
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 20 15:43:00 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:16:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R ColeTo: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: history and representation Paul: The issues you raise in your reply are not what I would think of as the "distortion" of history. I thought you were saying Baha'is had twisted the facts. I agree with you that the Baha'i religion as it is now practiced is more closed with regard to the free availability of information than is common in, say, the mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S. The practice of Review is quite peculiar; and the unavailability of several biographies of Baha'u'llah written by his close companions is downright weird (though the information in them, I can attest, is largely and accurately summarized in H.M. Balyuzi's *Baha'u'llah, King of Glory*. I think this closed-information approach is not long for this world (you are seeing it break down on e-mail before your eyes). As for the Aqdas; well, it was, of course, published by the Baha'is in Bombay and cyclostyled a number of times thereafter. Copies exist in all the major manuscript repositories (British Library, NYPB, Cambridge, etc.); there is also a Russian edition. So it is not as if the book was somehow unavailable, at least to those who know the original languages. As for English, a typescript translation by Anton Haddad circulated widely in the American community. But it is true that it took a long time to publish an English translation. I think the main unstated reason for this is that in the Middle East the Aqdas is a death warrant. It abrogates the Qur'an, which constitutes apostasy, and in traditional Islamic jurisprudence the punishment for that is death. (The fatwa against Rushdie has the same basis). I think one can understand that the Middle Eastern Baha'is, who were the vast majority until the 70s, might not want their death warrant mass-produced. And information does travel at high speed from the U.S. to the Middle East. In fact, many of the information practices Westerners find peculiar in the Faith are rooted in its having had to operate as a radically new religious movement in a Muslim Middle East where the word for "heresy" literally means "innovation." Anyway, it seems to me that if one understands the Middle Eastern context of most of these decisions, they look less sinister or manipulative and more prudent. Denis MacEoin notes somewhere that he originally thought the security measures Tehrani Baha'is took about their archives extreme, but after the Revolution he suddenly realized that they were simple common sense in that context. I think a comparable situation exists for Ismaili Muslims (there is a fine book about them by Farhad Daftary that I recommend). The Ismailis responded to persecution by simply closing almost all their texts to outsiders. My friend Paul Walker, who studies Ismailism, complains of how he cannot get the most basic sort of source from them. The Baha'is have been *far* more open about their materials than have the Ismailis; but the point is that to the degree either is secretive, the death-fatwas of the mullas stand behind this policy. I personally believe that the Baha'is would be better off opening their manuscripts to publication and scrutiny, since the Khomeinists are going to mistreat them anyway, and the world and the community would benefit from more information about the Faith. But my sister is not in Mashhad being shaken down every day by the Hizbullahis, and I understand the other point of view. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:45:13 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:42:28 PST8PDT From: "Eric D. Pierce" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: policy (archives, burros, malodorous breezes) Hi, re: > Date sent: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:43:56 +1000 > From: Ahmad Aniss > To: talisman@indiana.edu > Subject: policy > Dear Friends, ...snip > bit of text daily, which can amount to ~80 MBit of text per year. This > amount is not a big amount for archiving purposes and perhaps > someone can produce a storage facility, may be for max. of two years > at a time. ... I can't verify the storage estimates made by brother Ahmad, but I'm sure he's "in the ballpark". I have been archiving everything since the last week of May 1995. The problem is that there are some personal talisman-related messages that are mixed in since I was to lazy to separate them at the time they were sent. I have offered to send archives to some of the new subscribers, but most recoil in horror when they realize the volume. There are about 3,500 (!) messages that I have received since late May 1995. Just resorting the mesages to search by author/subject/date to look for something has caused me considerable aggravation a few times, so I don't do it unless absolutely necessary. Sen was kind enough to send me a packet of floppies back in June containing a set of "zip" files (aprx 4Mb) that were text extracts of selected talisman messages. There are several other people that reported to me (as of June 1995) that they have collections of talisman messages in various types of email folder formats, usually on a personal computer. As I mentioned earlier in the summer, I am researching how to provide a text search database of talisman messages to be distributed to any interested parties. As Dr. Cole has mentioned, topics resurface, and many things must be restated. If a free-format text search database of talisman messages was available, it would be possible to read what had been already said and developed on an issue! Since the powers that be at this campus are unlikely to approve a lowly data technician's request for internet resources to make the archives of a religious email discussion list public, I have to wait to learn some new programing techniques to produce a standalone Mac and Windows version of the archives in a personal computer database format that I would distribute to interested parties as time and resources permit. The other alternative is to set up a private internet site as a home business, and also use the machinery for Baha'i related internet stuff, such as talisman archives. Or piggy-back on someone elses internet site, probably requiring $. Got to go now, I am rather busy at this time of year, we have various reports to send to our state and federal funding agencies, then a major departmental network, hardware and software upgrade process. BORING. Bye, Eric D. Pierce Data Janitor California State University, Sacramento ps, regarding langauge: the references to "ass" recently may have led to some confusion by those not aware of subtle forms of English language word play (puns). There was a reference to domestic livestock (an "ass" being a donkey/mule) which was IMO hilariously twisted into an inference that some members of this list exude a faint aroma redolent of the human posterior, which could have been also taken as a reference to foolish behaviour. Or something like that.... ROBERT-J@NZ: YOU BAD BOY :) On a related topic, the gentleman from Texas mentioned "ditto heads", it is a term used to identify the ethusiasts and supporters of a flamboyant and popular reactionary conservative americian media infotainer named Rush Limbaugh. Considering the number of liberal/ progressive types that have been driven out of the community over the years and the dominant conformist attitude that has pervaded the community, what is the context of making the community more attractive to those holding reactionary viewpoints about social/political issues? Does this bode well for diversity? Does anyone give a rosy rodent's rump? From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:46:20 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:11:40 PST8PDT From: "Eric D. Pierce" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito) Hi again, I couldn't resist making the simple observation that Ms. Allende has written a book in which a major and not very simpatico Anglo character is a Baha'i crackpot/eccentric who sexually molests at least one of his children. EP > Date sent: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:35:10 -0500 (CDT) > From: John Haukness > To: talisman > Subject: eva luna ...snip From Member1700@aol.comWed Sep 20 15:46:36 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 13:23:01 -0400 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Table manners Regarding the endless ways to be a Baha'i, I wonder if Moojan might say a little more about his notion that there is not just one Baha'i Faith--but many. Our Russian sister may have just found one that we don't know about yet. By all means, let her read the writings. I am sure that she will read them differently than we do--and we will all be enriched by her reading. Tony From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 20 15:49:03 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 10:33:38 PDT From: Rick Schaut To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Daughters, Dolls and Pre-Programming (RE: persecution of Barbi) Dear Friends, I'm going to try to respond to several posts on the subject of raising and/or educating girls, but I'll be using Linda's remarks as a point of departure. But first, a little house cleaning. Mary, I suppose I should apologize for my remarks. I felt that your message talked down to me, and reacted, in some way, to that feeling. You shouldn't come away with the notion that I'm not interested in my daughter's education. On the other hand, of all fifteen suggestions you made, not a single one is a suggestion that I can't come to without a woman's help. I am _specificly_ interested in an issue with which I am unable to cope without a woman's help (and I'd like more than one woman to help). An adequate response requires both of us to so some serious introspection. Marguerite came very close to hitting the nail on the head when she talked about achievement. Why do women learn to suppress their intelligence around men? How do they learn this? I suspect it has al lot to do with what Linda describes as 'pre-programming'. Before I get to this, I want to answer Linda's specific questions about dolls: >From: >Dear Rick, I have little time now to write, but I must respond to your comment >about Barbie. You mentioned that your daughter had no Barbie dolls. Why not? >Is it because she is so feminine? And, if so, what kind of a message does that >send to your daughter? First of all, the decision was Beth's (my wife), and I merely backed her up on it. As the Writings say, there are areas where the husband should defer to the wife and areas where the wife should defer to the husband. When it comes to toys, that's Beth's call, not mine. Secondly, the reason is specific to Barbie dolls. Teresa has other dolls (in fact, they're called 'Happy to be me' dolls). Among other things, Barbie dolls have legs 20% longer than the average human being and waists which are at least 50% smaller. The combination is almost statisticly impossible from a genetic standpoint. Beth prefers, and I agree, that our daughter not have a conception of beauty based on a body shape which is in the 99th percentile of human body shapes. If you want to know why anorexia and bulemia are found almost completely among women, you probably don't need to look any further than this conception of beauty. Now, back to 'pre-programming'. Linda writes: >Anyway, don't worry too much. You don't have all that much say over exactly >how your daughter will turn out anyway. There is an awful lot of >pre-programming involved. Talk to her intelligently, praise her >accomplishments, and, to reiterate a very important point of Mary's, never be >abusive towards her in any way. I dare say she will turn out very well. Would >that all father's were so concerned with their children's development. Linda But it is the 'pre-programming' I'm most concerned with. I can't help the feeling that a) I might be contributing to it, and b) that there are some specific things I can do to counter-act that pre-programming if I'm aware of some of the factors involved. The problem is that no amount of introspection on my part is sufficient for me to address that concern. I need the help of women who have gone through the introspection necessary to understand how this 'pre-programming' affects a girl's attitudes about herself and her abilities. I think this 'pre-programming' is grounded in common conceptions of what constitutes 'femininity'. You can see this in the female characters of most Disney movies. These characters all exhibit the stereo-typical attributes of an 'attractive' female (i.e. those characteristics which define 'femininity'). But what's the substance to this conception of 'femininity'? Are men really more aggressive than women, or is this part of a self-fulfilling socialization? Do we, by telling young girls that assertive behavior is not 'attractive' in women (but it's certainly 'attractive' when men do it) instill in these girls the desire to suppress behaviors they would otherwise exhibit quite naturally? I hope, by now, that it's clear how I can't work on this by myself. Having not been subject to the same kind of socialization, I can't know how it would affect me if I were a woman. I can only ask women to tell me how this socialization has affected them. _Then_, I can take that knowledge and apply it to some introspection of my own. Lastly, and this is the bottom line, I don't think we'll achieve true equality between men and women unless we all begin to engage in this same process. Indeed, I'm not even sure we can understand what this equality _is_ unless we do this. If our concpetions of equality are coloured by this socialization, how can we visualize true equality without understanding what this socialization does? So, yes, Linda, I'm worried about this, and I don't think it's possible to be too worried about it. Baha'u'llah's call for the equality of men and women requires this of me, and I can't walk away. Warmest Regards, Rick From rvh3@columbia.eduWed Sep 20 15:49:58 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 15:01:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Vernon Hollinger To: Juan R Cole Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: history and representation On Wed, 20 Sep 1995, Juan R Cole wrote: > As for English, a typescript translation by Anton Haddad circulated > widely in the American community. A minor quibble...I don't think the Haddad translation of the Aqdas was widely distributed. I have only seen one or two copies of this in Baha'i archival collections, this in contrast to various tablets and pilgrim's notes that were copied and/or mimeographed and ciruclated, which can be found in a number of collections. There were other translations of the Aqdas, however. One by Kheiralla, which did not circulate widely because of his expulsion from the community. There was another by Fadil-i Mazandarani and Marzieh Gail that was fairly widely circulated, at least after the advent of the photocopy machines. Portions of the Aqdas were available in academic and Baha'i publications, and as Rob has noted, a summary of its contents by Haddad was published around the turn of the century. Hence, Baha'is have had access at least to the major provisions of the Aqdas almost since the Faith began in the West. Incidentally, Miller himself provides some evidence that belies his assertion about the Aqdas. The copy of the Aqdas that he used for his translation contained annotations indicating that it had been provided to one of the first Western pilgrims to visit `Abdu'l-Baha in 1898 [Lua Getsinger, I believe]. This was one of at least three copies that were provided to these pilgrims for use in the American Baha'i community. `Abdu'l-Baha had to focus on providing copies of Arabic texts rather than Persian texts, as there were no Persian-speaking Baha'is in the U.S. at that time, but there two Arab Baha'is there. The members of the community quickly became aware of at least some of the provisions of the Aqdas, as a result of their translations and expositions. Richard Hollinger From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:50:39 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:06:06 PST8PDT From: "Eric D. Pierce" To: TALISMAN@indiana.edu Subject: Re[2]: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito) Howdy, Sorry if my bad mixed up catalan/spanish grammer (The ironies of God/The Infinite Plan) in the subject heading has caused any confusion! Apropos of who knows what, my understanding is that Ms. Allende writes in spanish, the english publications of her works are translations. Unless my tattered memory has totally failed, the main male character's father in "The Infinite Plan" was the person that I was referring to. Wasn't the sister of the main male character the molested one that also had the hormone (medical?) problems? I guess the whole itenerant family was vaguely portrayed as some sort of Baha'is during the childhood years of the main character and the sister, but I had forgotten that the sister maintained a stronger Baha'i identity (in spite of huge personal devastation?) through the later part of the story. Of course the book goes somewhat beyond any sort of Baha'i-ish sense of dysfunctional/crackpot cult universalism, and tries to grapple with the interplay of specific types of decadent social self-conceptions of both the mainstream and counter-cultures that have been prevalent from the 1960's on. The book ends on a somewhat optimistic note as to the possibility of personal redemption, but I came away with the feeling that the book was somewhat dry with respect to the sense of poetic mystery compared to Ms. Allende's other charming and sublime works. Perhaps she was reflecting a dissapointment with the cultural angst, sterility, shallowness etc. of the post-60's Bay Area and the California region? Oh dear, no more procrastinating, back to work!