Soto more than the northern school and
Rinzai, though Zen in general tended to involve a master-disciple route
to learning.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Nov 28 01:02:48 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:27:08 +1300
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Throwing People Off the List
ffolks,
I wrote the following before reading John's twin responses to the flurry of
letters on this issue. Reading it through it seems a bit too provocative
(and probably downright "wrong") to send but I'm going to anyway. No point
wasting the effort, even if it does earn me an ear slap from Linda! (By
the way John, Don Peden has not yet written anything to Talisman, as far as
I can recall. His charming wife Bev has though. She's the one who is
generally to be seen these days deep in conversation with Bruce). Here
goes:
Some things are difficult to contain: try to corner mercury, for instance,
and it squirts through the smallest crack... And this, it seems to me, is a
suitable metaphor for the expulsion of innocent members of this list. Let
me explain...
The expulsion, it seems to me, goes back to the "separation of church and
state" argument that has had a long season here. Juan and John and others
have argued strongly for academic-scholarly freedom from the "gaze" of
Institutions of the Faith. It is no coincidence, then, that this "night of
the long knives" has been directed at employees of the Baha'i national
centre. The symbolic component of this act is clear.
Now, to get back to my metaphor. Ummm....well, wait a bit... First to
Socrates and the Holy land. It seems to me that the unity of science and
religion (scholarship and the Faith), is imaged-forth in the Baha'i version
of this story: rationality meets religion and founds universities, cities,
nations etc. John and Juan have both vehemently opposed the Baha'i
version, but, since the recent letter from the World Centre, their
viewpoint has suffered a setback. Indeed, it is now dead, if you'll excuse
my bluntness.
So: how else to manifest this resentment for the Institutions of the Faith?
Why, ditch some of its paid servants....of course... The mercury just
couldn't be contained.
As an aside, I feel that we must recognise the pain which individual
Baha'is often feel in relation to the functioning of the Institutions of
the Faith. This pain is genuine, and cannot be brushed aside. My own
feeling of claustrophobia (the merciless gaze) within grass-roots
communities (and re. their institutions) drove into isolation for many
years. But the personal cost of this was too high. (I lost more than an
encyclopaedia and career). I am safer if I keep in touch with the friends.
And here Talisman has been invaluable. My relationship with the local
institutions of the Faith is currently OK: we don't bother each other too
much. My relationship with just about all things human has taken on a "I'm
not buying into your crap" dimension that was lacking before. This enables
me to survive in community. (Philip would die at some of my bluntness!)
It enables me to be extroverted, which I like. What I am saying then, is
this... a part of the remedy for this anguish would seem to lie in a more
forthright (even blunt) discursive person-to-person/institution
relationship with that which is perceived as oppressor. If we do this with
heart, then we'll all find something out. Independence is a state of mind
which must be won "in community". Otherwise it is a fatal illusion.
Best wishes,
Robert.
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Nov 28 01:03:56 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:31:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
To: "Stephen R. Friberg" <friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp>
Cc: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman rights
Stephen: I am sorry you were earlier misunderstood. All of us have been
misunderstood. But no one more than John Walbridge at this juncture.
Tomorrow things may be clearer. I actually hope not.
*But*, with all due love, affection and buddha-mind, I must take the
strongest possible exception to your statement that my proposed bill of
rights would have made John Walbridge's actions impossible. This is
simply not true. A bill or rights does not revoke criminal law; it
simply ensures that people are not treated like criminals for thinking,
writing, & etc. I have no problem with Baha'is having their
administrative rights taken away for a long-term and embarrassing alcohol
problem, spousal abuse, or felonies. Neither would a Baha'i bill of rights.
Threatening a member of Talisman because of his posting is the equivalent
of a crime. It is like reading an article you disagree with, and,
instead of replying with better arguments and documentation, deciding to
go over to his house and break his legs with baseball bats. No bill of
rights would protect you from prosecution if you bullied someone like that.
And when the police arrested the guys with the baseball bats, you would
not normally expect the ACLU to get too excercised about it.
The cries of outrage over John's reconsideration of subscription rights
of persons who work for the issuer of the threat would be much muted
among civilized persons if the full facts were known.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From briann@cruzio.comTue Nov 28 01:04:21 1995
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 21:41:51 PST
From: Brian and Ann Miller <briann@cruzio.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Western Wind
Dear Talizens,
I am delighted to find some seasonal poetry on Talisman. Thank
you,Philip. Western Wind is a Middle English lyric. You may find it in the
first volume of the Norton Anthology of English Literature. It is also a
favorite of mine. It has also been set to music and was recorderd by either
the Kingston Trio or the Limeliters. You have the entirety of the lyric,
though the Norton gives a slightly different version:
Westron wind, when will thou blow?
The smal rain down can rain.
Christ, that my love were in my arms,
And I in my bed again.
Warm regards,
Brian [briann@cruzio.com]
.
--