!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 which do not purport to state the meaning
of any of the above texts; and
3) Any statements by Shoghi Effendi which purport to
state the meaning of any of `Abdu'l-Baha's authoritative
interpretations (i.e. any statements of `Abdu'l-Baha which
are deemed to be authoritative interpretations under rule
#2 above).
If we presume that Shoghi Effendi and `Abdu'l-Baha never
stepped beyond the bounds of their authority, then any other
statement of law must have been made under the authority
which devolves to the current head of the Faith and is, therefore,
mutable.
I think I'll stop with the above. I'd be interested in seeing
how this might be applied to the various statements
made by `Abdu'l-Baha, but I think the recent remarks of
Richard Hollinger and Robert Stockman make it rather
clear that `Abdu'l-Baha's statement, specificly the statement
quoted by the Universal House of Justice, on the resriction
of the membership of the Universal House of Justice is
considered an authoritative interpretation.
Warmest Regards,
Rick
*Mutatis-mutandis applies whereever a Law refers
to the _relationship_ between a man and a woman and
where the context does not negate the application of the
law. (See the appropriate notes in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.)
For example, the law involving the chastity of a man's
wife applies also to the chastity of a woman's husband.
However, mutatis-mutandis doesn't apply to the law of
dowry because, if so, then the affect of the law is completely
negated.
From TLCULHANE@aol.comTue Sep 26 12:05:30 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 02:03:01 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Bahai jurisprudence
I would hate to think that Shoghi Effendi's ban on partisan political
involvement would overrule Baha'u'llah's directives against tyranny or
despotism . Then I dont think "parties" exhausts the possibilities of
political engagement. It seems to me a pragmatic consideration of the
Guardian with respect to the process of forming a distinctive identity for a
religious community. This seems to me his first priority at the time as well
as developing a distinctive sense of Bahai resistance to an "excessive
industrialism and its attendent evils. " I also think it has an
historical setting with respect to the factionalism of parties in European
and American "politics" of the post WW1 period from fascists to
syndicalists, guild and fabian socialists. Being educated in England I am
quite cetain his brilliance was not unaware of what was taking place in
Anglo-American political economy and how the trends were subversive of both
religion and community.
As I read the Prosperity of Humankind it would appear the House of
Justice is again inching us closer to an involvement with the world that only
only be described as political within the older tradition of republican
thought . In this regard I find fascinating the linking of moral
development with notions of human rights and the advancement of women. It is
a resurrection of the "character " development issue with specific social
goals . It also links prosperity with a standard of critique tied to a
trancendent ethical ideal - the pursuit of justice. I also find in it an
implicit critique of the notion of progress as it has come to be understood
with its elitist technocratic solutions and the equation of life with issues
of distribution and consumption . There also is a renewal of the
democratization of culture arguments from pre-ww1, at least in the West or I
guess i should say now the North Atlantic societies. All in all I marvelous
blend of conservative theology and , frankly , radical politics that an old
prairie populist such as myself happens to love . This has been dormant in
America since the 1920's and the rise of liberal realism and the death of the
social gospel ; with one brief exception the Southern years of the Civil
rights movement .
I suspect that the linking of earlier patterns of thought explains why it
has seemed so strange to many people. It doesn't fit the dominant notions of
how life is to be conducted over the last 75 years .
warm regards ,
Terry
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Sep 26 12:06:23 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 18:39:16 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Bruce Burrill , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence
Dear Bruce,
Ain't it funny. I expected that you would greet me with great
glee, having found a Baha'i who agrees with you! But no. I guess I am
just another straw-Buddha, in need of slaying, that you met on the road...
But, enough. Your questions:
>
>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?
I respond, in the vien of the changelessness of religion etc, with a
quotation from Foundations of World Unity ('Abdu'l-Baha):
"If we
investigate the foundations of the divine religions, we find them to be one,
absolutely changeless and never subject to transformation. For example each
of the divine religions contains two kinds of laws or ordinances. One
division concerns the world of morality and ethical institutions. These are
the essential ordinances. They instill and awaken the knowledge and love of
God, love for humanity, the virtues of the world of mankind, the attributes
of the divine kingdom, rebirth and resurrection from the kingdom of nature.
