!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
talisman@indiana.edu logs sept 95 #5a
From jrcole@umich.eduMon Sep 25 11:10:38 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha`i Jurisprudence/Wom (fwd)
Mark Foster wrote
>Juan R Cole wrote to the multiple recipients of talisman@indiana.edu:
J >As for those who continue to say that Baha'u'llah excluded women from the
J >Universal House of Justice, I would appreciate seeing any quote to that
J >effect that did not also exclude them from local houses of justice. Yet
J >Shoghi Effendi is clear that women may serve on local and national
J >spiritual assemblies, which he says differ only in name from houses of
J >justice.
> Juan,
> When you write, "... those who continue to say that Baha'u'llah
>excluded women from the Universal House of Justice ...," are you
>including the Universal House of Justice?
Well, since all I did was ask for any citation from Baha'u'llah that
definitively ruled women off the Universal House of Justice and which did
not ipso facto also rule them off all other houses of justice, I would be
willing to receive the cite from anyone, including the Universal House of
Justice.
> Loving greetings,
> Mark
> P.S. Looking forward to meeting you face to face in San Francisco.
Likewise! - Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
*
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Sep 25 11:11:03 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:49:48 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Baha`i Jurisprudence/Wom (fwd)
> Well, since all I did was ask for any citation from Baha'u'llah that
> definitively ruled women off the Universal House of Justice and which did
> not ipso facto also rule them off all other houses of justice, I would be
> willing to receive the cite from anyone, including the Universal House of
> Justice.
OK. Good point
Mark
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Sep 25 11:11:38 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 14:50:43 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guidance
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Tony -
I am probably posting too much today, but I appreciate your message,
and I will respond as best I can.
I certainly agree with you about the concept of progressive
Revelation within Dispensations. The spiritual evolution (increasing
unity in diversity) from the Heroic, to the Transitional, to the Golden
Age is, IMV, under the direction of Baha'u'llah and the Bab. The level
of love and knowledge of our spiritual descendents will dwarf those of
the present century.
Also, I agree that spiritual reality is not fixed, static or
unchanging. By definition, the realm of spirit is eternal (transcends
the plane of time or the world of human reason). However, when applied
to ephemeral conditions, spiritual reality adapts itself to the capacity
of the receptacle. So, in the kingdom of names and attributes for
instance, loving and knowing power steps down to various degrees of
materiality and generates the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms
and the levels of appearance _within_ each each of those kingdoms (as
between a fly and a dolphin).
With respect to my posting on the sex-typed membership of the
Universal House of Justice, I did not say that the Universal House of
Justice cannot, in light of fresh evidence or changing conditions,
reconsider a particular issue, only that, IMV, since the House has
elucidated this issue, focusing so much attention on it (and it is
probably the most frequently visited topic on Talisman) is a waste of
time and may fall under what the Guardian called "metaphysical
hairsplittings."
Blessings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From brburl@mailbag.comMon Sep 25 11:18:10 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:07:55 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Momen's Book
Moojan,
MM: > '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.' <
This is not a matter of _metaphysical_ hair splitting; it is, rather, a matter of
trying to understand what it is that is being said in the Pali texts, what the
Buddha taught. You can make statements about what you think the Buddha
taught, but if I disagree with you I am hair-splitting? I don't think so. There
certainly can be careful -- and should be room for careful -- discussion and
examination of what you are saying. As I said to Juan:
Juan: > "As for Moojan's book, I should have thought it fairly obvious that
it was intended to be used in proselytizing for the Baha'i faith among
Southeast Asian Buddhists, or at least in gaining friends for the Faith in those
cultures." <
Me: "Of course it is, and it is what Moojan told me his intent was, but that
does not excuse him from any criticism of how he presents Buddhism. As a
matter of fact it should open him up, his work anyway, to a careful
examination of his presentation of Buddhism: do his parallels really work, is
he in fact accurately presenting the Buddhist position, or is he just presenting
enough of Buddhism with a particular twist that will allow him to draw the
parallels he wants to draw? I would say the latter." <
I think this is a fair response. Let's discuss your presentation of Buddhism.
There is something to be learned here. You have the opportunity to discuss
Buddhism with someone who is well educated in Buddhism, it history, its
ideas, and its practices, and the learning goes both ways. If it starts going
in circles or gets bogged down in excruciating minutia, then we stop.
MM: > "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." <
I think I sufficiently distanced you from Miller, in that your presentation is
sympathetic to Buddhism in that it certainly lacks the hostility and
incompetency of Fozdar's works, but as I bluntly said, your book is
problematic in how it presents Buddhism, particularly in how you present
Buddhism in order to draw the parallels you want to draw. And in the context
of Miller and Fozdar, I raised the question, which is why I was invited here,
about the nature of how Baha'i treats and understands other religions, which
why I question your book.
You are correct, I like talking about Buddhism, and I also have a personal
interest in Baha'i. Years ago during a very important period in my life,
Baha'i gave me quite a bit in the Baha'i friends with I whom I walked
through that time. I may strongly disagree with Baha'i on any number of
issues, but I carry for it an appreciation, and in my own sort odd way I try
to give back to it, which is sometimes in challenging Baha'is to look carefully
and deeply at what they are saying about other religions. There is always
something to learn, and it goes in both directions.
> '(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).' <
What I said: "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." <
And why I said that:
"Although the Buddha speaks of the 'Unborn, Unoriginated' and Baha'u'llah
speaks of 'God', it is clear from the above quotations that they are referring
to the same entity, an entity which is beyond human knowledge and
understanding." Page 24 of B&BF.
"And so, although the Buddha speaks of the Absolute Reality and of himself
as the discloser of the Path, the _Dhamma_, and Baha'u'llah speaks of God
and of himself as the Manifestation of God, they are in effect saying the
same thing and referring to the same spiritual truth: that there is a Higher
Truth, an Absolute Reality, to which human beings have no direct access."
Page 34 of B&BF.
I think my assertion is correct -- "same entity," which Baha'u'llah and
Baha'is refer to as "God." You've drawn not just a parallel, but a
synonymy.
> '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"' <
I am rather puzzled why you seem to think that Nagarjuna is saying that there
is an Absolute behind nirvana on the basis of this. The Sanskrit passage that
Murti cites but does not translate reads:
"Without understanding the ultimate fruit/highest truth/what is ultimately real
[parama-artha], freedom [nirvana] is not attained."
And certainly that can be seen to have some correspondence to the passage
from Udana 80,
. "Monks, there is freedom from birth, freedom from
. becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning.
. For, monks if there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from
. becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning,
. then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning,
. would not be known here. But, monks, because there is freedom from
. birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from
. conditioning, therefore the escape from that which is birth, becoming,
. making, conditioning is known."
I think you've misread Murti, who does, in fact, regard this passage from the
Udana (and the Iti) as referring to nirvana. See Murti pgs 47-8 & 271. If
Murti thought that the Udana 80 is referring to an Absolute behind nirvana,
he certainly has not said so here. The question I have is: can you support
your claim for an extra-nirvana absolute from the Pali sources themselves?
The Udana is the favorite of those who want to find some sort of god notion
within Buddhism, but I have not seen those who do that show that they can
talk about this text with any exegetical skill. Inevitably what I do see is
eisegesis.
As an aside concerning Murti, let me refer you to C. W. Huntington's THE
EMPTINESS OF EMPTINESS: An Introduction to Early Indian
Madhyamika, Hawaii, 1989. Of Murti Huntington states: "A more recent
example of the type [of study that sees Madhyamika as positing a very
sophisticated doctrine of monism explicating "transcendental or absolute
existence"] appears in T.R.V. Murti's widely acclaimed study, THE
CENTRAL PHILOSOPHY OF BUDDHISM. If Stcherbatsky represents the
classical statement of the absolutist interpretation, then Murti is certainly
its baroque -- his Vedantic/Kantian spectacles distorts the Madhyamika's
message in a much more subtle and persuasive fashion than any nihilistic
interpretation ever could, and for that reason have done a great deal to
prevent us from deepening our understanding of these texts." Page 27.
MM: > "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." <
It is not a matter of my assertion. The Udana 80 starts by saying very
specifically that it is talking about nirvana. The technical terminology
<"unborn (ajatam), unoriginated (abhutam), uncreated (akatam), unformed
(asankhatam)"> is used elsewhere in the Pali Canon either in these forms or
in variations as defining words for nirvana, and the phraseology of this
passage refers to nirvana, finding parallels elsewhere in the Pali texts.
If we take nirvana as "the Absolute," you don't think that doesn't make a
difference to your argument? You state: "that there is a Higher
Truth, an Absolute Reality, to which human beings have no direct access."
Page 34 of B&BF. But if the "Absolute" is nirvana, from the Buddhist
perspective we do have the possibility of direct access, direct understanding
to which we can achieve by treading the path the Buddha trod, understanding
what he understood, being liberated the way he was liberated. This puts the
Buddhist conception of the "Absolute" at odds, in a very fundamental way,
with the Baha'i notion of an Absolute, to which we supposedly have no direct
access.
Having no direct access is foreign to the Buddha's teaching.
> "If we then consider the way that Nagarjuna and others develop this in the
formulation that Samsara is Nibbana and Nibbana is Samsara" <
Let me ask you, what is Nagarjuna's basis for making this equation?
> "You then quote several passages that state that others can, through
their own efforts, do what the Buddha has done. ... The fact that
others can do what the Buddha has done does not mean that others
have the same station that he does. ... 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? ... So we have a contradiction between these
two sets of passages." <
Contradiction? What contradiction that arises is strictly a result of applying
a Baha'i paradigm to the situation. When we look at it from a Buddhist
perspective there is no contradiction. Was the Buddha a mere human? I never
said so, nor implied so. When the Buddha was asked _after_ his
enlightenment what he was he denied that he was a mere human being or that
he was a god or a demon. The Buddha stated he was one who was awake
(buddha). He was the one, through his own efforts, who broke through to
enlightenment, making what he learned available to his followers:
"Come, this is the Way, this is the course I
have followed until, having realized by my own super-knowledge the
matchless plunge into Brahma-faring, I have made it known. Come you too,
follow likewise, so that you also, having realized by your own super-
knowledge the matchless plunge into the Brahma-faring, may abide in it." AN
I 168-69.
And this is in the context of the Buddha starting out as a "mere" human
being, vowing to the Buddha Dipankara, some eons ago, that he to would in
some future life break through to enlightenment and make it known for the
welfare of all beings. Life after life was devoted to that end. There is no
contradiction here. What the Buddha offers is, in fact, what he realized,
stating that we can realize it as well:
'Two things, o monks, I came to know well: not to be content with good
states of mind, so far achieved and to be unremitting in the struggle for the
goal. Unremittingly, indeed, did I struggle and I resolved: "Let skin, sinews
and bones remain; let flesh and blood in the body dry up: yet there shall be
no ceasing of energy, manly energy, manly effort!"
'Through heedfulness have I won Enlightenment, through effort have I won
the unsurpassable security from samsaric toil.
'If you, O monks, will struggle unremittingly and resolve: "Let skin ... [as
above] manly effort" -- then you, too, O monks, will soon realize here and
now, through your own direct knowledge, that unequalled goal of the holy
life." AN II ii 5.
In the S.N. IV 251 and IV 321 we find: "That which is the destruction of
greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana," the goal which the Buddha realized
and taught, and the Itivuttaka 57 states:
"Whoever frees himself from the passions of greed, hatred, and ignorance,
they call him, one who is self developed, made divine (brahmabhuta),
thus-gone (tathagata), awake (buddha), one who has left fear and hatred, and
one who has let go of all."