/ Best Wishes, EP Am repling via the list due to my interest in what others think of this rare (and arguably unflattering) phenomena of Baha'i characters appearing in a work of fiction by a popular author! > Date sent: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:43:18 -0700 > From: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT ) > Subject: Re: eva luna (las ironias del Dios? / El Plan Infinito) > To: "Eric D. Pierce" > You wrote: > >My dear Eric > The book is Eva Luna?, Allende had a Baha'i in a previous book a woman > who was drawn away from the Faith ... ...snip > Kindest Regards Derek ...snip From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduWed Sep 20 15:51:34 1995 Date: 20 Sep 95 12:37:14 U From: Dan Orey To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: FWD>educating daughters and GatorMail-Q FWD>educating daughters and son Today Mary wrote: The education system is at the nexus of the rolling up of the old and the rolling out of the new order just as all other institutions in society are. But this is the system your children are being brought up in and it is not going to be transformed in time for them. The system is held together by wonderful and dedicated teachers who deserve your support and encouragement and the respect of you and your children, and constructive criticsm when necessary. First I want to say thanks for the enlightened comment. Secondly, and not becasue I am a teacher educator, I might offer another perspective. Here in California there is a rather interesting history of school bashing. I think related to past su cess and the result of "too many enlighted troublemeakers", and creative thinkers for the poweers that be that it once generated. The cycle goes like this. Our taxes are too high, lower them, the schools don't have enough to opperate upon, the schools are bad 9wehatever that is). Currently there has been a lot of grass roots work over the past ten years, in math education. Literally millions of dolars and thousands upon thousands of volunteer hours going into curriculum reform aimed at building a math curriculum that responds to a number of things Baha'is I would guess would be very proud and supportive of: namely access and equity (that all people should have the right to good math education, especialy girls and non-represented minorities), that all children in California should have the proper tools to solve problems (I like to replace it with indepent investigation of truth). Becasue of lack of funding, general societal negativity, and political spin this is currently under attackm, and this rather remarkable program is in jeopardy. Most politicians and educational leaders blame the teachers, I don't see it that way. Its more of a total system failure. I have seen the problem in all school reform (and in a number of countries) as mutlifacited - parents, students, teachers, administrators, and communities must be mutually supportive for schools to be good (and that is an term that is as yet undefined). Sort of the "it takes a whole village to raise a child" theme. When any one of those links fails for any reason the school (and therefore the community, and in our case State) then has a diminished probablity of success. Another example: Here at CSUS, a number of senior faculty have stood up to the administration, and said, "we are all responisble for the poor condition of our system, we cannot do much about the adminstration, or the staff (sorry Eric P) but we can do something about how we treat our fellow colleagues and our own level of service to our larger community and students. Its quite remarkable, and I am very encouraged. I have done my part, as a Baha'i, trying to inject our ideas of consultation, encouraging people to use the system, not backbite, to get envolved (or shut up as it may be). Despite the fact that I returned from a rather grouchy committee meeting, I am cautiously optimistic. At any rate, the gist to a good school (what ever that is) is related to how much the community, the teachers, the students, the parents, etc are engaged in the process. It has some interesting refections for me of what is wrong (and right) about the American Baha'i Community. From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 21 10:58:09 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 00:01:32 From: Wendi and Moojan Momen To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu Subject: Quddus I am sorry to be rather late in coming forward with this posting on this thread but I am running somewhat late in my reading of my E-Mails. It may help us in understanding the station ascribed to Quddus to look at the station of Ali. In particular, I am thinking of the Khutba Tutunjiyyih, a discourse attributed to Ali and which Baha'u'llah appears to authenticate by quoting it in several places. The sermon of Ali includes many statements that appear to give a lofty station to Ali similar to the one being given to Quddus in the postings by Ahang. Perhaps Steve Lambden could share with us his and Khazeh Fananapazir's translation of this sermon. Moojan -- Wendi and Moojan Momen From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 21 10:59:03 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 21:59:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: tarjuman@umich.edu Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Martyrs of Manshad -- part 9 [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] On that same day, Siyyid Ali, out of fear of events, decided to leave Manshad and headed towards Yazd. On the way, while passing through the villages of Tazarjan and Taft, three men from that area saw and recognized him. Siyyid Ali was summarily arrested, his hands tied behind him, and taken to Tazarjan where they sought the permission of visiting Mirza Ibrahim, the Imam Jum`ih of Yazd, to kill their prisoner. The Imam Jum`ih replied that since he was not familiar with the character of the Siyyid, it is not possible for him to issue such a warrant, advising them to take the Siyyid back to Manshad and inquire from the people of that town of him. Two hours before sunset, the men entered the town of Manshad, bringing with them Siyyid Ali., deciding earlier to take him to Muhammad-i Kalantar and let him pronounce a decision. When they came to the town square, the Siyyid escaped from the hands of his three captors and hid himself behind a palm tree. By now a group of town's people had heard of their arrival and had come to see them, circling the tree surrounding the Siyyid who was holding fast to it as a refuge. As the men prepared to take his life, a villager cried out that the tree that he had embraced was sacred and his life should be spared until he releases the tree. Heedless of man, Siyyid Ali was shot dead. Others continued to repeatedly fire at his motionless body. That evening, the his wife removed her husband's remains from the scene and buried it in their home. He was thirty-five years old. The three men who had brought Siyyid Ali and instigated his murder, now returning home decided before leaving to shed the blood of this servant. With this intention in mind they headed towards my home. I was all alone when the three men entered my house. Since at the time I did not know them nor was aware of their intentions, I greeted them warmly. A waterpipe was offered and tea was served. Afterwards, I asked them where they were from and what business brought to Manshad, to which they related to me the story of Siyyid Ali's martyrdom. Upon hearing this, I was overwhelmed by sorrow and grief. Seeing my condition, the men immediately left my house. Outside, I heard one of them mention that since I had been so extremely kind and hospitable, they did not have the heart to take my life. That same afternoon, as the mob finished killing Siyyid Ali, they returned to the home of Muhammad-i Kalantar, where Siyyid Baqir was being held from earlier that day pending execution of his order of imprisonment. It was late in the afternoon when they took him to a farm field known as Turkish farm. There, he was martyred as a result of gun shot wounds. Later the believers took the remains and buried it next to the gravesite which contained the headless body of Aqa Ghulam-Husayn killed earlier in the day -- his companion and fellow martyr. Siyyid Baqir was fifty-one years old. The following day, Sunday, Aqa Muhammad had taken refuge in his home when around noon time I saw three men headed in that direction. I was grieve stricken, knowing their intent to commit yet another murder of some innocent Baha'is but didn't know where they were going. As the men came upon the home of Aqa Muhammad, they entered the house, brought him out and took him to town's square. Aqa Muhammad requested that they delay their perfidious act for an hour so that he may say farewell to his wife and young children and see them for one last time. The men paid no attention to his plea, answering only with gunfire. Tying a rope around his feet, they dragged him beck home, where later that evening his wife brought the body inside and laid it to rest. He was twenty-three years old. The following Wednesday, Mulla Baba'yi (a brother of the famous martyr Razyu'l-Ruh and father of recently martyred Aqa Muhammad) having found shelter in a friend's home. One of the neighborhood's woman learned of his whereabouts and informed Manshad's populous. Soon, a mob and many onlookers totaling over two hundred descended upon the house where Mulla Baba'yi had taken refuge. Several men entered the home and began searching the rooms. when one of them came upon the room where Mulla Baba'yi and his son, Aqa Javad sitting in the dark corner. He cried that we must shoot him right here, but apprehensive of the harm that may befall his son, Mulla Baba'yi quickly surrendered. Mulla's hands were tied behind his back and with bare head and foot, along with his son, were led to another section of town to the home of Hajji Siyyid Husayn to be killed. Mulla Baba'yi who in the dense of crowd could not see his son asked Siyyid Husayn that if they have as yet not killed his son to bring him near for one last glance at him. Siyyid Husayn agreed and brought the son near. When Mulla's eyes fell upon him, his last spoken words were instructions for Aqa Javad, should he survive, to arrange for the payment of a debt to a certain individual. Bidding him farewell, the Mulla left the boy to the care of the Siyyid Husayn, expressing the wish that he not be obliged to speak again and remained silent. Although the crowd wanted to kill the boy, Siyyid Husayn intervened, shielding the body from bodily harm by taking him inside the home. It was around noon that the crown moved Mulla Baba'yi once again towards Bazaar. With his hands still firmly tied behind him, he endured every manner of insult, injury and defamation. On the way, he was repeatedly stoned. A rock hurled towards him fractured his forehead, from which a fountain of blood gushed forth, covering his radiant countenance. Time after time, he was assaulted, until his white beard was soaked by his blood. Paraded as such for a time in the bazaar, he was later taken behind the home of martyred Aqa Ali-Akbar. During this entire time, his gaze remained fixed in the direction of the Qiblih, the Sacred Threshold of his Beloved. Not one word was uttered by him in the face of his ordeal, so poignantly did he exemplify the lesson of true faith and sacrifice. In the midst of the chaos, someone retrieved a can of kerosine from a nearby shop, pouring it over Mulla Baba'yi and setting him ablaze. While burning, those who carried guns began to shoot. Others were satisfied with clubbing and stoning him. Dragging him by his bound feet, he was taken to the home of a fellow believer, Siyyid Taqi, where he was later buried. Mulla Baba'yi, whose body and soul were ablaze with the love of His Beauty, was sixty-five years old at the time of martyrdom. (to be continued) From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 21 11:04:48 1995 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:56:51 From: Wendi and Moojan Momen To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu Subject: Miller, Bahai & Buddhism Dear Bruce As you have criticized my book on the Talisman list, I assume that you will not mind if I bring extracts of your private message to me onto Talisman in order to reply to the various points raised. I am sorry that you think that my treatment of Buddhism is in some way comparable to Miller's treatment of the Baha'i Faith. I think others have commented sufficiently on that. I had assumed that your statement was merely a rhetorical device for getting the discussion on Talisman onto subjects that interest you. The two main areas that you contested are: 1. My arriving at a conclusion that there is reference to an Absolute in Buddhism (your assertion that I have stated that there is a reference to a "god" in Buddhism is incorrect - I do not make any such assertion - or at any rate I do not intend to). > the introduction to the whole of the Udana 80 passage clearly > states > that it is a discourse about nibbana, not some "Absolute." . . . > Again, the reading of nibbana > for the second word in this line inappropriate; however, the > whole of the line does in fact refer to nibbana . . . > You quote this passage but you give no > discussion of it or its elements, as if this mysterious sounding > collections of > words will somehow support your contention that it refers to an > Absolute, a god. I would cite as evidence for my interpretation, Nagarjuna's commentary on the Udana passage. Murti gives this as: "Nagarjuna is emphatic in stating that without the acceptance of the paramartha (the ultimate reality) there can be no deliverance (Nirvana) from Samsara" (Central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 235 and note 1). If Murti has translated correctly, then clearly Nagarjuna does not regard the ultimate reality spoken of in the Udana passage as being Nirvana -- if that were the case it would reduce the above-quoted sentence to a nonsense: "Without the acceptance of Nirvana there can be no Nirvana" However, having said that, I really do not mind whether one chooses to interpret this Udana passage as referring to Nibbana or to some other Absolute. For even if it does refer to Nibbana as you assert, this makes no difference to my argument. Nibbana is itself an Absolute, the description of it in this Udana passage makes it Absolute Reality, and that is all I am asserting: that there is a concept of an Absolute Reality -- whatever name you wish to hang on it. There cannot of course be more than one Absolute Reality otherwise neither could be said to be absolute. If we then consider the way that Nagarjuna and others develop this in the formulation that Samsara is Nibbana and Nibbana is Samsara, we arrive at a position that I see as being resonant with the Advaita Vedantist position that "Thou art That" or the position in the Wahdat al-Wujud school of Sufism in Islam -- i.e. the assertion that the Absolute Reality is the only Reality if we could see things as they really are, and thus this world (samsara) and our reality are not different to that Reality. 