These constitute one kind of divine law which is common to all and never
subject to change. From the dawn of the Adamic cycle to the present day this
fundamental law of God has continued changeless. This is the foundation of
divine religion."
Maybe this is not enough for you.... But it is unlikely that your own
investigation of the Faith will find you Bookless...
>
>> "Therefore Bruce's Buddhist God and my Baha'i One are the same." <
>
>What "therefore?"
see following...
>
>Goodness, but my "Buddhist God" is non-existent, no objective referent, so
>the what does that tell us about the "Baha'i One?"
Same, by all measures, where "existence" has a human ontology, and
"referent" is within a human epistemological scope. Your "non-existing",
unknowable God is the same as my "non-existing", unknowable God!
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTue Sep 26 12:06:57 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 19:13:41 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: bakhtin-dialogism@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: poetry & dialogism/monologism
Dear Mike,
Re:
might i suggest we put aside the issue
>of naming something either "modernist" or "post/modernist" in order to
>facilitate a discussion of dialogism, as such? derivative naming (post-X)
>creates problems.
How can we discuss anything with recourse to labels? Further, I suggest
that if the thread that interests you gathers enough support, the
discussion will go the way you wish. In the meantime, why try to curb
threads that may be interesting to others? There is enough space in my
computer for a great number of letters on all sorts of Bakhtin-related
topics.
Robert.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpTue Sep 26 12:09:10 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 20:11:15 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist dialogue
Dear Bruce and all,
Bruce, you are keeping us wonderfully engaged in discussion. I'm enjoying
it, although slightly puzzled by what your views are, and the background
you are coming from. Let us know more about yourself?
As far as I can tell, you do believe that souls will be reborn on earth,
and that the level will be determined by what effort you make in your life.
Tell me if this is not true.
A good friend of mine rejected the Buddhist teachings despite several years
of zazen because of such belief on the part of the Buddhists. When she
went to India on pilgrimage to the Holy places, it hit her with
typhoon force that such teachings were being used a justification for
the caste system and all its attendent injustices. The
implications that many Indians see in them is that if you are born
rich or in the priestly class, it is because of your good deeds in
your past lives. Conversely, if you are born poor and impoverished,
then it is your fault - you failed in your past life. Why should a rich
person, obviously morally superior, lift even a finger to help the
poor, obviously morally inferior? Maybe this is not what the Buddha
meant to teach, but it is what it has degenerated into nearly 2500
years later.
As a professional scientist, I find it hard to regard such a belief
as anything but superstition. If it had altogether good
consequences, i.e., if it was fruitful, I might change my mind.
Everywhere that Buddhism once shown brightly, and brightly indeed
did it shine, it is dead, ignored by the populations it once educated,
rejected. This is not the Baha'is fault. What we want is that same
light that Buddha brought shining vigorously again. We do realize
that our misconceptions can prevent us from seeing the source. But,
we are not so foolish as to think that today's misconceptions are
the same as those 2500 years.
You speak quite a bit about God. I'm sorry, but I don't understand
very much of what you are talking about. God is a foreign idea to me.
I do accept Baha'u'llah as the Supreme Enlightened One. He does teach
of God, although he says that our understanding can't even approach
comprehension of Him. So, to me knowledge of Baha'u'llah is as close
as I can get to knowledge of God. So, I accept as valid His
teachings about God.
Could you teach us more about Buddhism? I would like to learn more
about what you have found important, and why. So far, you seem to be
taking a "koan" approach: not saying what it is, but what it is not.
I always feel that the Japanese prefer this way, so a long time ago
I decided that there was not much difference between naming God and
denying that there was any name. Logically, if you name God, you
are forced rather quickly to recognize that names do not suffice.