It is not uncommon in the Pali texts for the word _buddha_, one who is
awake, to refer to the enlightened follower. What distinguished the Buddha
from his enlightened follower? As the text you quoted states, it is the fact that
the Buddha found the way and made it known. Again, in the Buddhist context
we do not have a problem here when we take into account the broad context
of who and what the Buddha was.
When you state: > "The Buddha's are the ONLY contact that we in world
of _Samsara_ can have with Eternity and the Absolute. As Gautama Buddha
says: 'All things indeed pass away, but the Buddhas are forever [page 38,
with my emphasis],'" < this not something that is in the spirit -- or letter,
as we can see -- of what the Buddha taught. The "absolute" the Buddha
realized, we can realize.
MM: > "given my lack of the necessary language skills, it was inevitably
a flawed start" <
Lack of "the necessary language skills" need not be a fatal flaw. Winston
King wrote an excellent book, THERAVADA MEDITATION, without
knowing Pali or Sanskrit, but this lack can be a serious problem:
"All things indeed pass away, but the Buddhas are forever."
You attribute this to Dhammapada 255. Checking the eight translations I have
at hand, and more importantly checking the actual Pali, verse 255 does not
say the Buddhas are forever: "There are no conditions that are eternal, there
is no instability in the awake (buddha)." (Another passage where the word
buddha is used generically for the enlightened ones.) _Injitam_ simply cannot
be read as eternal or forever. This last phrase is simply saying that for the
awake there is no instability caused by conditions, particularly of hatred,
greed, and ignorance.
On page 34-5 you state: "There is a wide spread belief that the Lord Buddha
was a man like any other who attained enlightenment through his own efforts.
However, if the Buddhist scriptures are examined with a fresh and unbiased
eye, it is hard to come to such an understanding. For example, when asked
whether he could guide people to that higher reality [the "Higher Truth", as
you seem to imply], Gautama Buddha replied: '...Yea, I know it [the path to
Brahma] even as one who has entered the Brahma world, and has been born
within it.' Thus the Buddhist scripture appear to suggest that the Buddhas are
in reality people of a higher plane who are temporarily in this world to guide
us."
It is difficult to understand quite what you are getting at here. Is knowing the
Brahma world and the path that leads to it the same as the goal of the
Buddha's Eightfold path? You certainly seem to be implying that is so, but
if so you are then ignoring the fact that as discourse 97 of the Majjhima
Nikaya states that this is a _hina_, lesser, goal compared to that of nirvana.
Also, according to the framework of the Buddha's teaching that anyone who
has attainted to a certain level of meditative concentration can know the
Brahma world as the Buddha talks about it.
On page 37 you state: "Indeed, the Buddha specifically states that his station
is one to 'which no worldling can attain.'" You footnote this quote as coming
from Dhammapada 272, which, including 271, reads in full:
271: Not by precepts and rites,
Nor again by much learning,
Nor by acquisition of concentration,
Nor by secluded lodging,
272: Thinking "I touched the ease of renunciation"
Not resorted to by ordinary people [worldlings],
O Monks, do not be so content,
Not having attained the extinction of intoxicants.
In other words, just because you've attained to certain levels of practice and
insight beyond the worldling's level, don't rest in that stuff until you attained
full liberation. Dhammapada 271-2 is addressed to monks of some level of
experience, and the Buddha is telling them to get on with it. This text has
nothing to do with the Buddha's supposed "station."
One further example: "Since Buddhas are embodiments of the Absolute
Truth, they are all that human being are capable of understanding of the
Truth. The Lord Buddha states: 'Whoever sees _Dhamma_ sees me, whoever
sees me sees the _Dhamma_.'" Page 39.
The question has to asked: What is the context of this passage? because it
certainly does not support what you are trying make it say. This is a serious
problem.
So the concerns and solutions you outlined from a Baha'i perspective may be
appropriate for understanding Baha'u'llah the man and Baha'u'llah the
Manifestation of god, but they are inappropriate to the Pali texts for
understanding the Buddha, the man, who through his own efforts became
awake, and who then taught that way to others.
MM: > "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." <
What a close reading will show that you very early on equate the "Absolute"
with "God." Though you don't say: "The Buddha taught a god," you have
already equated the idea of the absolute with the idea of a god by the time
you talk about the Buddha's supposed teaching about the "Absolute," and you
do in fact state quite clearly, "Although the Buddha speaks of the 'Unborn,
Unoriginated' and Baha'u'llah speaks of 'God', it is clear from the above
quotations that they are referring to the same entity, an entity which is
beyond human knowledge and understanding." Page 24 of B&BF.
And this is further underlined by your conflatory statements such as: "He
[Baha'u'llah] says that the Tathagatas or Manifestations of God are the
intermediaries between the highest reality and the world [pg 36]," which is
followed by a Baha'i quote full of god language. On page 40: "Baha'u'llah
explains that there are two aspects to the teaching of all the Buddhas." And
the seemingly ever-present: "Baha'u'llah continued to teach the Path of
_Dhamma_."
A close reading of your text will show that though you did directly state that
the Buddha taught a god, your very obvious implications cannot be escaped.
MM: > "I think you are reading your own prejudices against Western theism
into my text." <
No, I am reading _your_ text as it stands.
MM: > "Nor am I playing a game of seeking to destroy Buddhism by
playing with its texts in the way that Miller does." <
I would say you are doing just the opposite of Miller. Miller being a
protestant exclusivist, is likely to dismiss that which is not in agreement with
his view. Your position is subsumptive, which not to exclude but to subsume
everything else into what is thought to be a greater whole.
> "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." <
Buddhism is _not_ monistic. Truth is transcendent to all concepts and
schemata? Even the concept and schema that truth is transcendent to all
concepts and schemata?
> "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." <
But that does not mean that it is true in any sort of object manner, but then
you seem to be denying that there is any sort of objective truth available to
us.
> "Thus the Buddhist concepts are not wrong, they are correct" <
Of course you really _are_ saying that they are wrong -- that is wrong as the
Buddhist themselves understand them, as being descriptions of how the
universe works. You are assuming onto yourself the position to make this
judgement, but upon what objective basis is such a judgement made?
Bruce
From 73074.1221@compuserve.comMon Sep 25 11:18:51 1995
Date: 24 Sep 95 17:01:20 EDT
From: "Mary K. Radpour" <73074.1221@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: bio
Name: Mary K. Radpour
Email address: 73074.1221@compuserve.com
Gender: female
Country/State and City: USA/Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee
Short list of interests: the nature of the human soul and its relationship with
the body and the psyche; family systems theory; communication theory; addictions
theory; group process; male/female issues of equality; race relations and
cross-cultural communication; sexuality/gender/identity issues; Baha'i studies;
mediation and alternative conflict resolution; good poetry and literature;
murder mysteries; music of all kinds, but esp. blues; gardening; racquetball
Post-secondary education: BA Psychology and English, Univ. Illinois, 1964;
graduate studies in teaching of English, 1965; MSSW, Clinical Social Work, Univ.
Tennessee, 1979.
Profession/Occupation: Clinical Social Worker (psychotherapist/family therapist)
in private practice, Chattanooga, TN
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlMon Sep 25 11:19:48 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:13:31 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Tehran house of justice?
Tony wrote:
>Sharokh Monjazeb has told me that he has seen one
instance (published in Ma'idiy-i Asmani, I believe) in
which 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to the local Assembly of
Tehran as baytu'l-'adl ummumi (the general, or universal,
House of Justice).
This could have an interesting cross-link to the tablet of August
28 1913 which is printed in the back of Paris Talks. The authors
of 'The Service of Women' speculated that this was addressed to
a Baha'i woman in the east. On the one occassion I had the
opportunity to thumb through Steve Lambden's books (I washed
my hands first S., honest) I came across Sohrab's '`Abdu'l-Baha in
Egypt', where there was an account of the revelation of this
Tablet, but with no more details about its destination as I recall.
I have wondered whether the original for this is extant (ie
whether the text in Paris Talks might be taken from Mirza
Sohrab's recollections of its contents rather than from the
original) and is so, to whom it is addressed. The possibility that
it might be referring to the House in Tehran is interesting. So
PLEASE could someone track it down...
And if someone who has a copy would like to type over that
short piece from `Abdu'l-Baha in Egypt it might also be helpful.
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn
From haukness@tenet.eduMon Sep 25 11:20:10 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 16:24:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: knowledge and information
Allah-u-abha Friends: And I don't see anything in the writings that would
push us down the rational that our acquisition of knowledge in any
measure is a constraint the Beloved Master shares with us; hardly.
haukness@tenet.edu
From haukness@tenet.eduMon Sep 25 11:20:37 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 17:02:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: talisman
Subject: Tahirih:
Allah-u-abha Friends:
"and the 'Catastrope' came to pass."" The days immediately following so
starling a departure from the time-honored traditions of Islam witnessed
a veritable revolution in the outlook, habits, ceremonials.,.." "The
trumpet blower was a woman." Ahang, how can we look at this and block out
the issue of emancipation of women? "Tahhirih, that immortal heroine who
had already shed imperishable luster alike on her sex and on the Cause."
I am not saying her contributions to the greater Cause shouldn't be
noted, but I find it hard to erase the luster she gave to her sex, did
not have to do with the liberation of women, in the context that she was
the immortal heroine, and that her age is our age, and the liberation of
women is an issue that cannot any longer be stopped, and historically,
she was the beginning. "It was to her (Tahirih, my bracket) that the
flower of feminine society in the capital flocked.""is the tribute paid
her by a noted commentator on the life of the Bab and His disciples. 'The
Persian Joan of Arc, the leader of emancipation for wome of the
Orient..." Of course this is not written by A Baha'i Central Figure, but
it is included in GPB by Shoghi Effendi. as was E. G. Brown's comment,
"is, in anyt country and any age, a rare phenomenon, but in such a
country as Persia it is a prodigy, nay, almost a miracle. As well Shogi
Effendi, introduces us to Dr. TK CCheyne, "is now beginning to appear...
this noble woman... has the credit of opening the catalogue of social
reforms.> And a very very telling article cited by Shoghi Effendi, from
the mother of one of the Presidents of Austria, "I shall try to do for
the women of Austia what Tahirih gave life to do for the women of Persia."
Well I should have dispensed with all of that for the One comment, the
one we all know by heart. "You can kill me as soon as you like, but you
cannot stop the emancipation of women." So why was Taherzadeh in the
wrong chronicling her as the beginning of the emancipation of women, in
this age, who is there to rival her except the Greatest Holy Leaf, and of
those two, who was first?
haukness@tenet.edu
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 11:21:22 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:47:44 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guidance
1) When Tony wrote that he prefers history [to theology], I ask myself,
"And just what does Tony mean by that?" What is history, pray tell? It
sounds like we're going to get into the science-religion debate again. Oh,
dear!
2) Tony wrote:
> Of course, both Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha changed their minds, revised
>their decisions, updated their commands, and so forth.
I do have a problem with this. If Baha'u'llah's Mind is At One with the
Mind of the Unchanging God, then to say that He changed His Mind is simple
error. What changes is the readiness of humanity. I think that Mark's
objections to this kind of statement are -- characteristically -- fair and
to the point. I do not think that appropriately respectful to say that
'Abdu'l-Baha changed His mind because it might then be construed that He
had made a mistake beforehand.
I remember HOC R. Khanum saying that she objected to the youths of Paris
carrying prayer books in their back pockets. This changing of mind
business seems to me to amount to the same kind of spiritual slovenliness.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 11:21:56 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:01:08 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: "Mark A. Foster" , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: knowledge and informatio
Dear Mark,
You wrote:
>
> IMO, the statements of the the Prophets are examples of divine
>Wisdom (applied Knowledge) - taking the Word of God (the Knowledge of
>God) and, using Their human and physical natures, contextualizing it.