2. My assertion that the Buddha claims some supra-mundane station for himself that puts him above his disciples > Your discussion of the uniqueness of the Buddha is also > singularly > problematic. Essentially, you picked a few verses that seem to > support > your position, ignoring many others. You then quote several passages that state that others can, through their own efforts, do what the Buddha has done. I was not unaware of these passages. To keep the book at a simple level, however, I decided not to deal with them. First, I would not consider the passages that you quote are necessarily relevant to the point that I am making. The fact that others can do what the Buddha has done does not mean that others have the same station that he does. Second, if we were to allow that the passages that you quote do assert that the Buddha was a mere human just like the rest of us, where does that leave us? I assume that you are not claiming that the series of passages that I quote which clearly claim a supra- mundane station for the Buddha and a salvific role for his teaching, are forged. So we have a contradiction between these two sets of passages. I suppose we could just conclude that the Buddha was incoherent and leave it at that. That after all is what Miller would do in a similar situation since his only aim is destructive. But Baha'is prefer, wherever there is an apparent contradiction to look for a truth that unites the contradictions at a higher level of truth. Thus if we look at these two statements, the one claiming a high station for the Buddha and the other seeming to say that he is just an ordinary human being we again find resonances between this situation and the situation in other religions. In Islam, the Qur'an states that Muhammad was a man just like any other; but at the same time other passages in the Qur'an, the Sunni Traditions and especially the Shi`i Traditions give an elevated station to Muhammad; similarly Jesus, at one time is making statements that ask the question of whether he can even be called good when there is only one good, the Father in Heaven, and at another making statements that have caused Christians to consider him to be one with the Godhead itself. And Baha'u'llah at one time writes: "Know verily that whenever this Youth turneth His eyes towards His own self, he findeth it the most insignificant of all creation"; and yet he also writes passages that caused his Muslim enemies to assert that he had claimed to be God. Baha'u'llah explains this apparent contradiction in the words of these religious leaders by explaining that they they each have a dual station. They have one elevated station in which they are far above humanity. In this station, high claims can be made about them (also in this station they are all in reality one, but we will return to this anon). They also have a human station which they share with the rest of humanity and in this station, they are "but a man like others". If you want to read more on this theme then you should turn to Baha'u'llah's Book of Certitude (Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. about 150 to 185) I hope you can appreciate why I did not want to bring complex issues like this into a book that I was trying to keep simple. You seem to be keen to see me as asserting that in Buddhism there are such concepts as "god" and "revelation": > your contention that it refers to an Absolute, a god. > but you fail understand that does not thusly mean revelation by default. I do not think that a close reading of my text would support the assertion that I was claiming that the Buddha taught of God or of a revelation. I think you are reading your own prejudices against Western theism into my text. My position is not that theism is the right answer and that the Buddhists have got it wrong. Nor am I playing a game of seeking to destroy Buddhism by playing with its texts in the way that Miller does. My position is that Baha'u'llah supports neither the theism of the Western religions nor the monism of the Eastern religions (Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism), but rather a relativist approach that asserts that the Truth is transcendent to all concepts and schema. Therefore any metaphysical statement that is made can only ever be made from a particular viewpoint and thus be correct from that viewpoint--but that is precisely the point: it IS true from that viewpoint. All truth is, however, a limited, relative truth. (I have set this out at much greater length in a paper published in vol. 5 of the Studies in the Babi and Baha'i Faiths series, published by Kalimat Press in Los Angeles) Thus the Buddhist concepts are not wrong, they are correct; and so are the truths of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. I would say the job of the Baha'is is to see the Baha'i Faith in terms of the religious truths that each of these religions have uncovered from their scriptures and their Way in centuries of civilization. Of course for historical reasons, Baha'is have progressed much further down this path with Christinaity and Islam. But inevitably, Baha'is must make a start in the task of seeing the Baha'i Faith in terms of the religious truths which Buddhists have uncovered in 2500 years of civilization. My book is only intended to be a small start in this direction and, given my lack of the necessary language skills, it was inevitably a flawed start; but I would beg of you not to mistake the direction that is being taken, however much you may dislike the first step. Finally you seem to be much concerned with a quotation from the writings of Baha'u'llah which you have found: "If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith." (Gleanings, p. 52). This passage is referring precisely to that unity of these founder-prophets of the world religions at the higher level which I referred to earlier. Baha'u'llah gives the analogy of sun. Although there is only one sun, human beings, in order to mark the passing of time give each day a different name. And so if the sun were to say: "I am the sun of yesterday", it would be quite correct, for each day is the expression of the same reality, the appearence of the sun; and if it were to be said that, with regard to their names the days differ, that would also be true. The oneness and differences of the prophets of God should be thought of in the same way. They are each the appearence on earth of the same reality, and thus are all one; and yet they each came at a different time and thus have a different name. Therefore to prefer one of these prophet-founders of the world religions over another is wrong. Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute . . . They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before Him. If any man, therefore, should fail to comprehend this truth, and should consequently indulge in vain and unseemly language, no one whose sight is keen and whose understanding is enlightened would ever allow such idle talk to cause him to waver in his belief. (Gleanings, pages 78-79) Although in their inner spiritual reality these prophet-founders of the world religions are one and the same, they differ in their external aspects, their name, their bodily form, the age in which they came and the specific message that they brought. The same passage that speaks of "uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith" goes on, however, to speak of the differences between the prophet-founders at the lower level the human level. "The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof." In this respect, each of these founder-prophets "hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, " etc. (Gleanings, p. 52). It is this area of difference that has confused humanity and made it appear that there are some inherent contradictions among the religions of the world. It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well-springs of divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of divine wisdom, all their utterances are in reality but the expressions of one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those stations to which We have referred, they therefore feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same. (Kitab-i-Iqan, page 177) The differences among the teachings of the prophet-founders of the world religions arise because they have come to different parts of the world in which there are differing cultures, therefore they have to address their message differently in accordance with that culture. An even more important reason for difference is the fact that the needs of humanity has changed over the ages and the message of these prophet-founders of the world religions is in accordance with the needs of the age in which they appear. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed . . . Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you. (Gleanings, page 217) Baha'u'llah writes that these founders of the world religions should be regarded as doctors whose task is to diagnose the ills of humanity and prescribe the remedy (an analogy also used by the Buddha of course). The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy? In like manner, every time the Prophets of God have illumined the world with the resplendent radiance of the Day Star of Divine knowledge, they have invariably summoned its peoples to embrace the light of God through such means as best befitted the exigencies of the age in which they appeared. They were thus able to scatter the darkness of ignorance, and to shed upon the world the glory of their own knowledge. It is towards the inmost essence of these Prophets, therefore, that the eye of every man of discernment must be directed, inasmuch as their one and only purpose hath always been to guide the erring, and give peace to the afflicted. (Gleanings, pages 80- 81) As I said to you in a previous posting, I do not particularly want to get involved in lengthy metaphysical hair-splitting and disputation for various reasons; the first being that I believe that it is exactly what both the Buddha and Baha'u'llah tried to dissuade their followers from doing. Surely that is the whole point of the Buddha likening humanity to a man with a poison arrow in his foot -- it is not just a waste of time for us to be debating these niceties, it is actually dangerous because it distracts attention from what is the real task at hand. The Baha'i scriptures also condemn religious disputation "If ye fail to discover truth in a person's words, make them not the object of contention, inasmuch as ye have been forbidden in the Bayan to enter into idle disputation and controversy (Selections from the Bab, page 134). I apologize that it has taken a while to get this posting out. That is not just because of its length. I am also rather late on several writing projects that I have promised to various people. I finally managed to complete an introduction to a book which I had promised to Tony Lee last week and now I am trying to finish a manuscript of a book which I had thought I would complete at the beginning of this month, as well as organize a conference that is due to take place in December. Moojan -- Wendi and Moojan Momen From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Sep 21 11:07:02 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 09:26:11 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: raising sons Dear Rick, I was glad to see your last posting. As I read an earlier one, it suggested to me that you saw the major problem facing parents was to make their daughters turn out all right. It is my contention that a bigger problem is making sure that the boys attitude towards girls is a healthy, constructive one. I am very alarmed by what I see as a growing hostility towards females in this society. I also agree wholeheartedly that the portrayal of women in the media is dangerous. Perhaps I am not alarmed by Barbie dolls because I see so many other things as really being the problem. Everywhere we turn, we face images of women that are unhealthy images. And there seems to be a never ending supply of TV shows and movies where women are degraded. When I interact with female college students I am often very pleased with them and the interests they have. However, I am so often alarmed by their descriptions of their relationships with men. So, while I hold to what I said before - treat your daughter with respect, speak intelligently to her about a wide array of topics, etc. - I really don't have a feeling that you would do otherwise. I think we can work ourselves up into a frenzy trying to create an ideal person. She is who she is. You can only nurture that. But to demand that the males around you treat her and other women with respect might be the most important thing you, or any man, can do. Linda P.S. Most happy to hear that Burl is taking a conscientious approach to improving his table manners. When Sherman the Cat gives his o.k., we will try Burl at the dinner table once more. From rstockman@usbnc.orgThu Sep 21 14:35:53 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 10:03:49 From: "Stockman, Robert" To: talisman@indiana.edu, aw515@freenet.carleton.ca, aperry99@utdallas.edu, billstoc@winternet.com, brill@bradley.bradley.edu, christopher.jones@stonebow.otago.ac.nz, crideout@crl.com, cxe5@musica.mcgill.ca, hatcher@chuma.cas.usf.edu, hhanson@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu, mocquais@max.cc.uregina.ca, momen@northill.demon.co.uk, seena@castle.ed.ac.uk, white3@husc.harvard.edu Subject: Religious Studies Seminar Dear All: I have finally assembled a tentative program for the Religious Studies Seminar of the Association for Baha'i Studies. As you can see, we have a surprisingly full program, and I think it is pretty strong as well. One speaker, Allan Keislar, is a Hindu, so the program includes religious diversity. I'd rather not have to change anyone's times, since this program has virtually gone to the printers; however, please inform me of any serious errors, such as mistakes in titles. Comments on the statement of purpose are also welcome, as it needs further development. I hope to see many of you at this gathering, on Thursday, October 12, 1995. -- Rob Stockman --------------------------------------------------------------- Association for Baha'i Studies Religious Studies Seminar, 1995 Schedule 9:00 Welcome and opening remarks 9:15 Mr. Anthony Lee, "Muslim and Christian Influences on Baha'i Identity in America." 