So why not not name Him. That way, there is no logical inconsistency,
no needless struggle with some egocentric grasp on a concept that
will have to be overcome if progress is to be made.
Of course, then, teaching about the nameless requires a Master,
preferably with a pedigree going back to Buddha. It is not a
logical thing that is to be learned, not a bookish sentiment,
a mind-construct. It is reality itself, surely no inanimate
thing. How can you reach it without a guide? But alas, the
guides are now few, and their students nearly all gone, and
their peoples wandering in the paths of consumerism. Do you
wish to offer them the Pali canon which they rejected such a
long time ago?
Anyway, hoping my comments merit a reply,
Your friend,
Stephen Friberg
friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Atsugi, Kanagawa, Japan
Physics
From mfoster@tyrell.netTue Sep 26 12:09:34 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 06:34:25 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Unknowable Essences
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Safa -
The best explanation I have seen is the one given by `Abdu'l-Baha,
in _Some Answered Questions_, where He discusses the differences between
essence (which is unknowable) and attribution (manifestation,
reflection, appearance, or expression). For example, we do not know the
essence of a tree, but we know the tree by its attributes (atomic
structure, chemical composition, texture, color, smell, etc.), i.e.,
what we can attribute to the tree.
Likewise, as I think we are told in the teachings, there is but one
universal Reality - the divine Essence. The other two major conditions
of existence come into being by either manifesting (Prophethood) or
emanating from (creation) that divine Essence.
We can only know that there is a divine Essence by attribution (the
Manifestation of God as a Prophet) - just as we can only know that
Nature exists (that is to say, the essence of nature) by the names and
attributes of God which appear on the material plane. IOW (in other
words), using a classical argument , we assume that the divine
Essence exists by its manifested qualities (as they appear in nature),
but we have no way of directly approaching that Essence.
Loving regards,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet) *
* 72642,3105 (Staff on Three CompuServe Religion Forums) *
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff) *
* UWMG94A (Prodigy) RealityDude (Microsoft) Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Sep 26 12:10:19 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 11:29:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: tarjuman@umich.edu
Subject: Recipients of Tablets
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Friends,
In a letter dated 28 Aug 95, the Institute for Baha'i Studies in
Persian has informed a number of students of the Faith that the
World Centre has asked the Inst. to undertake the massive project
of identifying and collecting biographical info. on the
recipients of Tablets. The Inst. has drafted an outline for this
effort, but more than anything else is initially looking for
input on knowledgeable believers who can assist with this task.
An implication of this project, it seems to me, is that a massive
collection of information (including all the Writings) will be
assembled outside of Haifa. At any rate, its a very exciting
project and requires a large effort of not only examining
historical documents, but also contacting family members of such
individuals.
If anyone on Tarjuman would like to participate in this effort,
or can suggest folks that may have an interest, please let's have
the name and mailing address. I be happy to pass along the info
to the Inst. or you can do so directly yourself.
Thanks, ahang.
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduTue Sep 26 12:12:24 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 09:03:30 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: mutatis mutandi
What is the textual basis of the mutatis mutandi principle used in
Baha'i law to decide which laws apply to both men and women and which
apply to only one?--apart from the Aqdas footnote, I mean.
John Walbridge
From ahmada@acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.auTue Sep 26 12:13:14 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:04:37 +1000
From: Ahmad Aniss
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: reply to heirarchy concept
Dear Talismanians,
Dear David,
You wrote:
>From owner-talisman@indiana.edu Sat Sep 23 09:25 EST 1995
>From: Dave10018@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 17:04:40 -0400
>Subject: Patriarchy, Kingship and the House of Justice; some speculations
>
>Dear folks,
>
>Several weeks ago I touched on the ''thorny" question of women and the House
>of Justice at the end of a note to Robert Johnston. I promised then to
>explain what I meant. This is a difficult, even scary thing to talk about! I
>don't claim to have it "all wrapped up" but simply want to articulate as best
>I can a sense of what's involved that does differ a bit from what has been
>posted so far, as a point of departure for a dialog. I do not write to
>"support" the rule as it now stands, as in fact I believe the House, if it
>finds itself able to change the rule, probably should. I wrote:
To say that "I do not write to "support" the rule as it now stands",
has great implications. One would be that, you then can not accept
the statement of The UHJ that states the law is embedded in the
text and that no speculation can be made now and in future.