>
Do you have a reference or two for this statement? IMV, it fails to
adequately allow for God's intimacy, and un-necessarily divides the process
of Revelation. God Knows all languages and contexts, and is All-Powerful:
the Manifestation is as nothing before Him. The Manifestation does not --
I think -- act in quite the same way as a wholesaler to retailers!
Robert.
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Sep 25 11:22:17 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 19:18:18 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Hidden Word #4 (Persian)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
N >O Son Of Justice
N >
N >Whither can a lover go but to the land of his Beloved? And what seeker
N >findeth rest away from his hearts desire? To the true lover reunion is
N >life, and separation is death. His breast is void of patience and his
N >heart has no peace. A myriad lives he would forsake to hasten to the
N >abode of his beloved.
A few comments on this verse:
1. O Son of Justice: I think that Baha'u'llah's initial address
tells us something about the content of this verse. We are begotten by
all the divine Attributes, i.e., they are potentially reflected in each
of our souls. It is through the human spirit's manifestation as *will*
*power* (rational love) that we have the capacity to turn our minds to
these virtues. Justice (the independent investigation of reality or the
holistic scientific method) is one of these divine Attributes, _seen_ in
the kingdom of names and attributes through Prophetic discourse, which
we are endowed with the capacity to develop in our lives (sequences of
reactions).
2. A lover: One who attaches her/his heart (will/volition) to an
object of affection. Here, that Object is God manifested (the "Beloved").
3. The land of his Beloved: I think that the reference here is to
the spiritual Kingdom which exists on several levels (seen from the
bottom up):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Spiritual Kingdom of the Divine Essence
II. The Spiritual Kingdom of God Manifested (Prophethood)
A. the Cause of God (divine Action)
B. the Will of God (divine Volition)
C. the Word of God (divine Knowledge)
III. The Spiritual Kingdom Beyond (the Next World)
IV. The Spiritual Kingdom Revealed (the Spiritual Realm in this World)
A. The Spiritual Kingdom on Earth (the World Order of Baha'u'llah)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Seeker: One who is detached from worldly conditions and turns to
the spiritual Kingdom revealed.
4. Reunion is life: Submission to the Will of God confers eternal life.
5. Separation is death: Attachment to self deprives one of spiritual
bounties.
6. His breast is void of patience: The heart (will) is steadfastly
fixed on the beloved and away from worldly concerns.
7. His heart has no peace: The mind (the locus of will power) is
unable to rest in self-satisfaction, and vain imaginings are closed to
the true seeker.
8. The abode of his beloved: The spiritual Kingdom.
Loving greetings to all,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 11:22:50 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:41:54 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Chris Thorn , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Karen Austin: The intellect: a Baha'i problem
Ffolks,
While I do not think that it was entirely her intention, Karen's letter
might be read to state that Talismanic discourse is oppositional to
mainstream Baha'i discourse. She writes, for instance, that "scholars are
marginalised and our institutions remain suspicious of the intellect." Is
it possible that she is fostering yet another dualism to replace the ones
she rejects ...?
I tend to see Talisman as a part of Baha'i discourse as such. Nor am I
bedazzled by honeymoon sentimentality regarding the activities here. I am
happy to hang about in this context, but everything here requires the full
functioning of a critical intellect in order to be attended to properly.
Staying here is a kind of work...which I do alongside all the other work
that I do, hoping like anything that I don't spread myself too thin.
Robert.
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auMon Sep 25 11:24:48 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 10:45:33 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: third part of Dr. P.Khan's talk
Dear Friends,
This is the second part of the fourth talk by Dr Peter Khan which
was given on Sunday 17th of September 1995 in Sydney. There are
words that have been put in brackets 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. previously I mention this talk as the third on.
With regards,
Ahmad.
[text of the talk ( third part)]
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, the temple is already built, there He was with
His friends gathered on a little flat piece of ground found on lake
Michigan, "the temple is already 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 this 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 that , look
the very fact that you have made a start you small group of friends,
more or less gathered at the edge of the lake Michigan layed the
foundation stone, the very fact that you have made a start will
attract spiritual powers to you. You will be reinforced and
energised and you will do more, and that will attract more spiritual
powers and it will be completed, the temple will be built.
It is in that sense, that I understand those statements of Abdu'l-
Baha, as an example. And, I often use this example, because the
Baha'is today are about to perform some task, enormous task,
behind our comprehension, so material perspective thinks that we
are crazy, and that we should even dream about spiritual conquest
of the planet. The transformation of the whole of human
organisation. We embark upon these things because this principle
of constructive interaction that we debate at it, that our spiritual
powers are attracted to magnetism, and that reinforces our efforts.
We make stronger efforts and so it goes on. Unfortunately there is
third principle. And this is a complicating factor. If one would stop
in here, it would be very nice and it would be very easy. Start off,
do a little bit, get certain measure of the spirit, do a bit more, get
certain measure of the spirit, makes you stronger, you do more and
on it goes. How (........................................?) as a model like
Abdu'l-Baha.
The Third principle that , (.....?) I see is this process
of spiritual development. It is that of tests. That this process is
never, as simple as I have described it. Because, there are tests too.
It is over simplified to say, you just make an effort and attract the
spirit, it makes you strong, you make bigger effort, and along it
goes. It is that there are tests, there are challenges, there are
diversions, there are the temptations to go in other directions and
the writings tell us that these tests come, and that they are for our
spiritual aspiration and stimulus, that they release inner spiritual
forces. And they enable us to grow and develop. The problem
with tests is that, one does not automatically pass. No matter what,
no matter that one is a believer in Baha'u'llah, one doesn't
automatically pass them. No matter, that one is a member of a
Local Spiritual Assembly, no matter that one is a member of a
National Spiritual Assembly. There is nothing in the writings, that
indicates for example that members of the Universal House of
Justice, such as myself are immune from tests, from our spiritual
challenges. The institution itself is something different and the
members such as myself are human beings and subject to spiritual
challenges and testing which they have the potential to fail.
So, none of us are immune from testing, from the possibility of
failure in our spiritual tests. Our challenge is the mental test of
spiritual development. Our challenge is to take the stand for the
practice of the Baha'i teachings irrespective of what the society is
doing. We take a start for devotion, for a prayerful attitude, for
adherence to the moral laws of The Cause, for the ethical conduct
which was enjoyed by Shoghi Effendi in the Advent of Divine
Justice and other books. We have to take a stand, for the things
that are radically different from those, from those that are going on
in our society, if we don't we would fail from the mental tests.
Let me move on, I mentioned that I see, the Baha'i Community in
the Western World, including this area, has been challenged by
three mental tests. The first is the challenge to develop a spiritual
perspective in a materialistic society. The second is the challenge
to develop more and more commitment to betterment of the world.
Why do I see this as a test? There are several reasons. What I see
in the world today, the Western World, is a decrease in sense of
idealism, a sense of commitment to betterment of the society, which
was the characteristic of people in the large until only a few years
ago (.......[tape was being changed]......?). ..........) are not so
committed, are becoming more apathetical and lethargic about
commitment to the improvement of the condition of humanity.
Why are we surprised of this? Shoghi Effendi in a message some
years ago referred to the spiritual development of the Western
Counties, He referred at that time to the fact that apathy and
lethargy would paralyse the spiritual faculties of the people of those
nations. So I think this applies to the West. I see it all over the
World, East and the West. Apathy and lethargy, as The Guardian
has foreshadowed are paralysing the people around us, and our
challenge as Baha'is is to avoid our own souls being infected with
that apathy and lethargy. It is reflected in the lack of zeal, a lack of
idealism, to ( view?) passion of challenging of the world. The
loss of vision about the world and where the world is going. And
if Baha'is fail this test, we too will become apathetic, we too will
become lethargic, we too stop caring, we too would adopt narrow
vision of making through, to the end of the day and to see if we are
paying our income tax, and paying our debts, and may be the next
year it would be better. This is not what we are called upon to do
as Baha'is. We are called upon to be the people of vision, to be the
people that have a large understanding of the operation of the
forces of history in the world. People who are the part of the
cutting edge of the creation of World Unity and World Civilisation
that has to occur.
How can we deal with these tests? What actions can we take as
Baha'is to combat these mental tests? There are a number of things
that we can do. First thing that, I think we need is for each one of
us to acquire a deeper understanding of the role, the Faith has in the
redevelopment of mankind. "A deeper understanding of the role,
the Faith has in the redevelopment of mankind". This is not just
another religion that has come to ultimately elbow its way into the
community of religions. We are not simply adding another religion
to the World Order of Religions of Mankind. We not simply
seeking to become recognised as one of the major world religions
and by this (.....................?) programs and alike. What we are
dealing with is the fact that Baha'u'llah has come as the promised
One of all Ages. It is the end of the Dispensations, but the end of a
cycle. The end of a process of thousands of years of Human
History. As a beginning of a vast spiritual process. It is a major
turning point in the history of humanity. We (used?) a deeper
understanding of these concepts of the magnitude of the claim of
Baha'u'llah. The magnitude of the ends of the Faiths. And one
finds that, this is in very very many places in the writings of The
Guardian. And (teachings?) in His letters, and World Order of
Baha'u'llah, the promised One Has Come and in Advent of Divine
Justice. (As Barry smiling in there .... bookshop sales
comment......).
Personally, I find myself and I have informal discussion with some
of my colleagues in The Holy Land, thinking at times, about a
pregnant phrase, about the Universal House of Justice. In the book
"World Order of Baha'u'llah" Shoghi Effendi fore shadows that
the Universal House of Justice would come to be a House which
posterity would regard as the last refuge of a tottering civilisation.
and I say to myself with certain invested self interest! What does
this passage mean? What does it imply about the future of the
humanity? If the Universal House of Justice this group of nine
individuals, that I have become familiar with, after all these years,
that this body to which we (called on.....?), that a group of nine
individuals, that individuals become meaningless. It is the
institution that was created by Baha'u'llah and endowed spiritual
powers to it. What does it mean that it is a institution which are
(.......representation?). What does it mean that it will come to be
regarded by posterity as the last refuge of a tottering civilisation?
What does it say about the evolution of humanity? What does it
say about the future condition of society? What does it say about
what is going to happen in the world in the decades to come? (But
such a condition could occur.....?).
I often ( see?) simply in one example of a larger still issue of
acquiring a deeper understanding of the role of the Faith in the
redevelopment of the humanity \rescued from (.......?) to fail. We
also need and this is of course mentioned many many times, we
need a greater commitment of the Baha'is, in the process of
teaching the Faith. This is a very familiar theme, difficult to state.
There is no Baha'i reading that this is not mentioned, something
that we (draw?) upon a great deal, people are encouraged, inspired,
encoded, cohorts, treatened, programmed, all kinds of ways to try
to get them to teach the Faith. We do this not that we like to tell
them what they should do. We do it because it is a desperate need.
It is a desperate need to humanity to have the opportunity to hear
Baha'u'llah, and it becomes more desperate as we have a lot of
evidence that indicate, the people whom previously thought that
they are (.....?), they are deeply worrying and are searching.
I am not going to divert my talk into a detailed discussion on the
teaching of the Faith. But I do have two things that I want to say .
Because there are two things that (need treatment?). I want to
share with you a statement of the Guardian, where He set out the
parameters of teaching the faith and be successful. He says that we
should not be dependent on our occupation or how great our
knowledge is, I think it is very important to let out our apathy.