9:55 Mr. Allan Keislar, "The United Religions Initiative: An Inspired Effort to Unite the Nations on a Spiritual Platform." 10:35 Break 10:50 Mr. Jack McLean, "The Convergence of Theology and Spirituality." 11:30 Dr. Diana Malouf, "Baha'u'llah's Corpus: Kernel of a New Literary System." 12:10 Lunch 2:00 Dr. Susan Maneck, "Wisdom, Unwisdom, and Dissimulation: The Use and Meaning of Hikmat in the Baha'i Faith." 2:40 Mr. Peter Terry, "The Dala'il-i-Sab`ih: The Seven Proofs of the Bab" 3:20 Break 3:35 Prof. Juan R. I. Cole, "The Secret of Divine Civilization and Iranian Reformist Literature." 4:15 Mr. Shahrokh Monjazeb, "The Dilemma of Authenticity of `Abdu'l-Baha's So-Called `Marriage Tablet'" 4:55 Adjorn ----------------------------------------- The Religious Studies Seminar of the Association for Baha'i Studies exists to carry out the following purposes: 1. To explore the nature and meaning of the Baha'i scriptures; 2. To explore Baha'i history; 3. To explore the development of the Baha'i community, both sociologically and by other means; 4. To study the lives of the Primary Figures of the Baha'i Faith (Baha'u'llah, the Bab, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi) and to develop Baha'i biography; 5. To explore Baha'i theology, philosophy, and ethics; 6. To educate the Baha'i community in the techniques and approaches of the scholarly community; to apply these techniques to the study of the Faith; 7. To educate the scholarly community about the Baha'i Faith, and through study of the Faith to assist in the development of various scholarly disciplines. The Seminar thus embraces all or part of the following fields: religious studies, history, biography, literature, theology, philosophy, ethics, sociology, anthropology, and psychology. From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 21 18:59:58 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:54:34 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Educating Sons. I think Linda has brought forward an excellent point , it is no use developing the girls to be forward thinkers and allowing the boys to have attitudes that relate to a past era.You simple create greater and greater chances of abuse and conflict. My brother-in-laws wife , sort of my sister-in-law decided after she had her first son she was not going to have her future daughter-in-law angry with her for not showing her son how to help and act around the house and towards women in general.She has two sons both of whom act totally different to their father, he never lifts a finger to do anything, they do not regard it as being particularly masculine thing to do nothing, I believe this shows the impact a mother has.Now if that is backed by the father in deed and word. We could see a very big change in two generations.Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut. From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 21 19:01:03 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 12:49:10 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re Watsonville explanation Due to rushing I sent the Watsonville report to Talisman , as it does not sound complete here goes. Jeff and Janie Rhodes two Baha'is who live in Santa Cruz County 12 weeks ago decided to start a teaching project. They chose Watsonville which is 8 miles from their home. Watsonville is a city of 28,000 plus people. With another Baha'i Adelard from Brundi who lives in Santa Cruz City they have gone every week for the last 10 weeks , concentrating on one small area of the City. they decided not to process the enrolements cards to make sure the people who had enrolled were happy to be Baha'is.Watsonville in the 70's had a project that was not exactly good at confirming people Jeff and Janie are determined to not repeat the mistakes of the past. They just feel joining the Faith of God is not signing a card but a union of the soul with its Maker. Now that the new and as I understand pretty wonderful new Baha'is are getting comfortable at being Baha'is , Jeff and Janie are processing them so that they join the World Wide Family.One of the things they do is to visit each person every week so you dont just sign a card and thats it. I have not posted Jeff's Weekly reports to me but if anybody would like a copy just post to me or I could post a general posting. Kindest Regards Derek cockshut. From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 21 22:22:03 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 15:40:02 PDT From: Rick Schaut To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Toward a Baha'i Economic Paradigm Dear Talizens, My undergraduate degree is in Economics, and one of my passtimes has been an attempt to develop some ideas which would form the basis of a model of Economics based upon Baha'i principles. I have toyed with the idea of posting some of these thoughts to Talisman, but I'm just not sure if anyone is interested. Mind you, my thoughts are toward the development of a model. We Baha'is are quite good at talking about things as they should be, but this talk only goes so far as people are willing to accept the assumptions which underly such positive analysis. If we expect others to adopt our assumptions, we have to use them to build a model which better describes things as they are. So, if you're looking for the ruminations of an iconoclast who has little to offer in place of the old model, you'll probably find my stuff very boring. What say you? Warmest Regards, Rick From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auThu Sep 21 22:23:55 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:04:16 +1000 From: Ahmad Aniss To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: second part of Dr. P.Khan's talk Dear Friends, This is the second part of the third talk by Dr Peter Khan which was given on Sunday 17th of September 1995 in Sydney. There are words that have been put in brakets with a question mark after. These are words that were not clear from the tape. The following content must be considered as typing from a tape and not the original. With regards, Ahmad. [text of the talk ( second part)] We are told this in direct opposition to every word we mean. We renew faith in this, that we see on television or from commentators of the news, and other areas of advising information, as we think they have been on us. Those sources tell us generally the precise opposite, they would not tell us that duty and responsibility and scarifies are the key to happiness and fulfilment. Rather than tell us that, they tell us self satisfaction and freedom from restraint consideration only of one's own being and one's own narrow interest that there lies happiness and fulfilment. I believe that our religion tells us the precise opposite, that our religion tells us that through the process of spiritual development, we will increase our powers and capacity through a remarkable extend. I was particularly pleased that councillor Sanders opened this meeting with those (......?) references to Mr. and Mrs. Dun. Because, I think, there in, one sees and therefore the things I which spoke. This frail couple lacking material resources, in afternoon, if not in the evening of their lives increased their power and capacity by their spiritual commitments as pioneers of the Cause in this call, and as many of us here today, are the direct result of that. I see one of the major challenges to the Baha'is in all parts of the world, East and as well as West, at this present stage of development of Cause. The challenge for the members of the Baha'i community is to be transformed, and do not simply be adherents. But, to be transformed into true believers, so in rage we must challenge an arduous and difficult task of spiritual development. It is not enough for us to say yet I believe, ok , I am a Baha'i. I accept Baha'u'llah. I sign the card. This is not enough, what is needed is the process of spiritual development and transformation of character, morals and conduct. This is needed as a mercy and benefit to the individual. It is also needed by The Cause of God, but The Cause of God will survive. If this is from God, it will care of itself. These may be the means by which, we can find our own personal salvation and our own preferences, as well, it will fulfil the full expectation of our lives. When this has not occurred, when the responses to this commitment to spiritual transformation ( ?), one finds that the religion is reduced to a mere creed, a set of rituals, a set of practices without meaning. This has occurred and is occurring in many of the religious communities of the world. We have to be careful so it does not occur in the Baha'i Community. We have to be careful that the Nineteen Day Feast is not reduced to rituals, but Local Spiritual Assembly meetings, participation in conferences, the recitation of The Obligatory Prayers and all the other elements of Baha'i practices, we have to be careful that they are not reduced to rituals, such as the previous Catholic practice (what we call no meat on Friday?). When we do not engage in this process of spiritual development and transformation, we find ourselves looking at present day world affairs and history from a secular perspective. If we are not Baha'is who are looking at society from this spiritual perspective we look at it with material perspective of the present day society and if you do that, and if you look very carefully, you would get very worried. Because the world is in an appalling mess, far worst than the average person realises. The prospects of destruction looms at every stage. As I said so many times in the talks of this weekend. The counties are becoming ungovernable and societies are breaking down completely, the spread of terrorism and narcotics and the possibilities of tautological and chemical warfare, even I sight the perfoliation of nuclear weapons. the world is in an appalling mess. If we Baha'is look at the world through a secular perspective of the people around us, we would become as depressed, as discouraged, as pessimistic, and as alienated as they are. we have to look at it through spiritual perspective so we see it as the first pang's of a new society, as the transition to world unity, and world civilisation at a period of definitely of birth and as a period of total destruction. I have and I am sure you too gave a great amount of thought to the process of spiritual development. To try to determine what are the factors? How is it carried out? What are its basic parameters? I want to share with you the present state of my thinking on this subject. It seems to me that the process of spiritual development on which we are called upon to embark as followers of Baha'u'llah, has three dimensions to it. The first dimension, is as far as, I can tell is essentially new to the Baha'i Faith. And the reason it is new, I think is that given the dispensations preceding the Birth of the Baha'i Revelation, so during the Islamic Dispensation some thing very interesting happened to science. People discovered magnets, and magnets become common. little pieces of iron which you carry around and this piece of iron attracts another piece of iron, if they are held close enough. What is in the world that that has to do with spiritual development. It has a lot to do with spiritual development. Because a magnet is a useful symbol of the process of spiritual development. Why we are saying this so? Firstly, with a magnet you have action occurring at distance. (two pieces of iron .also two pieces at a distance totally survive and the manifestation of their actions are greater?). Secondly, there is nothing visible between them, but there is an attractive force. And thirdly the forces are so generated such that the arrangement of the little bits of pieces in magnet are dipole. This is an analogy for certain actions in the process of spiritual development. As the first of the three dimensions, and I see it is associated to the spiritual development, is what I call the principle of magnetism. It is simply that. In This Dispensation, magnet is used as a means to convey a great and profound truth. The great and profound truth conveyed by the use of the analogy of the magnet is that if we take certain actions, physical actions, we attract a spiritual force. So if as we were making a magnet, we take little and bits of pieces and organise them in a right shape and form and they would attract a magnetic force to it. So we find curiously enough that the term magnet appeared again and again in the writings of Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha and The Guardian and as well as some statements of The Universal House of Justice. The term magnet appears again and again as a vehicle for conveying this profound truth. And if we would take certain actions prescribed by the Divine Law, a spiritual force is associated with us. Let me read some of these statements; Abdu'l-Baha says: the commemoration of God attracts confirmation and assistance like unto a magnet. Praying to God attract confirmation and assistance like a magnet. Another place; (take?) the magnet which draws the confirmation of the Merciful One. Another place; service is the magnet which attracts heavenly spirits. Yet again, unity and harmony is the magnet that draws down the confirmations of God. And so, He goes on that teaching the Cause, making a soul think rightful, Abdu'l-Baha tells us this is the magnetic power which attracts the confirmation of God. Another place, directing mankind to the right path is the magnet which will attract to us the help of God. And so he goes on, I can get a kind of weary if I talk about this in a great length. you find that it is every where. Shoghi Effendi in a letter of 1953, said living the Baha'i life creates a magnet for the Holy Spirit. Another place, to day as yet never before, Shoghi Effendi said: the magnet which attracts blessings for a Baha'i is teaching the Faith of God. It is the most powerful and the most important analogy to describe a profound truth that we are called upon to carry out certain actions in accord with Baha'i, with Divine Law, given by Baha'u'llah, with faith that those actions are necessary to attract great spiritual powers. Just as the magnet, because of its formation attracts magnetic powers. The analogy is developed very fully in the writings and you will find, The Guardian in translations of Baha'u'llah's writings, in Gleanings and other places, in times uses the term Lode Stone; l-o- d-e, Lode Stone as a synonym for a magnet, and He says in one place, that the revelation of Baha'u'llah will act as the Lode Stone for all nations and kindred's of the Earth. You see the analogy of the revelation to be like a magnet, attracting the nations and kindred's of the Earth to it. And before I leave the stand, you see yourselves upset with me trying to take (....?). Abdu'l-Baha in one place referred to Baha'u'llah and says that Baha'u'llah as He manifested, He said: Thy Lord hasth manifested the magnet of the souls of hearts in the whole of existing world. In another words, in that analogy Abdu'l-Baha describes Baha'u'llah as a magnet attracting the souls of truth. So, what are the dimensions, I see in the process of spiritual development, is that of the believers are called upon to carry