From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 20 15:43:00 1995
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 12:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: 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