This depends on how much we study the teachings, to what degree
we live the Baha'i life. Because they will expect us, and how much
we love to share this message with others, and that is the intriguing
one. So it depends how much we study and not how much we
know. There is a difference. To extend which we live the life, but
also how much we long to share the message with others. and I
think, that is one of our difficulties. Because, in my own experience
and I look back on myself and others that I talk to, is that some
times one wants to teach the faith but it is with a degree of
apprehension about what will one do with the questions, or what
kind of outcome will come about, or will you be able to handle it,
or avoid making a terrible mess of it, or some thing like that. And I
think, we may be at times lack that deep sense of longing to share
the message with others.
The other point that I would like to make about teaching the Faith
before I move along, is to draw your attention to a letter of The
Guardian , which was addressed to the Friends in those days, So
had said that we can't find anybody to teach. It sounds familiar
(................................?). The Guardian wrote back.........
(to be continued)
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,
From mfoster@tyrell.netMon Sep 25 11:25:15 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 20:24:15 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: knowledge and inform
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Robert -
Gee, I am really giving the list a workout today .
My thinking on this subject comes mostly from _Some Answered
Questions_ where the Master dwells, in a couple of places, on the
various natures of the Prophet (physical, rational, and the divine
Appearance/Manifestation). I am not sure if I can locate references
which would specifically support what I wrote - though I might be able
to given more time.
My main computer crashed a couple of days ago, resulting in complete
data loss, and I am trying to find time to restore it. In the meantime,
I have been typing and sending off most of these messages on either my
Epson notebook or my 386 BBS computer while I attempt to rebuild the
system from my Colorado backup tapes.
Obviously, I agree that the divine Essence (Deity or the Source of
all Manifestation and emanation of Attributes) and God manifested (the
Prophet) are All-Knowing. However, the Manifestation comes to us a a
Perfect Man Who must relate to people using their own terms. As I have
said here many times, I feel that these terms, taken from the divine
discourse ("the words He hath revealed"), are actually mental pointers
to symbol vehicles in the world of nature. ("The mind comprehendeth the
abstract by the aid of the concrete, but the soul hath limitless
manifestations of its own." - `Abdu'l-Baha to Dr. A. Forel)
IMHO, although the Prophets and the Master address us in terms which
may, on the face of it, be familiar to us, the intended meaning might
not at all be the same. The pre-Tanakhian sources for the two Genesis
accounts of creation and the Noakhian flood (which I am sometimes
inclined to view as a third biblical creation myth) could provide us
with some useful historical information about the origin of the story,
but they may tell us little about the Prophet's intended meanings.
Blessings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
From belove@sover.netMon Sep 25 11:26:40 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 21:05:52 PDT
From: belove@sover.net
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Sue Price <748-9178@mcimail.com>, morgan.gelin@email.com
Subject: pagans
Dear friends,
I'm not sure how this protocal works, but what the hey. So I want to float
out a few of the questions I struggle with as a bookish Bahai. Maybe someone
else has turned over these stones and wondered the same wonderings as I
have.
I'm sure all my questions circle round the same two or three stones, or
maybe even around the same one, but I'm too new to my confusion to know yet
what I am circling around.
So I'll start. I come to the faith with misgivings, of course. I did a
deepening series on the Seven Valleys and came to understand that the first
Valley, the Valley of Search is traversed by a willingness to entertain new
notions and to set aside misgivings. The second Valley, the Valley of Love
is traversed by a willingness to be desparate and to want to believe despite
one's misgivings. Only at the third Valley does one begin to know and to
have the beginnings of Faith. Before that, it's all on hope and a wing and a
prayer... and of course God's unseen, unconsciously experienced support and
help and guidance.
But central to this forest of questions and misgivings I live in is an idea
that I first read from James Hillman. (Hillman is a seminal thinker and a
list of popularizers of his ideas would have to include Robert Bly and
Thomas Moore.) Hillman, in his book Revisioning Psychology, talked about the
damage done to the psyche by imperial Christianity and monotheism. Hillman
is a great mind and a neo-pagan. I don't want to do violence to his position
by over-simplifying it, but he seems to be saying that monotheism tends to
impoverish the soul.
The same idea occurs in Yeats. He speaks about the Celtic heritage and
Celtic mythological figures and says "We Irish should keep these personages
much in our hearts, for they lived in the places where we ride and go
marketing, and osmetimes they have met one another on the hills that cast
their shadows upon our doors at evening. If we will but tell these stories
to our children the Land will begin again to be a Holy Land, as it was
before men gave their hearts to Greece and Rome and Judea." (Preface to Lady
Isabella August Gregory's book Cuchulain of Muirthemne)
He seems to be saying that something spiritually vital and holy dies or
disappears when people forget their local deities.
I get the impression that the Baha'i Faith understands this. There is
something in our respect for the validity of native prophets. There is
something in the idea of progressive revelation that seems to imply a
layering revelations. Or is there? Do I violate the Faith if, as a Jew, I
insist on a Seder, or if I still thrill to the charms of the Baby Jesus at
Christmas time?
I think the Faith is unclear on these matters. I relate it to the question
of one language. I'm not so sure it is really a good idea for the world to
have one language. I see it as an impoverishment of world heritage. I am
watching the extinction of Yiddish as I would watch the loss of bluebirds. I
am not sure the reduction in complexity is not also a reduction in aesthetic
glory.
I believe this, too, is Hillman's concern.
And, as long as I'm on this theme, let me introduce a related theme. I
forget whether it is Care of the Soul, or The Planets Within, but in one of
those books, Thomas Moore talks about how in a wiser time, people
maintained, in their garden, a small shrine to Saturn. Saturn ruled sadness,
melancholy, loss, and grief. These were necessary parts of life. Honoring
them was a sacred obligation. To honor them gave the soul richness and
texture and, perhaps also, wisdom.
Now, let me quote from Baha'ullah: "Verily the most necessary thing is
contentment under all circumstances; by this one is preserved from morbid
conditions and from lassitude. Yield not to grief and sorrow: they cause the
greatest misry. Jealousy consumeth the body and anger doth burn the liver;
avoid thse two as you would a lion. "
I can see how by following this advice one could end up denying one's own
emotional life. I think this kind of counsel is the very thing Hillman
warned against.
So I wonder, what is the position of thoughtful Bahais on these matters and
also, what is the Bahai position on these matters.
That's all. I hope someone enjoys this line of thinking.
By the way, I've lost my e-mail address for Sandra Hutchinson and Richard
Hollinger.Does anyone have it?
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 09/24/95
Time: 21:05:52
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
From tan1@cornell.eduMon Sep 25 11:27:05 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 22:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Female Guardians
Tony Lee wrote:
> Why does everyone keep saying that the Guardian of the Faith must
> necessarily be male? The Will and Testament does not say that anywhere.
> The will only states that the Guardian must be a "Branch."
> Suppose that a future Guardian had interpreted the word "Branch" to
> include women in the family of Baha'u'llah? Then what?
> Then, we could have a woman as Guardian.
It is possible, of course, to suppose anything. The fact is the Guardian
did not make such an interpretation, as far as anyone knows. The term
"Branch" has been clearly restricted to male members of Baha'u'llah's
family. The term Aghsan was not used to refer to any other class of people.
What is the usefulness of supposing things that did not in fact happen?
It may be fun....but aside from that, what is the use?
Someone might say: Suppose the Guardian interpreted the Writings as
meaning we don't really have to pray; or suppose the Guardian interpreted
the Writings to mean that only people with a certain level of formal
education could serve on Spiritual Assemblies; or suppose, or suppose....
My question is: What is the point of all that? The Guardian did not in
fact say those things. The Guardian did not in fact interpret "Aghsan"
to include women. That's as much as we know. There isn't any Guardian living
now to reinterpret this matter, so what is the point of speculating?
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 11:28:04 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:53:05 +1100
From: Robert Johnston
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: pagans
Dear Philip,
I do not see any harm in monotheism where God is held to be an unknowable
essence. What's more, monotheism makes good sense to me, especially on the
level of rationality: my mind is satisfied through meditative apprehension
of the existence of a Cause of causes. Now, I don't think these beliefs
need conflict with the view that our "local" lives are over-brimming with
[an unrecognised] spirituality or sacredness....
Re:
Do I violate the Faith if, as a Jew, I
insist on a Seder, or if I still thrill to the charms of the Baby Jesus at
Christmas time?
Of course, as Baha'is we shouldn't be *paid-up* members of any other
religion, (but if you are then I should not exalt your idolatory/frailty
above my own, surely). Otherwise, the answer to your question is -- IMV --
no.
If Nima Hazini is able to assert that the Baha'i Faith is the fulfilment of
neo-Platonism or Sufism (or whatever), then I feel free to say that the
Faith is also the fulfilment of Paganism also. And, if this is true, the
Faith -- as such -- must then manifest appeals to Pagans. That is: Pagans
must be able to see in the Faith that which they have held to be good and
true, and so on.
Robert.
From dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.eduMon Sep 25 11:28:22 1995
Date: 24 Sep 95 23:22:52 U
From: Dan Orey
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: pagans
Reply to: RE>pagans
Or if as a Baha'i, tho once a Presbyterian - God's frozen people, I now place a
stone on the grave of a loved one, or observe other traditions that I would not
have had I stayed home that one rainy nite when I reluctantly went to a
fireside... Daniel
From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Sep 25 11:28:51 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 02:19:34 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: H.W.#4 Persian
Dear Friends ,
Looks like I jumped ahead of Nima is commenting on this HW last week in
the form of my personal history why this one is so meaningful . For some
strangs reason I thought he had already posted tis one . Sorry !
The opening line of this HW seems to me to be a form of a "siren song".
The asking of the question suppoese the possibilty of an alternative and yet
stating there is no alternative . It is like the passage in the Iqan where
Baha'u'llah states we all come from God and unto Him we do return .
The "siren song" is a call of the Beloved , am all compelling song , a
spell if you will . It reminds me of some of the intimate passages in the
Aqdas especially k3-4 on tasting and love of beauty, as well as k83 on
seizing and possessing the hearts . There seem to me a sognificant number of
these "intimacy" passages in the Aqdas that parallel a number of the Hidden
Words . This particular Hw I find bound up with notions of sacrifice and
committment , the longing and abandonment of "enraptured love" . This seems
to be a theme Baha'u'lllah continually returns to throughout His revelation.
It appears in many of the HW's , the SV , the Aqdas and several places in
Gleanings most notably The Tablet of the Lover and the Beloved .
I wonder if as a religious community we have not overlooked this "siren
song" . Even HW#2 Arabic intertwines the Best Beloved with justice . It is as
I have mentioned before a cosmic dance that goes on in the revelation between
lovers and a Beloved . Might not this also influence our understanding of
*law * in the revelation ?
This " . .land of the beloved" seems to me a dhikr in its own right, an
act of remembrance . I wonder if the land of the Beloved is not found in
Houses, you know the ones involved with Justice and Worship, and these
Houses have a non -material (spiritual) reality as well as a phenomonal one .
I have this strange habit of seeing even this Hidden Word into a dharmic
call for the Mashriqu'l Adhkar . The land of my Beloved , remembrance,
Houses : they all seem to become bound up one in the other .
warm regards ,
Terry
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 11:30:24 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:44:01 +1100
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: ***: Bakhtin & the carnival
Ffolks,
It has been one of those days that Lora abhores: Robert responding
to everything. But, hog that I am, I ask you to please indulge me this one
last time on this subject. [& remember, I wrote my masters thesis on
Freud...]
I previously wrote [SEX] of the coincidence of the mention of the name of a
farmyard animal with the ending of the our discussion of women in the
House, and gave a brief explanation of my publication of the
unmentionable-because -of-an-unintended-pun animal's name. I added:
"There is more to write yet on the dynamics of this discursive event (as a
discursive event) -- especially since Mikhail Bakhtin [pronounced
Back-teen, I think], dead since 1975 but something of a new-boy on the
intellectual block, came forward and gave his opinion."