out certain spiritual practices which attracts a spiritual power. Some of these practices are very inevitable, for example the practices of prayer, the practice of fasting, the practice of reading the creative writings, one might well guess, they are the source of attraction of spiritual powers, but some of them are less obvious. Why do we teach the Faith? It is not simply that we want more people around the place, so that we want more power and influence and more (....?), and the rest of it. Obviously we think these are important, but one of the fundamental reason for teaching of the Faith, for the individual is that it is a magnet, it is a thing, by which an individual can attract spiritual powers. The same applies to contributions to the fund. Why do we contribute to the funds? It is not just that we need a lot of money to do all kinds of interesting things. It is much more than that. It is that (.....?) devotional act by contributing to Local, National and International Fund for development. But with the act of contributing to these funds a spiritual practice which attracts spiritual powers to the individual. The first of these three dimensions of which, I think to be the process of spiritual development is that of the principle of magnetism, actions attract this truth. The second of three dimensions (irons .....?), is that what I regard as the principle which I fill (.....?) is constructive interaction, let me illustrate this, if I have a certain level of spiritual development, I say prayers. By saying these prayers for me, form a degree of devotion. I attract spiritual powers. Having attracted those spiritual powers, I become more spiritual and so I say more prayers. Now that, I attracted more spiritual power, I will become even more spiritual and (read?) more prayers and so on, it could go on. In other words, what I am saying is that the second of the three principles is that of constructive interaction. Constructive interaction between the acts one perform and the powers of attraction. We do some thing, we sort of take the currents in our hands and make a great effort and mention the Faith to some body else and through our friends at least a little bit and you find that that attracts powers to you, you fill good, you fill strong, you fill more courageous, you fill it has merits, you do it some more, it attracts more powers, we do it some more (itself?) . And of course the same goes with contributions to the funds, give a little and you realise that that greatly changes your spiritual perspective, and you become more sacrificial and give more, gain more sacrificial itself. So there is a level of constructive interaction. This process of constructive interaction is illustrated very vividly by a strange remark made by Abdu'l-Baha, He made that remark in 1912, when He was in Willemite, United State of America, and He was called upon to lay the foundation stone of the House of Worship. They gathered around Him, with a mood of prayer, that I suspect they had no idea of what they were embarked upon, and it will take another forty years to built it, and cost millions of dollars and all kinds of set backs, hardships and problems. What is strange about this remark of Abdu'l-Baha, He said and His words are recorded, He said, there he was with His friends gathered on a little piece of ground found on lake Michigan, "the temple is already is built". He clarified that remark by saying also you have only to begin, every thing will be all right. I submit that, that was an example of constructive interaction. "You only need to begin every thing will be all right, the temple is already built". In another words, what He was saying is, look the very fact that you have made a start you more or less gathered at lake Michigan ..... (to be continued) _______________________________________________________________________ ^ ^ ^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, From tan1@cornell.eduThu Sep 21 22:24:15 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:04:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "Timothy A. Nolan" To: sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nz, talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Belief and declaration Suzanne Michael responded to the following comment: >> 3. They should know that there are laws they should endeavour to follow >> and an administration they must try to obey to the best of their >> ability. by saying: s> I do appreciate your comments regarding the ways in which Baha'is come to s> the Faith, but a rather obvious conclusion from your point no. 3 is that s> in order to obey the laws, one must know what they are. Yes of course. However, in order to enroll in the Baha'i community, it isn't necessary to know all the laws, it is only necessary to agree in advance to obey them, even if you don't yet know what they are! That is, a person has to have faith that, if a law comes from Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l Baha or Shoghi Effendi or the Universal House of Justice, then, one must agree in advance to try to obey that law as soon as one learns of it. I think this is a sign of deep faith, to agree to follow laws, not because you know them already and agree with them, but because of Who set forth the laws. The Source of the law, not the content of any particular law, is the reason for obedience. Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu From TLCULHANE@aol.comThu Sep 21 22:25:19 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:24:16 -0400 From: TLCULHANE@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Seneca Falls Dear Stephen , The Seneca falls Womens Rights Conference took place in Seneca Falls New York on July 19 -20 1848. The conference was given imputus by the passage of an equal property rights bill in the New York legislature in April of that year . It was organized by Eliz. Cady Stanton , Lucretia Mott one of her sisters , Martha Wright , two other Quakers Jane Hunt and Ann Mc Clinock . The Conference produced a resolution known as the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. The above mentioned women , in consultation with some of their husbands , ( a famous decision making style) produced a document patterned after the Declaration of Independence . It was cady Stanton who fleshed out and completed the rough draft for the concention . The declaration consisted of 12 resolutions , the most controversial of which was related to securing for women the right to vote . It is significant that among those who adamently supported this resolution , the most controversial of the convention, -which did pass - was Frederick Douglass. The Declaration was signed by 68 women and 32 men . Some of its resolutions and commentary regarding religion and the clergy make for good reading in light of that remarkable document the Book of Certitude . Here is the last of the resolutions presented by Lucretia Mott . Resolved; That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women , for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit , and for the securing to women an equal participation with men in the various trades , professions and commerce. ( Yes it passed ) Hope this helps. In the for what it is worth category this is one of the documents we go over in our Omaha Bahai Academy junior high and youth class . And we talk about it in tandem with Badasht. warm regards, Terry From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 21 22:26:32 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:39:25 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re : The Great Paradox. The Great Paradox appears to be the one in your mind Paul , I do not think you are up to date on Baha'i Litera- ture . Adib Taherzadeh in his book 'The Covenant Of Baha'u'llah' actually outlines the very points you claim Baha'is are hiding or refusing to face. The Book was published in 1992 is priced at $21.95 as you refused to take the point over William Collins Book because that was too expensive , as far as the rank and file not being in- formed .In 1990 I spoke at the Desert Rose Conference in Tucson on the History of the Covenant dealing in greater detail than Adib's book with the whole subject. It was a set of 5 lectures with around 500 people attending the class. Since then I must have given that class to around 2000 more people. Hardly a cover-up operation explaining the sorry mess regarding Covenant Breaking and the Holy Family, which I am well aware the Chris- tian Fundamentalists will pick on just as you are trying to do. The only thing for Baha'is to do is do be aware of the true situation and answer questions that can be an- swered. But you have now gone to your feelings not Facts or Scholarly or Academic considerations , you state 'It is an intuitive reading of an historical situation that emphasizes , even exaggerates ----- I find Miller persuasive on the general thesis that the Faith is 'in de- nial'so to speak about its origins.'That really is a cop- out, you do not want to discuss things, you were offered by several people on Talisman to answer your questions , you then said the book was missing < gone into occulta- tion no doubt >. It really does not matter to you Paul what answers you could receive because you have already decided and re- jected the answers before you have thought of the ques- tions. That is a futile and pointless exercise for anybody to embark upon with you. I suggest you could be the one 'in denial' whatever the Baha'i Community was like when you were a part I do not recognize. but it is radi- cally different now from what you infer , whether you like it or not. The real truth is you do not believe in this Religion for you it is not the Truth , you are unable to accept the fact that millions of people regard this Faith as the most wonderful and the purest thing ever to enter their lives. That it has created aspects of Unity beyond your imagination. I am sorry you are so bitter , but you seem bitter against the Theosophists , so it is certainly not something unique to the Baha'i Faith your negative feelings of angry and frustration . I do not for many reasons accept your views and opinions regarding my Religion. Some are Intellectual , some are academic , some are based on my personal historical research of primary sources which you have never been privy too. But most of all for those blessed and precious moments when I open my inner eyes in Prayer and Meditate on the Glorious Maiden of Heaven and feel the Power of the Twin Blessed Ones fill my Soul . How could I explain that to one whose life seems to dwell on the dark side of things, regardless of whether true or false ,and that is a sadness, more than you can realize, for me. Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut. From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 21 22:27:35 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:29:51 PDT From: Rick Schaut To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: The Great Paradox Dear Paul and Friends, >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >I'm not arguing that Miller is a good scholar, or that his book >is fair. What I keep trying to say is that he can see things >about the Faith that Baha'is seem resolutely unwilling to see, >and that you can profit from a dispassionate consideration of >his points. I must confess that I'm not sure what to make of this claim. The phrase "resolutely unwilling to see" is a phrase, in this context, which is so laden with subjective interpretation that it's difficult to give it any form of discourse whatsoever. Yet, the facts are clear: Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha gave pretty clear instructions as to who had what authority in the Faith, and those who were declared covenant breakers disregarded these instructions. I don't know that one can get any more dispassionate about it than this simple observation. In terms of dysfunctional families, a dispassionate review of the evidence is also rather clear. Those who appear to have been most dysfunctional are those who were declared covenant breakers. Moreover, we are faced with the rather stark evidence that the Baha'i Faith has progressed faster than any other religion has progressed in the first 150 years of its life. Any dispassionate review of this evidence has to marvel at the extent to which the Baha'i Faith has withstood the efforts of members of Baha'u'llah's own family to shake the foundations of authority as they have been laid down in the Writings of the Faith. In terms of Baha'i willingness to view these events in any form, I should point out that they haven't been brushed under the rug. The issues, the history and the documentation is generally available to Baha'is at large, and a rather good summary of the events is containd in Adib Taherzadeh's _The Covenant of Baha'u'llah_. So, I'm at a loss to understand precisely which facts I'm so "resolutely unwilling to see." Is it the nefarious activities of Muhammad `Ali? How Badi'u'llah and his cousins? Of their activities I'm well aware. I understand what Miller is trying to say. In that sense, I "see" what he's saying. I also disagree with his point of view and where that point of view leads him. In that sense, I don't "see" what he's saying. To which of these are you referring when you claim that Baha'is are unwilling to see Miller's points? Warmest Regards Rick From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 21 23:13:24 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 21:10:01 -0400 From: Ahang Rabbani To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Badasht and women emancipation [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Friends, In a very informative posting on "Seneca Falls", Terry wrote (Thanks Terry!): > And we talk about it in tandem with Badasht. If I understood this correctly, the implications is to draw a parallel between the women emancipation efforts in the West and Tahirih's supposed sentiments and preaching on the same. I am not picking on my good friend Terry, but I hear this about Tahirih in many places. Actually, I like to hear what evidence exists that Tahirih ever said or did anything on the subject of women's liberty. There is nothing in her writings that offer such an evidence. Even the supposed act of removing her vale at Badasht, is not mentioned in any of the early manuscripts that I have chanced upon. (This "act" which is suppose to signal abrogation of Islamic Dispensation is a rather late report and if I'm not mistaking is first mentioned by Nabil -- who may of course have heard it from Baha'u'llah!) Outside of that, anything? Would appreciate any information on this issue. regards, ahang. From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Sep 21 23:14:54 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 21:53:38 -0500 (EDT) From: "Mark A. Foster" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Baha`i Jurisprudence/Wom To: talisman@indiana.edu R > "The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of R >teaching the truth, whether Assemblies for men, Assemblies for women or R >mixed assmeblies are all accepted and conducive to the spreading of the R >fragrances of God....But now is not the time--it is utterly impossible to R >establish the House of Justice which is mentioned in the Book of Aqdas, R >nay rather it is impracticable and not to be thought of, that is for the R >time when the Cause is proclaimed and the Commands have become R >effective. Therefore now is not the time for the House of Justice, which R >must be estsblished by general election. Its mention is not permissible R >and its realization impossible." Richard - It seems to me that this passage is talking about the future local houses