OK, then: let me introduce those ideas of Mikhail which have caught my
attention. Here are bits from two essays I've read:
>Clair Willis: Upsetting the Public: Carnival,Hysteria and Women's Texts
>
>For Bakhtin, in order for popular carnival to become politically effective
>it must 'enter' the institution of literature. In *Rabelais and his
>World*, he argues that it is only in literature that popular festive forms
>can achive the 'self-awareness' necessary for effective protest. Of
>carnival he says: 'its wide popular character, its radicalism and freedom,
>soberness and materiality were transferred from am almost elemental
>consition to a state of artistic awareness and purposefulness. 131
>132 In the final pages of the Rabelais book he relates the concept of
>'awareness' to 'the victory over linguistic dogmatism' (p. 473), which is
>secured by the introduction of the vernacular into the category if 'great
>literature'.
>
>..It is Rabelais's ability to make use of official forms, including new
>forms of scientific knowledge and bring them into dialogic relation with
>popular knowledge and 'festive' forms which can raise carnival to 'a
>higher level of ideological cosnciousness' (p. 473). For in the Middle
>Ages carnival has been contrained -- centred in small pockets of activity
>in provincial towns, it lacked organisation. It was not in a position to
>'dialogise' official forms of communication or organisation because, as
>Bakhtin points out, it remained 'strictly divided' from them:
>
>"And so medieval culture of folk humour was fundamentally limited to these
>small islands of feasts and receations. Official serious cultures existed
>besides them but strictly divided from the marketplace. The shoots of a
>new world outlook were sprouting, but they could not grow and flower as
>long as they were enclosed in the polular gaiety of recreation and
>banqueting or in the fluid realm of familiar speech. In order to achieve
>this growth and flowering, laughter had to enter the world of great
>literature"
>Nancy Glazner: Dialogic Subversion:
>113
>Carnival subversion, as Bakhtin describes it in *Rabelais and his World*,
>is directed against an official language that would deny the body, the
>cyclical nature of human life, and the triumph of the specicies over the
>individual. Bakhtin holds the carivalesque to be the antidote not only
>to a particular dominant meaning but also, more profoundly, to a
>particular *form* of meaning: the abstracted, disembodied concept of
>meaning that the Platonic tradition favoured. Carnival laughter is not
>an abstract negation , a bracketing 'not-x'. It undermines official
>language in the Renaissance by mocking it, em-bawdying it, and
>re-connecting it to the life cycle: 'negation in popular-festival imagery
>has never an abstract logical character. It is always something ovbvious,
>tengible. That which stands behind negations is by no means nothingness
>but the "other side" of that which is denied..." [Bakhtin]
>Carnival laughter challenges traditional concepts of logic and identity...
>[oral genres...hyperbolic praise and abuse..& .masquerade] Bakhtin
>proposes that these sexual or scatological humiliations defy officialdom's
>pretenses to personal power and reassert the power of the metaphorical
>body of the people, the life cycle that transcends the individual.
>The subversion of essentialising, abstract, unitary meaning on [113-114]
>behalf of the body hold obvious attractions for feminism, which may be
>said to have taken the part of the body in several ways.
OK, by now, if you're still with me, you'll probably have discerned that I
am holding the view that the mention of the unmentionable in terms of
something crudely physical seems to have conformed to the Bakhtinian view
that the carnivalesque overturns a certain sort of discussion. Curiously,
I was oblivious of what Bakhtin was about until after the event.
Curiously, also, somewhere near the climax of the argument I did feel that
a certain kind of abstract language-use (see letter to Richard Hollinger.
Funny thing is, I have come to genuinely admire Richard's discursive
talents!) was not discursively helpful.
Could it be that the the carnivalesque body is the [Jungian] shadow of
Talisman? Perhaps we should all meditate on scenes from Breugel [William
Carlos Williams again, David] before we write... [...or who was that other
dude who painted those amazing pictures of humanish critters with huge
phalluses?]
& that's enough on Bakhtin...for now.
Robert.
From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Sep 25 11:31:40 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 07:38:46
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re[2]: History Conference
Thanks, Juan. I'll pass the idea to the task force. Maybe we can
make it the subject of a panel, because I have my doubts we can get an
entire conference of presentations on the theme.
Any possibility you will be free in early June 1996?
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: History Conference
Author: Juan R Cole at INTERNET
Date: 9/24/95 2:33 PM
Rob: I vote for "The Baha'i Faith and Women's History." This is
specific enough to give some thematic unity, but broad enough to be
addressed at almost any point along the way. And it is an extremely
underresearched topic; plus doing it this way would force the men to
write about it, which they mostly don't do.
cheers Juan
From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Sep 25 11:32:16 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 07:38:44
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[4]: Local Houses of Justice
Tony, have we any idea whether `Abdu'l-Baha referred to either the New
York or Kenosha bodies as "House of Justice." I am not surprised New
York might use the title in referring to themselves; it might be on
analogy with the fact `Abdu'l-Baha had used the term for the Chicago
House of Justice earlier. They might have known that even though
their title usually was "Board of Counsel" they were a local house of
justice (just as the New York LSA is today).
I have not seen the letter from Kenosha to `Abdu'l-Baha; you must have
gotten it from Haifa. But just because they felt ready to accept
women does not mean `Abdu'l-Baha agreed with them. There are many
times people asked `Abdu'l-Baha to do something and He said no.
When you refer to a 1910 tablet referring to establishment of (local)
houses of justice which tablet do you mean? The True tablet is 1909.
And how can you be so sure "(local)" should be added?
I agree `Abdu'l-Baha used many terms to refer to local governing
bodies. My only point was that where Chicago was concerned, after
1902 He was fairly consistent in using the term "spiritual assembly."
I think He may have used other terms for them in the same tablets,
though. I'd have to check.
-- Rob Stockman
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Local Houses of Justice
Author: Member1700@aol.com at INTERNET
Date: 9/24/95 1:33 PM
Rob, are you sure that we should pursue a point by point debate over this
issue on Talisman? I will if you want, but remember John has asked us not to
talk about this issue ad nauseum.
It does appear that I have seen a bit more of the documentary evidence on
this question than you have--which is surprising. But, I do have a copy of a
letter from the New York House of Justice congratulating the Chicago House on
its election, in which they clearly refer to themselves as a House of Justice
and to Chicago as the same.
I also have a copy of the letter that Kenosha wrote to 'Abdu'l-Baha in
1911, and the intentions of the Kenosha all-male House are crystal clear.
They were willing to dissolve their male-only institution and reelect one
with women on it, but they were afraid that this violated the instructions
that they had received in Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha at the time the House was
first organized. (Tablets that I presume are now lost.)
I agree that 'Abdu'l-Baha did not change the status of the Chicago House
in 1902, only its name. But, then in 1910, he was saying that now is not the
time to establish (local) Houses of Justice. And (I think) in 1912, he did
change the status (and the name) of the Chicago House.
I do not think that it is possible to maintain that 'Abdu'l-Baha
maintained a consistent terminology to refer to local Spiritual Assemblies
after 1902. He used six or seven different terms after that date. It is
true that at some later point the terminology was fixed, but I don't know
when. This is especially true when also considering 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets
to Iran. Sharokh Monjazeb has told me that he has seen one instance
(published in Ma'idiy-i Asmani, I believe) in which 'Abdu'l-Baha refers to
the local Assembly of Tehran as baytu'l-'adl ummumi (the general, or
universal, House of Justice). Too bad I can't look it up myself. (Can
anyone help? It might help if we could find a date for this Tablet.) But
other terms included mafil-i shur (consultative assembly), arjomand-i shur
(board of consultation), and so forth.
Warmest,
Tony
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comMon Sep 25 11:32:39 1995
Date: 25 Sep 1995 08:52:00 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: belove@sover.net
Subject: Re: pagans
I'm wondering if the point that Hillman is really making is the probelm of
defining God so narrowly that there is only one possible response to His
existance, that only a specific expression of spirituality is acceptable. If
so, then limiting God to an undefinable transcendent Essence falls within
Hillman's concern.
I think the answer of the Faith is in the Names of God. Many, perhaps most,
of us have 'favorite' names' but I think we need to remember that that
particular name does not *define* God. Yhe total of the Names of God begins
to give us an understanding of Him, which is far different from the limiting
effect of trying to define Him. In this way we can include the many aspects
that are present and obvious in non-monotheistic religions.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From rstockman@usbnc.orgMon Sep 25 11:34:57 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 08:43:00
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Peter Khan's talks
Dear friends:
As I see Ahmad Niss's notes about Peter Khan's talk in Sydney on
September 17, I am struck by the fact he gave almost exactly the same
talk in Wilmette on September 23, just 6 days later. I have detailed
notes, but I have no time to organize them properly and clean them up
for Talisman. However, the talk was videotaped and I think it will
distributed widely by the U.S. NSA. It was clearest, best organized
Baha'i talk I have heard in three or four years.
-- Rob Stockman
From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Sep 25 18:52:51 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: "Stockman, Robert"
Cc: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Local Houses of Justice
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Stockman, Robert wrote:
> I have not seen the letter from Kenosha to `Abdu'l-Baha; you must have
> gotten it from Haifa. But just because they felt ready to accept
> women does not mean `Abdu'l-Baha agreed with them. There are many
> times people asked `Abdu'l-Baha to do something and He said no.
I think Tony and Rob are going off on the wrong tangent here. In 1910,
`Abdu'l-Baha stated that all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender
assemblies were acceptable. In 1911, he told the all-male Kenosha
assembly not to hold a re-election in mid-term but rather to form another
assemlby for women. If
`Abdu'l-Baha had called for a new election and a mixed-gender assembly
that would have been consistent with his earlier position; but what he chose
to do was equally consistent with that position. I suggest that the
fact that
he chose not to intiate a complete reorganization when there was already
a functioning assembly in place was primarily a pragmatic matter; it in
no way obviated the possibility of have a mixed-gender assembly in the
future. Nor did it necessarily carry implications for institutions beyond
Kenosha. If it did, then that would have been a reversal of both the
decision to integrate the New York Assembly and the position taken in the
tablet to Shahnaz Waite one year earlier.
There are certainly different ways to read the historical evidence in
this matter. I am afraid that the simplest explanation that accounts for
all the evidence under discussion is that `Abdu'l-Baha was consistent in his
thinking, at least from 1909 on, and that the American Baha'is
misunderstood some of what he wrote. I think that any explanation that
simply has `Abdu'l-Baha engaging in a series of reversals is inadequate--not
because `Abdu'l-Baha didn't reverse himself, but because that fails to
explain the internal structure of his thought and consequently does not
identify the rationale behind those decisions. The reason I
think the 1910 tablet is so significant is that it provides an
explanation for `Abdu'l-Baha's other statements and actions, namely that
he was primarily concerned with the pragmatic issue of organizing
communities in an effective way, and did not wish to make an issue of
gender integration or segregation.
Richard Hollinger
From Member1700@aol.comMon Sep 25 18:54:39 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:27:55 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Local Houses of Justice
Richard,
I actually agree with most of what you say in your last post. Your
understanding of the historical record is pretty close to mine. However, I
do not think that the 1909 Tablet to Chicago was actually a call to
reorganize the House of Spirituality and elect women to it. That would be
quite inconsistent with the other Tablets that you have cited, especially the
Tablet to Kenosha!
The weakness of your reconstruction is that it must insist that
'Abdu'l-Baha's 1909 Tablet was misunderstood. And there is no evidence that
it was. In fact, it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that it was
not misunderstood.
However, you can maintain the same position regarding 'Abdu'l-Baha's
pragmatic interest in having the Cause move forward with local bodies of any
type (which I think is an accurate reading of his intentions) without this
element. He was, in fact, aware of all-male Houses and he had no objection
to them. He was reluctant, in both the case of Chicago and Kenosha, to have
them dissolved. But, on the other hand, he was also willing to approve of
other kinds of boards and councils. He did not want the gender composition
of these bodies to become a contentious issue. And when it did, he was
willing to integrate all local bodies--with a little change of terminology.
Tony
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduMon Sep 25 18:55:32 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 11:34:41 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: boundaries
Dear Philip, I was most interested in your message as I am sure others will be.
I will respond to only a small part of it. We seem in the Baha'i Faith to
struggle between two definitions of religion: one with wide, permeable
boundaries that allow for much exclusion and the other with very firm
boundaries, with a narrower definition of what the Baha'i Faith is.
Because the Baha'i Faith is not linked (or is not supposed to be linked) to a
particular culture or nationality, it seems only reasonable that we have as
loose boundaries as possible since the variation of human cultures is so great.
On the other hand, we can run into the problem of being left with nothing that
gives a sense of distinctiveness and a real sense of being bound to others who
have committed themselves to the Baha'i Faith. You spoke of seders and
Christmas. These are the very things that can lead one to feel emotionally
bound to their religion and strengthen a sense of community with
co-religionists and with the transcendent. Yet, in the Baha'i Faith, we fear
elaborating on any sort of ritual activity because we are afraid of it being
exclusionary.
OTOH, I keep hearing from some on Talisman that we must have firm boundaries;
we must have a very clear idea of the laws and parameters of the Baha'i Faith.
I think you have brought up an important point. My belief is that we must keep
our minds open to different approaches to the Baha'i Faith without closing our
mio ways that a community can feel brought together by traditions and rituals.
You are hardly the first to wonder about whether a Baha'i can hold onto those
activiites that enriched our lives prior to our being Baha'is. While it may be
ideal to move on, we have yet found something to move on to. This is a great
challenge for the Baha'i community. We can hardly expect people to live in a
state of spiritual/emotional limbo until we can come up with some formula for
religious expression that is satisfactory to all.
Robert - you commented on Tony's statement that he is more of a historian than
a theologian and I sensed some disapproval. I have spoken to many people who
shudder at the thought that the Baha'i Faith would have a theology. They want
no part of any type of intellectual endeavor to the Faith whatsoever. So, to
these people Tony is just as damned being a historian of the Faith as he would
be if he declared himself a theologian.
OF course, none of this helps Steven get the orange paint out of his daughter's
hair. Did your daughter try yelling, "MAKEUP," Steve? Linda
From rvh3@columbia.eduMon Sep 25 18:57:51 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Local Houses of Justice
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> The weakness of your reconstruction is that it must insist that
> 'Abdu'l-Baha's 1909 Tablet was misunderstood. And there is no evidence that
> it was. In fact, it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that it was
> not misunderstood.
The evidence the `Abdu'l-Baha was misunderstood, quite possibly as a
result of mistranslation, comes from placing the tablet in the context of
his own writings. We've been over this before, so I won't repeat my
argument now.
The question I would ask is what kind of evidence would it take to prove
that the tablet was misunderstood? Presumeably another tablet saying
so. But does silence on the matter prove that is was undestood
correctly? I don't think so. As I have hypothesized before (and below)
`Abdu'l-Baha simply did not want to micromanage the Baha'i community; he
intervened only when he thought it essential. If the gender composition
of assemblies was not in his view of paramount importance (as I think the
1910 tablet clearly shows), why would he intervene in this matter,
especially when the existing situation was within the parameters of what
he explicitly said was acceptable?
> However, you can maintain the same position regarding 'Abdu'l-Baha's
> pragmatic interest in having the Cause move forward with local bodies of any
> type (which I think is an accurate reading of his intentions) without this
> element. He was, in fact, aware of all-male Houses and he had no objection
> to them. He was reluctant, in both the case of Chicago and Kenosha, to have
> them dissolved. But, on the other hand, he was also willing to approve of
> other kinds of boards and councils. He did not want the gender composition
> of these bodies to become a contentious issue. And when it did, he was
> willing to integrate all local bodies--with a little change of terminology.
Here I pretty much agree with you. In each instance in which
`Abdu'l-Baha did dissolve an assembly there was a compelling practical
reason. The New York Board of Counsel was reconstituted in order to
insure that all (rival) factions in the community were representated on
the governing body; Chicago was re-elected primarily to remove a
Covenant-breaker from the body. I do not think institutional name
changes had anything at all to do with the gender composition of the
bodies, however.
Richard
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduMon Sep 25 18:58:13 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:38:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: American Baha'is and Abdul Baha
Dear Friends,
How did Abdul Baha know about the events in the
American Baha'i community? Did the various councils
send Him their minutes? Was(were) there one or more people
who corresponed with Abdul Baha regularly? Or were His
instructions mainly in response to questions by
individuals and/or institutions?
For that matter, what about the Baha'i communities
of Iran and elsewhere?
thanks,
sAmAn
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 19:26:23 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:56:24 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: boundaries
Dear Linda,
Your wrote:
I have spoken to many people who
>shudder at the thought that the Baha'i Faith would have a theology.
Yes. I suppose anyone who studies religion in a systematic way may be
called a theologian, and in this respect Tony is a theologian. So what was
I getting at? In matters relating to temporal factual-historical
knowledge, Tony, it seems, prioritises [a certain form of] empiricism ahead
of explanations based on [a certain form of] metaphysical epistemology. He
is not alone in this. Juan is another -- and you may be also. I have
trouble with this because of the reductionism that seemed to be entailed.
However, I am happy to live with this viewpoint, as long as it leaves mine
alone -- or is able to bring about an emphatic mind-shift though the
production of convincing evidence and argument. In our protracted
Talismanic discussions of this matter we have not beeen able to reach
agreement... At the moment, on this matter, collectively, we have "wide,
permeable" boundaries... And that's OK, I suppose.
Robert.
From jrcole@umich.eduMon Sep 25 22:05:25 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 19:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: God and Buddhist transcendence
Bruce: Your reduction of Moojan's phrase "Baha'u'llah in his writings
uses the term `God' whereas the Buddha uses such expressions as the `Unborn,
Unoriginated' (p. 19) to a statement that "Buddha believed in God" is a
mistake deriving from your unstated use of classical logic. You have
carried out this syllogism:
Baha'u'llah used the term `God'
`God' is equivalent to the `Unborn, the Unoriginated'
The Buddha used the terms `Unborn, Unoriginated'
Therefore the Buddha used the term `God.'
This is, however, a logical error and does not take account of advances
during the past century in semantics and symbolic logic. Frege was the
first to point out that while "Venus" and the "morning star" had the same
referent, they had different *connotations* that classical logic could
not account for.
Thus, in a Baha'i semiotics, "God" and the Buddha's "Unborn,
Unoriginated" are signs that have the same ultimate referent. They have,
however, very different connotations and are embedded in entirely
different language games. Flattening out the signs into mere equivalents
by ignoring connotation and looking only at denotation results in nonsense.
It is like saying that "hat" and "sombrero" are equivalent and that
therefore many New Yorkers wear sombreros (this is the precise form of
the fallacy you have committed with regard to Moojan's passage).
I think, in short, that you have misunderstood Moojan's intentions, and
that what he is proposing is a third common term rather than a
subsumption of `the Unborn, the Unoriginated' to the Western conception
of "God." I do not deny that many Baha'is perform such a subsumption,
only that Moojan does; for corroborating proof you have only to study
his chapter on religious relativism in Studies in Babi and Baha'i
Religions vol. 5.
Now, you may, of course, deny that "God" and "the Unborn, the
Unoriginated" *do* have a common, transcendent and ineffable referent
despite their different connotations and their different linguistic and
cultural contexts in diverse language games. But such a denial simply
ends the dialogue, since 1) most Baha'is take such a premise as a matter
of faith, 2) it cannot be disproven, and 3) many Baha'is would argue
that this transcendent unity of religions can be "seen" in the same way
that Buddhists maintain that Nirvana can be "seen" (before you object,
Sri Walpole Rahula himself told me he thought the best verb in English
for capturing the Buddha's teaching was to "see" Nirvana). Now, most
physicists will deny that there is any Nirvana or that it can be seen;
and that's the end of their dialogue with Buddhism, since it is certainly
not something amenable to testing with scientific equipment (pace TM).
In the same way, to begin by rejecting the transcendent unity of the
religions ends any dialogue on the subject with Baha'is. If, on the
other hand, you are interested in seeing that unity, I maintain that it
can be experienced through meditating on Baha'u'llah's writings in
conjunction with the scriptures of the world-religions, just in the same
way that Nirvana can be attained by following the path of the Buddha.
In any case, I think it will be more fruitful to return to the 8-fold
Noble Path than to discuss Transcendent Reality.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Sep 25 22:08:42 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:29:01 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Tablet of Wisdom question
Have you read the Tablet the Master sent to Ethel Rosenberg regarding
the Tablet of Wisdom?
Warmest Regards Derek
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auMon Sep 25 22:12:02 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:36:09 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: last part of Dr. P. Khan's talk
Dear Friends,
This is the last part of the fourth talk by Dr Peter Khan which
was given on Sunday 17th of September 1995 in Sydney. There are
words that have been put in brackets 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. previously I mention this talk as the third on.
With regards,
Ahmad.
[text of the talk ( fourth part)]
The other point that I would like to make about teaching the Faith
before I move along, is to draw your attention to a letter of The
Guardian , which was addressed to the Friends in those days. Some
one had said that we can't find anybody to teach. It sounds familiar
(................................?). The Guardian wrote back and He said:
make a special point of praying ardently, not only for the success in
general, but that God may send you the souls that are ready. I find
this fascinating. We are expected to read the prayers for teaching
and there is a whole book full of them, and you can read them and
that is fine. But what I get from this passage is that, we should also
pray in a very concentrated manner, in a very systematic way to
God to send to us the souls that are ready. Another words, tell us,
the prayers, very precisely of such a problem. As part of our
longing to share the message.
One of the difficulties that I see that the Baha'i World is facing at
the present time, is that of achieving the balance between
expansionand consolidation. It is a and I think I have
(..........................?) by saying this is a matter which is very high in
the agenda of The Universal House of Justice at the present time.
It is a matter that, teaching is concerned by the institution. That it
is a necessity. You will find that it is reflected time and again in the
messages of Rizvan, the messages of The Universal House
ofJustice, almost year after year, putting it in various shape and
form and designs, because it would be boring to say the same
words over and over again. And say to the friends that expansion
and consolidation should go hand in hand. But, what is frustrating,
is that people read it and they memorised it, they can quote it back
to us, they say this is obviously a truth, a wonderful truth, I am glad
that you said it. And then in the heat of the battle, they forget it.
That we would be carried away, expansion and consolidation would
not go hand in hand, and at the end, half of the masses, the people
that have enrolled as Baha'is, what ever the process it entailed to
bring that about. And, can't be found again, to have no idea what
to join, who are (...............?) inactive. No body knows, they are
totally missing. They can't find their way in any kind of way. And
there is a whole process of frustration and (stagnation?) and
looking for a scape goat, and disappointment and burn out as a
result.
What we are looking for, is that the development of the committed
human beings the committed human beings are not simply human
beings who sign on the dotted line in a piece of paper. These
people who are transformed, and in order to acquire a greater
committed man power, we need to solve the problem of expansion
and consolidation, going hand in hand. I do not think that there is a
country in the Baha'i World which has done this successfully, and
there are areas which we have done successfully, and areas which
we have done disastrously badly. But it is something that is open to
all Baha'i communities, Australian included, to aspire the world.