of justice and not the Universal House of Justice. They key phrase here, I think, is "by general election." The Master, IMO, was distinguishing between the local house of justice and the local spiritual assembly. Although the second is the nascent form of the first, the responsibility is somewhat different. Of course, the local spiritual assemblies do not, in most of the world (though I have heard of a few recent exceptions in certain politically undeveloped places in the world), function as true houses of justice. Baha'i greetings, Mark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion * From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep 21 23:17:43 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:06:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: dysfunctionality Paul: >From my point of view, with regard to the issue of the Nuri family, I think you are blaming the victims; and it would be easy to set up any religion for this treatment. Look how unfair Christians are to Judas, who after all probably sacrificed three years of income to hang around with someone advertising himself as the Messiah, who cannot even prevent himself being taken captive by the Romans and handily dispatched. Why can't Christians come to terms with the entirety of the twelve disciples and recognize that Judas had a valid point of view, too? And it is not as if Peter was so much better, after all, since he denied Christ 3 times before dawn. But Peter gets rehabilitated, whereas poor Judas is demonized. :--) As for Baha'u'llah and Azal, I suppose one can understand why Baha'u'llah rather stopped wanting to have anything to do with a half-brother who tried to have him rubbed out. Baha'u'llah quite clearly appointed `Abdu'l-Baha his successor, the one to whom all should turn, the Interpreter of the Book. When Muhammad `Ali refused to accept `Abdu'l-Baha's authority and blatantly made a bid for power, what was `Abdu'l-Baha supposed to do? Roll over and play dead? Let the Baha'i faith splinter for the sake of his little brother's ego? I think other lessons can be drawn from the problems the Holy Figures had with their families than the one you drew. You lumped them all together, as the Nuri dysfunctional family, as if all were equally blameworthy in what happened. But it seems obvious to me that this is not the case. Sociologically speaking, I would suggest the following: In Middle Eastern society (and one could as well say the Mediterranean) clan organization is common. One's cousins mean a lot to one. You do favors for a brother or a cousin, especially on your father's side. If you are a male you tend to marry your father's brother's daughter. The system tends to be segmentary. This is usually explained as a shifting set of intra- and inter-clan rivalries. A proverb is often given to explain the system: "I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; I, my brother and our cousin against the world." Brothers and cousins expect patronage. (Greece has been given $10 billion in aid by the European community, with no obvious multiplier effect on its economy. Where did all the money go? The best guess is that it was distributed into the pockets of the cousins, dispersing it and eating it up in consumption and inflation. The same thing happened to a lot of the aid given the Pakistani government supposedly for Afghan refugees.) Now the system of succession set up by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha challenged these Mediterranean notions of segmentary alliances, patronage and (frankly) corruption. And the greater Nuri family simply could not stop playing by the old rules, ganging up on Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in turn, challenging their charismatic authority, seeing what they could wring out of the system in these segmentary faction-fights. The Nuris thought they could get away with all this; they were family, after all. But the Holy Figures said no to segmentary politics, they said no to patronage for the brothers and cousins, they said no to corruption. The price of this uprightness was severe, in cutting off much of the family over time. But the alternative was to let factionalism and sleaziness of the Sicilian sort take over the leadership of the Baha'i Faith. On another level, one you may appreciate, one could see the saga of the failure of so many Nuris to live up to their own religion as a parable for humankind. Just as Baha'u'llah's own brother tried to isolate him and kill him, so the Ottoman and Iranian authorities sent him to the fortress at Akka with the intent that it should be a sort of solitary confinement and the end of him. Just as `Abdu'l-Baha's brothers attempted to have undermine his authority and his standing with the government, so conservatives in the Ottoman state seriously considered executing him or exiling him to the Libyan desert. Just as Shoghi Effendi's relatives defied him and jockeyed for position in case he should die, so the world itself fell into the fratricidal conflicts of WW II, the Palestine war, and the Cold War. All Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi wanted was to bring the message of the unity of God, the unity of the religions and the unity of humankind to the world. And neither in their inner kinship circle nor in the wider world were they greeted with anything but a clasped dagger. So, no, I don't think I have anything at all to learn from Miller, a warped and narrow-minded fundamentalist who would have gladly consigned both you and me to hell. cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduThu Sep 21 23:18:05 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:30:12 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: The Great Paradox The discussion of the Miller book tends to go in specific grooves, already worn by Talisman members' previous thoughts on the subject. I don't want to argue about factual matters, or his scholarly status, but to point out that above and beyond all that there is a kind of truth in Miller's book that can be found in nothing produced by Baha'is to my knowledge. It is an intuitive reading of the historical situation that emphasizes, even exaggerates, all the elements that Baha'is most ignore and suppress. I find Miller persuasive on the general thesis that the Faith is "in denial" so to speak about its origins. And the truth that is ignored or denied is inconveniently contradictory of the collectively-accepted official history. The Great Paradox, as Miller implicitly argues and I am explicitly stating, is this: Baha'is talk about creating a harmonious world where national, racial, gender, etc. conflict is transcended. And yet the true history of the Faith's emergence is basically the story of the self-destruction of an aristocratic family, each generation of which is rent asunder by sibling rivalry. The Faith that is supposed to bring all humanity together as one family is the product of a rather spectacularly dysfunctional family. From the rivalry between Baha'u'llah and Yahya, through that between `Abdu'l Baha and Muhammad Ali, down to Shoghi Effendi vs. the entire remaining family, the dynamics of this family look about as spiritually uplifting as an episode of Dynasty or Dallas. People are constantly undermining one another, violent episodes punctuate the narrative; in essence there's vastly more hate than love evident in the history of the family. All that fratricidal sturm and drang doesn't make a very inspiring story for the birth of a perfect world religion, so Baha'is have viewed their history in a highly selective, avoidant manner. For example, all of Shoghi Effendi's relatives who were declared covenant-breakers "turned against him and the Covenant," according to the official version. But from their side, he turned against them and not for reasons of religion. In every generation, Baha'i history is a field of power struggles that simply don't strike one as signs that transcendence of humanity's conflicts is likely to come from this source. So apart from the specifics about non-publication of the Aqdas and Bayan, or the promotion of a distorted Christian-oriented popular form of Baha'i in the West, or concealment of sources, of treatment of covenant breakers, there is a general pattern Miller lays out that does not inspire trust. Sure, he's one-sided and unfair and tries to twist everything into the least flattering interpretation. But is that not the Jungian "shadow" of the Baha'i writers who have been one-sided and unfair and tried to twist everything into the most flattering interpretation? I'm not arguing that Miller is a good scholar, or that his book is fair. What I keep trying to say is that he can see things about the Faith that Baha'is seem resolutely unwilling to see, and that you can profit from a dispassionate consideration of his points. From jrcole@umich.eduFri Sep 22 11:21:57 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:13:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Juan R Cole To: Ahang Rabbani Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Badasht and women emancipation Ahang-jan: `Abdu'l-Baha confirms the unveiling incident in Memorials of the Faithful, almost certainly on Baha'u'llah's information. Tahirih cannot be understood as a feminist in the modern sense. But telling her husband to get lost, asserting Babi leadership in Karbala, openly preaching to large crowds, and writing very obviously woman's erotic poetry about God, all do have implications for gender roles. (This was a society in which she was, after all, supposed to stay in the house and do child care, veil when she went out, and defer to her male superiors [ha!]). That is, I think one can read "feminism" out of Tahirih's narrative; but I don't think you can read "changing gender roles" out of it. ("Feminism" as a word, by the way, comes into use only in about 1913-14 in the U.S.) cheers Juan Cole, History, Univ. of Michigan From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:22:26 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:12:46 -0600 (MDT) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" To: Rick Schaut Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: RE: Baha'i Jurisprudence Rick, I don't know where you got the concept of the "domains of authority" but I agree that it's at the heart of an understanding of how Baha'i law works. That doesn't help to construct strict rules of jurisprudence, but I think it's helpful in understanding how the system actually works. The most emphatic texts direct our eyes to these Institutions, not to our logical constructs. Thanks for pointing this out. Brent From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:24:34 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:39:08 -0600 (MDT) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: jurisprudence, NSAs On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl wrote: > In general I would say the minimum is either > a single text in a book clearly intended as a general exposition, > rather than as an immediate response (eg The World Order of > Baha'u'llah not a letter to an individual via a secretary; Traveller's > Narrative not a letter to Mrs. X of Kenosha concerning a local > dispute)... That's a tall order. How do you know if a Book or Tablet was "clearly intended as a general exposition?" Surely the Master knew that every syllable He wrote would be collected and published; Mahmud followed Him around writing down as much as he could during His western travels. Many of the most important Baha'i Writings were, of course, addressed to individuals. Of course, the Text of, say, the Kalimat-i-Firdawsiyyih addressed ostensibly to Haydar-Ali is addressed to kings and rulers and the peoples of the world, etc. so clearly has the world as its audience. Even in cases where a Tablet from the Master or a letter from the Guardian contains specific answers to specific questions, it often has wider implications. Such a missive might give an insight into a spiritual or administrative principle, even if the specific guidance does not have universal application. All I'm saying is that I think it's quite a tall order to distinguish guidance limited to a specific individual in a specific case, from guidance the Master or Guardian intended to have wider application. There's another thing I wanted to bring up. Some fellow (I want to say Kingman Brewster but I know that's not right) wrote a letter to the Master and asked if Emanuel Swedenborg was a prophetic figure. The Master wrote a Tablet replete with references to "Emanuel" which praised him greatly. The Guardian was asked if this Tablet referred to Swedenborg, and he said it had no bearing on him at all; that the "Emanuel" in the Tablet was the Bab. I saw a pamphlet published by the recipient of the Master's Tablet at the Bosch school some years back. He printed the text of his letter to the Master, and the Master's response; and then said "let the reader decide for himself if the Master was writing about Swedenborg." Now, one real clear object lesson in this is that that recipient apparently went by the wayside, choosing his own intellect over the Guardian's and the Master's guidance. But what I want to raise here is this point: The Master responding to a different matter in His Tablet, than the questioner raised. This may have bearing on the analysis of His Tablets to the early US Houses of Justice. Brent From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:25:38 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:05:43 -0600 (MDT) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" To: H-C deFlerier deCourcelles <100735.2257@compuserve.com> Cc: "\"K. Paul Johnson\"" , Talisman Subject: Re: Guilt by Association Having discussed some of this with Paul over the year or two I've corresponded with him, I'd like to second his hunch that going into the topic would be a negative rather than positive experience. I think we're going to be able to focus on more productive areas in other fields. Paul's not shy about his views, not lacking in the linguistic tools to express himself, and not lacking in the integrity to speak up. I do not feel that he's hiding and taking pot shots then ducking back in. My vote, if you're counting Paul: Don't get drawn into this. Brent From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduFri Sep 22 11:26:13 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:23:44 -0600 (MDT) From: "[G. Brent Poirier]" To: "Timothy A. Nolan" Cc: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: how are Baha'i texts verified as authentic? During the days I had the benefit of living at Bosch I frequented the library, and came across instances where the Guardian had Tarazullah Samandari verify the authenticity of Tablets. If you ever do come across a trunk of Tablets, I heard a story that *might* be true. I heard it in the Temple, so it must be. It seems that an enterprising Iranian Muslim came across a Tablet by the Master and offered to sell it to a Baha'i. The Baha'i asked for a photocopy so he could send it to Haifa for authentication. The word came back that it was indeed authentic; with further advice that if the price was modest, go ahead and purchase it; if the price was high, never mind. The House will accept a clear photocopy the same as the original Tablet. From TLCULHANE@aol.comFri Sep 22 11:28:27 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 02:30:01 -0400 From: TLCULHANE@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: re:Badasht and women emancipatio Dear Ahang, Actually we dont try and equate Tahirih's role at Badasht with Seneca Falls in a strict sense . We touch on it (We being Suzanne Croisant and myself ) in a way Juan described. What we are