Finally, I come to the third of the faced, is the test of transforming
to the Baha'i and (in specific?) the institutions, the suspicion, the
concern, the disgust, we the people in the world generally have
about their governors, the central institutions. For example, The
House of Justice wrote in a message recently, about characteristic
that are conspicuous in the world around us. It referred to the
inordinate scepticism, regarding of various nations show (grogs?)
towards their government. incisive individual to the wider
detriment of society.
We live in a world, where people are rapidly being turned off by
those who seem to have authority, by those who previously were
regarded as their leaders. They are suspicious of them, they
wouldn't (............?) up. They question their motives. They feel
they are all a waste of time, and they want hurriedly get ride of
them, or change them, or kick them out of their life. We see this in
many ways, we see as a fact that in those countries, where the
voting is not compulsory, a smaller and smaller percentage of
people vote, when an election is held in three, four or five years.
We see it in alienation of the electorate from its government, in so
very many counties. It is why the radical action taken, to over turn
government, because these people despair of the normal democratic
process. You see it in all the corruption that occurs in politics, in
the police forces, and all areas of life. We forget that our society
are acquiring unconsciously a deep and profound distress,
scepticism, suspicion of those who are suppose to be their leaders.
I mentioned this because, I think, we do begin to ( offend....?) if we
haven't more into it already. Where, we have to be very careful,
that we don't transfer unconsciously those attitudes towards our
Baha'i Administrative Institutions. You might say that why we
shouldn't, they are all human beings also. O!, but there is a
difference, the difference is the covenant, the difference is the
institutions of The Cause are ordained by Baha'u'llah and
legislation to ensure that the system remains free in terms of its
integrity and (unity?). Let me read to you a statement written by
The Guardian on this subject. He wrote some years ago, of course,
our present generation may lead due to corruption that has been
identified in organisations seems to stand in occasions to bring into
the institutions, the religious institution is denounced. Government
as institution is denounced, even marriage as an institution
isdenounced. We Baha'is should not be divided by such prevalent
notions. If it was of a case all the Divine Manifestations would
have followed to appoint some one to succeed. Undoubtedly
corruption did enter in those institutions, but not due to nature of
the institutions , but to the lack of proper direction. What
Baha'u'llah has done is not to eliminate corruption that caused the
fall of the previous institutions.
What those safe guards are? Are those (............?) interesting to
study and find out. And also most essential to know. Another
words, we as Baha'is have to study the Administrative Order, to
know why is that, we can have Faith and trust, and willing to
cooperate with our institutions. It is not that because, they are nice
people or they are Baha'is and things like that. It is because,
Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha have developed an Administrative Order,
where built into it a clear, careful and indeed water tight safe guards
for the avoidance of corruption. The institutions at Local and
National levels are subject to error, they are also subject to the
authority and supervision by The Universal House of Justice, which
has the powers for it by the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha.
So the system is basically, is a system which is self purifying,
because is a system which is radically different from organisations
and institutions in the world around us. And we need to adopt an
entirely new approach to these institutions. It does not mean, we
have to sit mute like dummies, and we count just like a passive
church in a congregation.
We seek an active society as Baha'is, it does not mean that our
institutions in Local and National level can't never be criticised.
(As that is why we have the letter of 1986 for?), and that is, why
we have unit conventions and national convention for to operate a
constructive criticism and suggestions to our institutions. We
should not be heading.............imitation?) and last so do it. But let
us do it in a reasonable tone, in a tone that is not destructive but is
constructive and will contribute to further development, rather than
a display of ego or greater intelligence or insult or anything like
that. It got to be. We have to show to the society around us.
It is appalling to see what is happening around the world in
parliaments at state and national level. The kind of language that is
being used, the kind of threats that are being made, against each
other, horrible things, it is not fit to resite in a gathering that there
are reasonable people. There is a breath of degeneration, in the
level of discourse in these institutions of the world around us. We
have to avoid, that sense of abuse, that criticism and suspicion
coming into our institutions. We have to do it in a entirely different
way. I have been reminded of a passage in the writings of The
Guardian, where he was asked today (say?) how can we bring a
large number of people? He set out for the individual three
requirements. He said in this passage and I think it is in the book
Light of Guidance and (is numbered 1324 in the book......?). He
said: with out spirit of Love for Baha'u'llah for His Faith and its
institutions and the believers for each other, The Cause can not
really bring in really a large number of people.
I found this startling. We all love Baha'u'llah, otherwise we would
not want to become Baha'is, we love The Faith, because that is part
of the fact. We are more or less love believers (.................?). But,
what we are called upon is this to love the institutions and that is a
very new concept. We just can't find a lot of people that are going
around, saying I love the federal government,( because .........?), or
we can't find a lot of people that say I love the Dromoynd Council
or Waverley Council or Sydney City Council (................?). This is
very very rare. Lets say, this is a new concept in our society of love
for institutions. We try to keep out of the way. They say we have
ignored them (...........then one is set on a fight?). That is not the
Baha'i way. What The Guardian is calling for, is us to develop not
only love for Baha'u'llah, for His Faith, the believers, but for the
institutions.
It is easy to love the institutions of The Cause, like the Local
Spiritual Assembly when they are functioning perfectly. Any idiot
can do that. What we are called upon to do, is to love our
institutions, when they will be in a process of growth and
development. And they will be in a process of growth and
development long after you and I have been buried, because this is
a thousand year Dispensation, that in decades and centuries our
institutions will gradually evolve and develop, will learn by trial and
error, will have reverses and set backs. Those who will in a period
of disunity get their act together, make a step forward, painfully and
through a lot of suffering and sacrifice, so that they become the
great institutions that The Cause had ordained and foreshadowed.
And our role is to love them just as parents love their children. If
children always don't behave (................?), but expects us to love
them, to nurture them, to help them in their (.............?). one thing I
have heard and I travelled around the world and I am very careful
not to identify the subject, which I heard in a lot of occasions. I
was in a country (..................?), that a believer said to me you
know, we are encouraged to contribute our money to the
international fund and of course who am I to stand in their way.
(.....................?) but he said we are not going to send a cent to the
National fund because we don't like what they are doing. I was
very surprised. I went home and I thought about that and I said to
myself, how regrettable that this subject's attitude does exist. It is
like a parent to say I did not like what this kid did today. I am not
going to feed him. How is the child to develop, how is the child to
manifest his potentials.
We are called upon to support our institutions, Local or National
with love, because they are ordained by Baha'u'llah. We support
our Local Fund which is needed for (LSA's activities?). And we
pride in that, that they are going to make all the right decisions. We
are called upon to support the National Fund even if we are not the
members of it. And we think we are doing the right thing. We are
called upon to trust and support, and be willing cooperatives of the
institutions of our Cause, so that we can avoid this (..........?), this
dangerous, this severe mental test in the world around us. The
break down of civilisation, we see the coming of disorder in
relations which is between them, the people of the world around us.
We have to avoid that in the Baha'i community. Well, I have
spoken about it to an extra ordinary length, and tried to get your
attention for so long. But I want to share these things with you and
you can see I fill very strongly about them. I think it is a time that
when we as Baha'is need to take stock, to take preventive and
effective measures against the onset of these severe mental tests. I
think they are already upon us, it is not to late, but is not to early.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss,
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduMon Sep 25 22:13:39 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:09:28 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guidance (remembering Stanwood)
Hi,
I was coerced into signing a declaration card after being
dumbfounded and awestruck by a presentation that Stanwood
Cobb gave at a fireside 23 years ago. The presentation
was quite an interesting experience. Dr. Cobb (about 90
years old), arrived at the suburban Virginia fireside in a
totally cool old car like you'd see in a ganster movie,
wearing a long overcoat and one of those funky little east
coast hats. When he entered the fireside meeting, he went
around the room and took the hand of each of the 30-40 youth
present, and after a silent reflective moment he stared deeply
into our eyes and asked if we had had breakfast (he was big on
staying healthy by eating a good breakfast), or how we were
feeling and why. He seemed to sense something on a deep spiritual
level, and that was a little intimidating, but he radiated a
powerful sense of humility, trust and ... goodness. During his
talk about the arrival of the "new age", he would pull ragged
scraps of paper out of his deep overcoat pockets and read
quotations from various well known world leaders, thinkers, etc.
about the advent of this new cycle of human history. Everyone was
totally entranced! At the end, one of the older Baha'is would
request that he describe his experiences with Abdu'l-Baha.
As far as I recall this is the story: he went to the
Holy Land (possibly got smuggled in disguised as a Turk,
since he had taught in turkish schools?) and upon being
granted permission to see Abdu'l-Baha, was asked to
sit in the first of three rooms with the secretary.
At some point, he was told to enter the second room.
when he walked into the second room, he looked at the
door on the opposite side, which led to a third room.
There were louvres or curtains, but a brilliant white
light radiated from the third room where Abdu'l-Baha
was present. He passed into the third room when asked
to enter, and talked to Abdu'l-Baha for some time.
After leaving, he realized that no interpreter was
present.
I must say that my experience, and almost everyone I
knew that heard the story, was that hearing it from
Stanwood was like being there, and of course by feeling
like you had been there, you felt that you had gone to
another level of reality. It has always been easy for
me to understand why some of the early believers got
confused and wanted Abdu'l-Baha to be a manifestation.
I saw Stanwood a few months after the above incident, and
mentioned that I had become a Baha'i after hearing his
talk. With a wry smile, he said "I'm sorry"!
Several of the other youth that heard him talk, said that
they specifically saw a bright shimmering aura around him
when he talked about his meeting with Abdu'l-Baha.
He also told a humorous story about how in the old days
when he would be travel teaching, he would arrive at the
home of one of the friends that lived in the desert on
a hot day. She would ask him what refreshments he wanted,
and he would reply "a cold beer". This slightly scandalized
the hostess, who of course reminded him that Baha'is don't
drink. His reply was "you asked me what I ~wanted~, not what
I the teachings say I ~should~ have!"
He wrote a number of odd little charming story books about
chinese philosophy from a Baha'i viewpoint. I have always
wondered how much of a hassle he had publishing his stuff.
Somewhere, I think I heard or read that as a young man he was
living on a religious commune (it was somewhat common) in New
England around 1900, and that he heard of the Faith through
the network of people interested in mysticism and eastern
religion, which was a bit of a fad at the time.
A number of times, the youth around the D.C. area would
request meetings with Stanwood. He would usually warn us
of the dangers of the dark side of psychic and occult
phenomena, and reiterate the mystical aspects of the
Faith as they related to our hippified/counterculture
view of reality (such as it was).
As I recall, Stanwood asked Abdu'-Baha how long he would
live, and Abdu'l-Baha told him that he would live to be
100 years old if he served the Faith.
The last time I saw Stanwood, was in 1978 at his summer
home near Green Acre school, he was about 95 years old.
He came up to meet a small group of us from the river
where he had been swimming, and asked if anyone had poems,
songs or questions.
Dave Taylor was around D.C. during that time, maybe he
remembers more?
Bye,
EP
> From: "Mark A. Foster"
> Subject: Re: Guidance
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> Date sent: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 13:54:04 -0500 (EDT)
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
> Hi, Gabriel -
>
> Stanwood Cobb was the owner of Avalon Press in Maryland. He was also
> a well-known Baha'i writer and speaker. He met `Abdu'l-Baha when he was
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzMon Sep 25 22:14:39 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:37:22 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence
Dear Juan,
The ontology of spirituality as such does not change from religion
to religion. 'Abdu'l-Baha makes this point in Foundations of World Unity.
Therefore Bruce's Buddhist God and my Baha'i One are the same. If we wish
deal in language games then it is not unlikely that my God and yours
differ....
Robert.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Sep 25 22:19:02 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:55:13 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: dysfunctionality
---- Begin Forwarded Message
Return-Path:
Received: from grizzly.ucla.edu by ix3.ix.netcom.com
(8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
id UAA02357; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:36:36 -0700
Received: from [164.67.20.140] (ts19-15.wla.ts.ucla.edu
[164.67.20.140]) by grizzly.ucla.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id
UAA424327; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:32:22 -0700
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:32:22 -0700
X-Sender: banani@pop1.humnet.ucla.edu
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: derekmc@ix.netcom.com (DEREK COCKSHUT )
From: banani@humnet.ucla.edu (Amin Banani)
Subject: Re: Fwd: dysfunctionality
Status: RO
My Dear Juan
I loved your response so much I sent it to Amin and Sheila.Warmest
Regards Derek
Dear Derek,
Please post a message on Talisman on my behalf thanking Juan Cole for
his
marvelously written response to Paul Johnson about Miller's work/book.
I
miss Juan most of all and look forward to another "dip" into the
treasure
"trove" of Talisman after the ABS conference. love, Sheila
---- Begin Forwarded Message
>Return-Path:
>Received: from roatan.ucs.indiana.edu by ix4.ix.netcom.com
>(8.6.12/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
> id UAA00817; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:35:07 -0700
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu
>(8.7.Beta.11/8.7/1.10IUPO) id WAA24502 for talisman-outgoing; Thu, 21
>Sep 1995 22:07:03 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu
>(root@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.63.90]) by
>roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id
WAA14015
>for ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:06:58 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu by
>choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2)
> id XAA19599; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:06:56 -0400
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Juan R Cole
>X-Sender: jrcole@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>Subject: dysfunctionality
>Message-ID:
>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>Status: U
>
>
>
>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
Sheila Banani
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Sep 25 22:19:34 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 19:54:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Seneca Falls
> 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 .
Some years ago my wife Vickie made a tapestry depicting Elizabeth Cady
Stanton at that conference, and Tahirih at the Conference of Badasht --
(Zohreh Davoudi Worth modeled as Tahirih for Vickie) these conferences
were only a few weeks apart in time. It was commissioned by the Baha'i
Committee on Women and was given to the City Council of Seneca Falls. I am
told it hangs in the Council chambers. Anybody live near there?
That city is the site of the US Museum on Women's History, right?
Brent
From jwinters@epas.utoronto.caMon Sep 25 22:25:23 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 19:49:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonah Winters
To: talisman
Subject: What is the significance of the Surah of Joseph?
Dear Talisman friends, my course on Qur'anic Exegesis requires that we
each pick and present one surah, so I have chosen the surah of Yusuf.
This presentation is, of course, confined to the bounds of Islam, but my
interest in it, of course, isn't. If anyone has any comments, please share...
First, why was Mulla Husayn specifically contemplating this surah; had the
Shaykhis emphasized it for some reason? Second, was this surah of
especial importance to Baha'u'llah, i.e. referring to Himself as the
"Lost Joseph" whose father smells His garment, merely because the Bab
had written His first officially "revealed" text on it? Or, third, is
this surah of especial importance for no reason other than that the
Qur'an calls it the "most beautiful of stories?"
The excerpts of the Qayyum-al-Asma available in _Selections of the
Writings of the Bab_ shed no light, and there are no detailed references
in any English Baha'i text that I have been able to find.
Please offer any suggestions you may have.
-Jonah
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonah and Kari Winters
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comMon Sep 25 22:46:29 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 09:56:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i jurisprudence
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Juan,
You wrote:
> The first and primary source of Law is the Revealed (vahy) Writings of
> Baha'u'llah, which take precedence over all others.
>
> The second source of law is the inspired writings of `Abdu'l-Baha and
> Shoghi Effendi, as appointed Interpreters of the Holy Writ....
>
> The third source of law is the legislation of the Universal House of
> Justice, which can, however, be repealed by the House itself.
I must say that I feel this outlined hierarchy is inverted.
Further, it seems that while certain elements of Islamic system of
jurisprudence are accepted in the Faith, as a whole, this system has
been thoroughly replaced with another. (Baha'u'llah is more than
just a reformer in Islamic school of thought.)
Allow me to explain my position a bit more closely.
1. The kernel of any system of jurisprudence is concerned with
implementation and application of the laws. While it is true that
certain laws and ordinances are given to us by Baha'u'llah, but it
is to the House of Justice that we turn for all the details
including implementation of these laws. This gives priority to the
House. For example, Baha'u'llah has ordained daily sayings of 95
Allah'u'Abha, but it falls to the House to tell us when to implement
it, how to implement it, which communities its applicable to, etc.
In fact, it is very likely that the House may hold a number of laws
of the Aqdas in abeyance for a quite a long period of time -- for
example, the law of Zakat. Therefore, having the law from
Baha'u'llah, as far as the system of jurisprudence is concerned, is
not primary and the pronouncements of the House takes precedence.
Further, one could argue that the words of Shoghi Effendi have
precedence over those of Abdu'l-Baha's which in turn have precedence
over Baha'u'llah's. Take for example the over-used example of
monogamy: the end result is that we follow the formulation of
Abdu'l-baha and not the outward appearance of Baha'u'llah's law.
That is precisely why we have an Interpreter and an Expounder in
this Dispensation. The words of the later Figure has precedence
over the earlier formulations as far as jurisprudence is concerned.
2. There are at least two elements in the Baha'i system of
jurisprudence that are completely missing in the Islamic system: (a)
authoritative Interpretations of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and
(b) divinely-guided legislations by the House of Justice.
Neither of these elements existed previously. The absolute
authorities which the Interpreters of the Words of God enjoy in this
Dispensation is clearly one that Imams never had. Also, we find no
institution similar to the House of Justice, with its rights and
authorities, in Islam. Therefore drawing parallels between the two
systems, it seems to me, will fall short.
best regards, ahang.
From thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.eduMon Sep 25 22:47:48 1995
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 08:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Hodges
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Baha'i Scholarship - Talk By Dr. Peter Khan (fwd)
Dear friends on Talisman:
Here is part of a recent post on Bahai-discuss. I no longer participate
on Talisman, but I thought this might be of interest. My apologies if
it has already been posted there.
Tom thodges@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Excerpted from a post by:
From: kjames@vision.net.au
To: Baha'i Discuss
Subject: Baha'i Scholarship - Talk By Dr. Peter Khan
Dr peter Khan recently gave three talks in Sydney this is part of one
on Scholarship.
---------------inclusion------------------------------------------------
Notes from the talk by Dr. Peter Khan on Baha i Scholarship
16 September 1995
University of NSW
by Katayoun Sedghi-Hassall
(3) Attitudes of Baha i scholars
The attitudes displayed by Baha i scholars is different to the attitudes of
contemporary scholars. Baha i scholars must display personal and spiritual
development, modesty, humility, and respect towards each other and other
people in
the community. Baha u llah, in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, has strongly warned us
against
false humility and lack of modesty.
There is no fixed demarcation of scholars and non-scholars in the Baha i
Faith.
Rather, the boundary between them is relative, and does not depend on gender
or level
of education. Everyone has the capacity to be a scholar. There are
scholars of
various degrees and different approaches. The more diverse the community of
scholars, the better. For example, more women are needed in Baha i
scholarship.
Thus there must be an atmosphere of respect amongst the members of the
scholarly
community. So that scholars encourage rather than contest or confront each
other.
This means that the community has a non-adversarial attitude towards
acquisition of
knowledge which is oriented to service of the Faith. Therefore, the
community of
Baha i scholars is not an arrogant community. Rather, it is a community
that shows
legitimate respect for authority and for its members.
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Sep 26 00:16:24 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Ahang Rabbani
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i jurisprudence
Ahang-jan:
Let's take a concrete example, the law on participating in politics.
Shoghi Effendi made it against Baha'i law to join political parties or
hold high political office, and there are currently administrative
sanctions for breaking this law.
`Abdu'l-Baha allowed Baha'is to belong to political parties and to hold
high political office. He initially allowed them to support the
Constitutionalist cause in Iran but then asked them to withdraw into
neutrality.
Baha'u'llah allowed Baha'is to hold high political office and actively
promoted constitutionalism at a time when to do so was quite illegal.
According to your schema, Shoghi Effendi's complete ban on politics
becomes eternal, and previous injunctions of Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha
to work against tyranny and despotism are set aside forever.
How would you resolve this issue, according to your theory of
jurisprudence, where later statements of holy figures always over-rule
their predecessors?
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From brburl@mailbag.comTue Sep 26 11:56:32 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:01:56 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence
Robert,
> "The ontology of spirituality as such does not change from religion
to religion. 'Abdu'l-Baha makes this point in Foundations of World Unity.
Therefore Bruce's Buddhist God and my Baha'i One are the same. If we
wish deal in language games then it is not unlikely that my God and yours
differ" <
And of course we, who may not have read Abdu'l-Baha's work, can assume
that there is a carefully reasoned demonstration of your first sentence?
> "Therefore Bruce's Buddhist God and my Baha'i One are the same." <
What "therefore?"
Goodness, but my "Buddhist God" is non-existent, no objective referent, so
the what does that tell us about the "Baha'i One?"
Bruce
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Sep 26 12:02:21 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:11:31 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Tablet of Wisdom question
You wrote:
>
>My Dear Juan
It has been offically translated, and is quoted in full in Weinberg's
new Book on Rosenberg , did you know that ? .Warmest Regards Derek
>
>Derek: I have, indeed; I think I cite it in my article on the
subject.
>
>Why? cheers Juan
>
From richs@microsoft.comTue Sep 26 12:04:45 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 22:56:11 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com
Cc: netmail! , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i jurisprudence
Ahang, Juan and Friends,
I think Ahang and Juan are really trying to answer two
different questions, and that stems from a lack of a clear
definition of what constitutes 'jurisprudence' and what are
the different aspects of 'jurisprudence'.
There is the _practice_ of jurisprudence, and it is primarily
concerned with deciding which laws apply to a specific set
of facts at a given time and in a given place. Jurisprudence,
at least jurisprudence as it would be practiced, does not
apply to hypothetical circumstances at some time in the future.
For this aspect of Baha'i Jurisprudence, I think Ahang's
hierarchy is quite correct. However, I think Juan is concerned
with quite a different aspect of Baha'i Jurisprudence. Juan
wants to know which parts of the present law are subject to
change under authority presently held by the Universal House
of Justice.
For Juan's question, a hierarchy involving author, in any way,
doesn't work. If any hierachy should be constructed, it has
to be based on _function_ and not on author.
Note that this applies even to the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The
principle of the equality of men and women is a case in point.
There are aspects of the revealed Law which, on the surface,
appear to contradict this principle. Examples of this have been
noted before.[* see below]
Because we have examples of cases where the Law
itself appears to contradict principles, even principles
which have been stated after the Law was revealed, we
are forced to conclude that the Law takes precedence
over statements of principle. Otherwise, it would be
possible to use a statement of principle as the basis
for tossing out a number of the Laws in the Aqdas.
Perhaps a different way to state the above idea is that
tossing out a Law of the Aqdas solely on the basis of
stated principle requires an authoritative interpretation
of both the statement of principle and the Law. Since
the Universal House of Justice cannot make such an
authoritative interpretation of either, the Law must stand
despite apparent statements of principle to the contrary.
I think the above discussion can form the basis of defining
precisely what constitutes the 'Book' as it applies to the
stated limitations on the authority of the Universal House
of Justice:
1) The Kitab-i-Aqdas, the 8th Ishraq, the Kitab-i-Ahd and
the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha;
2) Any statements by `Abdu'l-Baha and/or Shoghi Effendi
which purport to state the meaning of what is in any of the above
texts. These statements are authoritative interpretations, and
their status as such is not affected by other statements on the
same subject, but whic