trying to do with the youth is not so much turn Tahihih into a late 20th century "feminist" which as Juan noted would be a misnomer , as demonstrate to them that the Faith belongs in this country . Unfortunately in my part of the country the Faith has been presented in such a way too much of the time as though it were a Persian ethnic religion . The consequences being that it was in some sense "foreign " to America . We hope to provide the youth with a sense that there are in this country very powerful traditions with which they can be proud and identify as proto - Bahai to borrow Sens word . It is a self-conscious attempt to demonstrate that the world was beginning to awaken to a new age and that Bahau'llah validates many of these developments . How can we make sense of the world and history. We argue it is an excercise in covenant theology as exemplified by the Guardian in PDC. This Covenant is a big umbrella that includes more than the Bahai community and Bahau llah lets us know in His revelation what is included in that Covenant . We are trying to teach them to see history through the lense of the revelation and find links between that Revelation and the larger history of humankind . It is this sense that we present Badasht as an example of this birth of a new era in history and so is Seneca Falls . I would recommend to everyone who has not done so to read the Declaration of Sentiments from Seneca . It contains a number of themes which Bahai's can identify as validated by Baha u llah . We then speak of the long struggle to achieve the aims of the Seneca Conference and the peole who sacrificed a great deal to make this a reality -- Susan B. Anthony , Eliz. Stanton Lucretia Mott among others . They had a sense of mission ! From there it is a small step to link Badasht to that same emancipatory process . Then we can speak of the sacrifice , the struggle the sense of mission that the Babi's had , the courage it took to break free of the constraints of their culture. Then we get to speak of Baha u'llah and His sacrifice and struggle and mission and . .and . . I am sure you get my point . there is then a challenge to the youth . Who is willing to carry on that mission ? Who is willing to be content to simply benefit from the sacrifices of Baha u llah , the babi's and early Bahai's. as well as the sacrifices of Susan B. and all the unnamed human beings who have struggled for justice and loved that the world may became more like the Kingdom or as I sometimes prefer - an * Irfan Republic* . The world we inherited did not just happen . The benefits we take for granted did not fall like manna from heaven . The world we inherited was built on the sacrifice , the love , the joy , the sorrow , the pain of those who preceeded us . It is an attempt to give some life to the Oneness of humankind and open the youth to the sacrifice , the love , the joy , the sorrow and pain of Baha'ullah, the one who we believe can transform our lives and those of our fellow human beings . We take this same approach when discussing the Abolitionist movement from the early Quakers to Wm . Garrison to Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther Kings "I have A Dream" speech as part of this same class. All of this is part of the Covenant ( the Greater one ). It is i think an effort to reflect two things mentioned in the Most Holy Book. 1) " Were any man to taste the sweetness of the words which the lips of the All - Merciful have willed to utter, he would , though the treasures of the earth be in his possession, renounce them one and all , that he might vindicate the truth of even one of His commandments, shining above the Dayspring of His bountiful care and loving kindness. " This is the promise . I want them to experience that sweetness. 2) " This is not a Cause which may be made a plaything of your idle fancies, nor is it a field for the foolish and faint of heart . By God , this is the arena of insight and detachment, of vision and upliftment . . " This is the challenge . I want them to experience that vision . Gracious God, I love this Book ! ! ! Hope this clarifies what we are up to. warm regards, Terry From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduFri Sep 22 11:32:22 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 10:40:54 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" To: Juan R Cole Subject: Re: dysfunctionality According to Juan R Cole: > > Paul: > > >From my point of view, with regard to the issue of the Nuri family, I > think you are blaming the victims; and it would be easy to set up any > religion for this treatment. Hereditary succession in religion inevitably sets up such conflict. In the long run it's for the best that the Faith was liberated from that outdated paradigm. But if Baha'u'llah was both omniscient and the source of a blueprint for the New World Order, why didn't he foresee the fate of his own family and organize things differently in the first place? > > Now the system of succession set up by Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha > challenged these Mediterranean notions of segmentary alliances, patronage > and (frankly) corruption. And the greater Nuri family simply could not > stop playing by the old rules, ganging up on Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha > and Shoghi Effendi in turn, challenging their charismatic authority, > seeing what they could wring out of the system in these segmentary > faction-fights. The Nuris thought they could get away with all this; > they were family, after all. But the Holy Figures said no to segmentary > politics, they said no to patronage for the brothers and cousins, they > said no to corruption. But they never said no to hereditary successorship in religious office, and we can only conclude from history that [God/the Fates/the Universe/Time] decreed otherwise than those Sacred Figures. > exiling him to the Libyan desert. Just as Shoghi Effendi's relatives > defied him and jockeyed for position in case he should die, so the world > itself fell into the fratricidal conflicts of WW II, the Palestine war, > and the Cold War. All Baha'u'llah, `Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi > wanted was to bring the message of the unity of God, the unity of the > religions and the unity of humankind to the world. And neither in their > inner kinship circle nor in the wider world were they greeted with > anything but a clasped dagger. Except for the fact that they were literally (in the case of Baha'u'llah) and virtually (in the other two cases) worshipped by a worldwide set of followers. > > So, no, I don't think I have anything at all to learn from > Miller, a warped and narrow-minded fundamentalist who would have gladly > consigned both you and me to hell. OK. BTW, Presbies are not ordinarily fundies, and fundies are not ordinarily smart enough to write even a Miller type book. Evangelical is perhaps the word that should be used. Cheers PJ From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep 22 11:32:37 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 09:53:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Saman Ahmadi To: talisman Subject: Re: The Great Paradox How does Miller treat Baha'u'llah's time in the mountains of Kurdistan? sAmAn From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduFri Sep 22 11:33:33 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 09:58:57 EWT From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Paul's posting Dear Paul, if someone "outside" the Baha'i Faith were to get a rundown on Nuri family dynamics such as Miller has written, I could see where things could look awfully fishy. However, although I have agreed in the past with some of your criticisms, I am a bit bewildered by this one. Juan has posted a wonderful explanation of the dynamics of M.E. (that's not "Meticulous English" either) family organization. The importance of understanding this cannot be underestimated. I am in the throes of trying to figure out how family politics affect Shi'i leadership in the world today. Believe me, the rules still live. I would have thought that you would have had some background in this yourself, so that the problems that so plagued Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha's family would not seem so very strange to you. I would also like to add one other thing. With all the research that people such as Juan and John and others (who are often accused of being subversive) have done, none have dug up any "dirt" on the central figures of the Faith. None of them were at all corrupt. None have ever been accused of being hypocritical. None were womanizers. They did not amass fortunes or demand to be treated like gods. In other words, none of them ever personally benefited from their positions. As a historian, I don't have to tell you how rare an occurrence this is. Warmly, Linda From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:06:16 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:42:31 -0400 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Tahirih and gender Of course, it is true that it would be a distortion to characterize Tahirih as a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word. Neither was she the "first women's suffrage martyr" as I have seen some Baha'i texts refer to her. But, I do not think that we can ignore the fact that she was a woman, and that she very deliberately and consciously appropriate male role and male social space--to the outrage of her contemporaries. While her writings are silent about the "rights" of women, a European idea, her actions are not. Not only removing the veil, but organizing women's literacy classes in Karbala, preaching to women's networks, etc. I highly recommend Farzaneh Milani's astonishingly well written book, VEILS AND WORDS: The Emerging Voices of Iranian Women Writers (Syracuse University Press, 1992) for an assessment of her role as a proto-feminist voice in Iranian literary history. Warmest, Tony From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:06:45 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:47:43 -0400 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice Since I so seldom find an opportunity to agree with my good frined and Baha'i brother Mark Foster, let me leap at the one he has just presented. I heartily concur that the Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha he has quoted certainly refers to local Houses of Justice to be established in the United States. For this, we need not just rely on the text alone, but the historical context--again, the request (by this time coming from many quarters) that women be admitted to local administrative bodies. Of course, we know that Houses of Justice HAD been established in the United States in New York, Chicago, and Kenosha much earlier--with 'Abdu'l-Baha's full consent and blessing. He even addresses them in Tablets as "House of Justice." But, then obviously changed his mind. Tony From Member1700@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:12:44 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:22:59 -0400 From: Member1700@aol.com To: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: The Great Paradox Actually, I will both agree and disagree with Paul on his points about Miller's book. To suggest that Miller brings anything new to the scholarly study of the Baha'i Faith is simply a mistake. His views are nothing more than an unsophisticated restatement of the positions held by various brands of Covenant-breakers over the generations. He has no new analysis or insight to offer. He intends his book only as an expose, unmasking various bits of information which Baha'is (it is true) usually find unpleasant and uncomfortable. So, as far as Miller's book having any value for scholarly study, I will have to disagree. It is an open attack on the Baha'i Faith written by a hack, with the clear intent of damaging the name and reputation of the religion among Christians. Really nothing more. We would have to be a community of saints to react to this book with anything less than contempt. We are not a community of saints--though sometimes we pretend to be. On the other hand, if Paul's point is that Baha'is generally present a simplified and sanitized version of our history (and of everything else, for that matter) to those investigating the Faith, in our introductory literature, and to ourselves in Baha'i meetings--of course, he is right. Baha'i history is a lot more messy than we would like to believe that it is. (History is always quite messy, by the way, so no one should be surprised.) And so, as we construct a sacred history of our religion and community--well, things naturally tend to get cleaned up a bit. I do not see anything sinister, or even unusual about that. In fact, I doubt very much that Paul could locate a human community where this is not the case. The messy details are left to the scholars, who enjoy such things. Most people would prefer not to see the sausage being made, even if the result is delicious. Actually, that is what history IS, Paul. At least, popular and community history. The construction of a heroic story about the past which is the basis of a common identity. That is what human beings do. Of course, I as an historian what to know more. But, I can hardly condemn all of humanity for wanting histories that they can call their own. I will contest such histories at certain points, especially where their implications are destructive. But, I hardly expect the whole world to turn into a graduate school. Warmest, Tony From saman@tamu.eduFri Sep 22 19:16:07 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:42:12 -0500 From: Saman Ahmadi To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Mutatis/Mutandis Dear Sen and All, Sorry for the delay in responding to your post. I have amended the list a bit: 1) Laws already CONTAINED in previous dispensations which treated men and women differently: Baha'u'llah explicitly ordains a change to the law that applies to men and women equally. > Greeting formula (assuming Baha'u'llah approved the > change) FIT? > Infidelity FIT > Divorce FIT Trading slaves 2) Laws which He affirms from previous dispensations, He applies them to males or females - in the same manner that they appeared in prior revelations > Guardianship (imamate), male only: FIT (but not ordained > by Baha'u'llah I think) > Dowry PARTLY FIT (need a category 2a for laws > retained, and still sex-specific, but very much softened, > made optional etc.) > Right to support during separation (?) Obligatory Prayer - with exceptions for women in their courses and those nursing Pilgrimage - with exemption for women Non-primary education of children responsibility of father (similar to Islam ?) 3) Laws unique to the Baha'i Faith: Baha'u'llah addresses them to males only - allowing Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi to interpret them to have broader meaning if and when necessary > Inheritance FIT (interpretation in this case in the Q&A) > House of Justice FIT Appearence of the next Manifestation: "... such a *man* is assurdely a lying imposter." (emphasis added) [not really a law, I suppose.] 4) Laws specifically addressed to women which are cancelled > Uncleanliness during menses 5) Laws unique to the Baha'i Faith that address people in general with no reference to gender Holding Feasts Establishing House of Worships Establishing Houses of Justice Kissing of hands Confession of sins Huqquq'u'llah (?) 6) Laws from previous Dispensation with no reference to gender Murder Backbiting and calumny Cleanliness regards, sAmAn From rvh3@columbia.eduFri Sep 22 19:19:58 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:18:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Vernon Hollinger To: Member1700@aol.com Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice On Fri, 22 Sep 1995 Member1700@aol.com wrote: > Since I so seldom find an opportunity to agree with my good frined and Baha'i > brother Mark Foster, let me leap at the one he has just presented. I > heartily concur that the Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha he has quoted certainly > refers to local Houses of Justice to be established in the United States. You are probably right about this, though House of Justice is singular in this tablet while the reference to the other Spiritual Assemblies is plural, which is suggestive. In either case, however, it makes it difficult to read the reference to baytul-adl-umumi in the 1909 tablet as a reference to any existing Baha'i institution. `Abdu'l-Baha states clearly here that the formation of the House of Justice at the present time is impossible. Why would he refer to the House of Spirituality as the House of Justice if his position was that this institution did not and could not presently exist? Richard From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduFri Sep 22 19:21:00 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 14:12:46 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" To: Member1700@aol.com Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: The Great Paradox According to Member1700@aol.com: > > Actually, I will both agree and disagree with Paul on his points about > Miller's book. To suggest that Miller brings anything new to the scholarly > study of the Baha'i Faith is simply a mistake. It may not be new now, but wasn't it at the time of publication? Especially when you consider the extremely limited distribution of cb literature compared to Miller? His views are nothing more > than an unsophisticated restatement of the positions held by various brands > of Covenant-breakers over the generations. His contemptuous description of Mason Remey hardly falls into that category. It was the most (as in ONLY) informative material about him I had ever seen; I'll take Derek at his word that this is dealt with by Taherzadeh too. > And so, as we construct a sacred history of our religion and > community--well, things naturally tend to get cleaned up a bit. I do not see > anything sinister, or even unusual about that. In fact, I doubt very much > that Paul could locate a human community where this is not the case. Doubtless you are right. But the result is sinister in the case of Baha'i sacred history, because it is told in simplistic hero/villain terms that encourage Baha'is to turn such loaded weapons on one another. The widespread willingness to insinuate that someone is a covenant-breaker, or about to become one, is surely a result of the way Baha'i history has been popularized. > Actually, that is what history IS, Paul. At least, popular and > community history. The construction of a heroic story about the past which > is the basis of a common identity. That is what human beings do. Of course, > I as an historian what to know more. But, I can hardly condemn all of > humanity for wanting histories that they can call their own. I will contest > such histories at certain points, especially where their implications are > destructive. But, I hardly expect the whole world to turn into a graduate > school. If sacred history kept in its own domain, it would not be a problem. But it wants to displace real history and obliterate all memory that things were ever less than ideal. This, in my Theosophical experiences, produces real hostility to objective inquiry. Cheers PJ From derekmc@ix.netcom.comFri Sep 22 19:23:07 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 11:40:41 -0700 From: DEREK COCKSHUT To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re.Darkness and Light was the Great Paradox My dear Paul. I am sorry you feel because of my posts on the subject you may have to leave Talisman. I do not nor did I im- ply I have or had spiritual authority to opinion over the state of your soul. I simple called as I saw it. and as your long post indicates the state of mind you were in it does not need me to comment, I believe your statement is self-explanatory. I have a copy of your book "The Masters Revealed ' you are a good writer, I believe I posted to you at the time, that I did not think you clarified fully the point you were making over the conspiracy theory . That comment does not detracted from your abilty as a writer, however I do believe you prefer the more controversial side of things. I am looking forward to reading your new Book maybe I will modify my view then. No Book shop in Santa Cruz had it last week otherwise I might have posted a review. As it has been mentioned Abdu'l- Baha and E. G. Browne in it I may find myself stocking it in the Bosch Book shop. I do not apologize for the fact you brought up the subject of the Miller Book and Baha'i historical cover-ups and when people tried to engage you in rational discussion you kept changing the rules. If that was not your intent well I am afraid that is how it came over. The irony is if you had not used the Miller book as your example of historical blindness in the Baha'i Community I can think of at least 30 people on Talisman who would have agreed wholehearted with you including myself. I do not have to explain all the reasons why again Baha'is from a wide range of perspectives find that type of publication of no value in terms of understanding their Religion We are a Religion at the start of its cycle , there are many things that we are still discovering about it. I look around the Baha'i World and I see things happening as the Faith unfolds into its true form which will ensure it is nothing but a positive Force in the Life of this Planet . I have no animosity towards you , whatever I posted was said in frank open discussion , you person- ally posted to me that you were offended that I had men- tioned you had lost your copy of the Miller Book. It might be well to consider did you not imagine on a fo- rum like this you would be asked to deal in detail about such a book . The only way you could have justified your statements was by direct reference not innuendo , that I found to be offensive and still do. I am truly sorry that your life has been in such turmoil the last few months , I never wish harm to anyone , but that was hardly the fault or the problem of the Baha'i Community. I expressed the fact that I am sorry I can not convey to you the Wonders of this Faith that I have in Prayer which is the core of ones belief , I fail to see why you should regard that as offensive. Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzFri Sep 22 19:31:39 1995 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 08:09:51 +1200 From: Robert Johnston To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: Re: Tahirih and gender Tony wrote: >Of course, it is true that it would be a distortion to characterize Tahirih >as a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word. During a discussion with David Taylor, it became evident to me that we each may have a different view of what is the meaning of "modern". Regarding "feminist", again the meaning is disputed. Juan has said that the word feminist did not come to light until early this century, but -- of course -- this does not mean that the movement towards sexual equality -- which is a dictionary-kind of feminist assumption -- had not begun earlier than that. If we -- as I do -- take modernity to really be about the movements in the world towards conformity with the Divine Will as expressed in the Baha'i Dispensation, then it would seem fairly obvious that Tahirih occupies a pivotal position in the liberation of women. I feel certain that only in centuries to come will her unique status in this sphere be really understood. In the meantime, I think it is helpful to read history primarily in terms of religious dispensations, as 'Abdu'l-Baha does. Robert. From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduFri Sep 22 19:32:36 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:22:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Saman Ahmadi To: talisman Subject: Re: Darkness and Light Dear Paul, As it has been said on Talisman when some have expressed concern with regards to the content and tone of some threads, the information superhighway runs both ways. God knows how many times I have begun my unsubscription message to majordomo - may be I am too hooked to leave but, even with all the storms, I know that there is something special about what is going on here. I am uncomfortable with the threat of you leaving unless everyone is as "open minded" as you want us to be. I have a lot of trouble understanding your feelings; you make remarks about the heart and soul of the Baha'i Faith - often more explicitly than Rushdie's words about Islam. You then are surprised at the reaction of Baha'is who feel their honor (gheyrat in Arabic) has been compromised. And you ignore those Baha'is who have channeled their feelings by attempting to engage you with reasoned posts. Lets try a hypothetical (and no, I am not going to write a review of your book): Its May 30th, 1892. You are Abdul Baha. You read Baha'u'llah's Will with Muhammad Ali, your brother, at your side. What do you do next? on a cold Texas afternoon, sAmAn P.S. I have never been to South Fork. From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlFri Sep 22 19:34:01 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 22:39:07 EZT From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl To: talisman@indiana.edu Subject: jurisprudence Dear Brent, I dont think it is difficult to be sure that Traveller's Narrative or the Tablets of the Divine Plan are clearly intended to be general expositions of the teachings - each modified somewhat for particular audiences. But as the tablets on the permissability of having two wives, and those regarding the election of women to committees and local institutions in the US, show, when he was writing to individuals or responding to particular situations he does not seem to have been at all concerned about consistency with other such particular letters. If we have only one letter on a topic, and it is addressed to an individual in a particular circumstance, how could we know whether there might be another tablet saying just the opposite which we happen not to have? Look at the bigamy tablets and consider what the 'Baha'i teachings' would be if we lost all but one. A single such tablet is too unstable a basis to base a teaching or interpretation on. And if we have multiple tablets, then the question is, are they consistent? Or can we put them into some sort of historical framework or reconstruct the situations to which they refer sufficiently well to explain the inconsistencies in terms of particular circumstances, and so distinguish an underlying rationale. A public talk, even a talk to a small group of Baha'is with Mahmud or a stenographer present, is another matter. We may not be sure of the authenticity of every word, but we can be reasonably sure that `Abdu'l-Baha is expounding the teachings and not giving advice for a particular situation. Sen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sen McGlinn From Dave10018@aol.comFri Sep 22 19:34:48 1995 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 17:04:40 -0400 From: Dave10018@aol.com To: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com, slabanow@s-cwis.unomaha.edu, LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu Cc: DAVEJORDAN@aol.com Subject: Patriarchy, Kingship and the House of Justice; some speculations Dear folks, Several weeks ago I touched on the ''thorny" question of women and the House of Justice at the end of a note to Robert Johnston. I promised then to explain what I meant. This is a difficult, even scary thing to talk about! I don't claim to have it "all wrapped up" but simply want to articulate as best I can a sense of what's involved that does differ a bit from what has been posted so far, as a point of departure for a dialog. I do not write to "support" the rule as it now stands, as in fact I believe the House, if it finds itself able to change the rule, probably should. I wrote: > >The male membership of the Universal House of Justice has, in my view, >nothing to do with women's capacity to serve. The sooner we accept that the >sooner we can talk about the real reasons for it. Any attempt to explain it >in terms of capacity or "function" or role of women has the effect of reading >into it limitations on women that are not there and which women are >disproving every day and which we as believers in women's equality do not >want women to be bound by. Such attempts rest on the assumption that there >must be a rational practical reason for the limitation, a reason why the >0House must work better without women, or be more acceptable at present >without them. I think none of these apply. I do think the all-male House of >Justice does represent,along with some other features of the Faith such as >the attitude toward Kings and the male Gaurdianship, a symbolically >significant remnant of patriarchy. There might be reasons why such a remnant >might be desirable psychologically in an age when other marks of patriarchy >will be gone. If we try to understand it rationally, as if the exclusion of >women from the House membership were made for some practical non-symbolic >reason, we are confusing symbolic and practical realms. I will go over this >in a seperate post. About the same I mentioned the same ideas in a post to Terry Culhane, who mentioned me in his post on the subject. He wrote: >The exemption rather than exclusion of women has nothing to >do in my mind with the capacity or lack thereof with respect to women . I >have argued against such interpretations for years. > I believe it has a lot to do with the responsibility of men . I would , >hestitatingly , suggest that the limitation on gender service on the House >exists because most men , not all, most men need what David Taylor a few >days ago referred to as " symbolic patriarchy." Allow me to be more >personal .I consider myself one of those men . I need men on the House of >Justice ! It is an issue of symbolic patriarchy for me I wrote him that I would rush in with my own ideas, as they were a bit different from his. Now, the trail is getting cold, but I still want to get some words down about "symbolic patriarchy"..Even to talk as Terry did about male "responsibility" is too literal a reading of the male House of Justice. What could I possibly mean "too literal a reading?" I mean that the "men of the House of Justice" do not have this position because of any male talent for leadership, or because we need them as "role models." I think things would be a lot easier if we could have women on the House and certainly think the House would function just as well with women on It. I also think the all-male House is confusing for many contemporary Baha'is, men as much as women. We do not understand the reason for it and when we try to give practical explanations, we fall into the modern error of rationalism, as when men in "scientific" nineteenth century Europe and America confused what they allowed women to do with what women were capable of doing. Such misunderstandings are all too current in our community. "Rational" explanations which posit any kind of practical advantage for an all-male House are demeaning to women and, plainly, wrong. Alternatively, we see the possibility of a symbolic rationale but take it literally, as a statement of our "real" natures,applying it too broadly and in the wrong direction, which is the ancient error and has the same effect. Ahmad's "seed o