>>The male membership of the Universal House of Justice has, in my view,
>>nothing to do with women's capacity to serve. The sooner we accept that the
>>sooner we can talk about the real reasons for it. Any attempt to explain it
>>in terms of capacity or "function" or role of women has the effect of
>>reading into it limitations on women that are not there and which women are
>>disproving every day and which we as believers in women's equality do not
>>want women to be bound by.
You are right to the extend that, this has no bearing on the equality
of men and women and that the sooner we accept that, the sooner
we can talk about the real reason for it. But you are wrong to say
that to see this as a pattern of creation would impose limitations on
the capacity and rank of women. Functionality again has no bearing
on their equality. I have explained this by the example of the flight of
the bird and its two wings. Functionally the wings are different but
they are equally important.
>> Such attempts rest on the assumption that there
>>must be a rational practical reason for the limitation, a reason why the
>>House must work better without women, or be more acceptable at present
>>without them. I think none of these apply. I do think the all-male House of
>>Justice does represent, along with some other features of the Faith such as
>>the attitude toward Kings and the male Guardianship, a symbolically
>>significant remnant of patriarchy.
Of course on must assume that there is a rational practical reason
behind it. But such an assumption is not to say that, there are
limitations on the women's behave. This is not either symbolic or
remnant of patriarchy, as I explained before it is a pattern in the
process of Creation and is embedded in the male and female
principle that Abdu`l-Baha has touched on. The Institution of UHJ
as far as I know is a new concept established by Baha'u'llah as a
safeguard for the Faith. It can not be a remnant of patriarchy.
>> There might be reasons why such a remnant
>>might be desirable psychologically in an age when other marks of patriarchy
>>will be gone. If we try to understand it rationally, as if the exclusion of
>>women from the House membership were made for some practical non-symbolic
>>reason, we are confusing symbolic and practical realms. I will go over this
>>in a separate post.
If this is a remnant of patriarchy, what good will it come from it,
wouldn't it only increase confusion and despair. And wouldn't it
only become a mental test. Perhaps at the moment we must accept
it on faith, but that does not imply that there is no rational reason
behind it. And if you take the pattern of Creation that I describe
then the reason becomes clear.
>About the same I mentioned the same ideas in a post to Terry Culhane, who
>mentioned me in his post on the subject. He wrote:
>
>>The exemption rather than exclusion of women has nothing to
>>do in my mind with the capacity or lack thereof with respect to women . I
>>have argued against such interpretations for years.
I totally agree with you. I do argue against those interpretations,
they do not with stand the writings.
>> I believe it has a lot to do with the responsibility of men. I would,
>>hesitatingly, suggest that the limitation on gender service on the House
>>exists because most men, not all, most men need what David Taylor a few
>>days ago referred to as "symbolic patriarchy." Allow me to be more
>>personal. I consider myself one of those men. I need men on the House of
>>Justice! It is an issue of symbolic patriarchy for me.
Doesn't symbolic patriarchy imply that you need some kind of
superior entity above your head to ensure you are doing the right
thing, as said in the above statement. And what about those men
that are not like the ones you describe. A rule should apply to all
not for some.
>I wrote him that I would rush in with my own ideas, as they were a bit
>different from his.
>Now, the trail is getting cold, but I still want to get some words down about
>"symbolic patriarchy"..Even to talk as Terry did about male "responsibility"
>is too literal a reading of the male House of Justice. What could I possibly
>mean "too literal a reading?" I mean that the "men of the House of Justice"
>do not have this position because of any male talent for leadership, or
>because we need them as "role models."
Yes the "men of the House of Justice" do not have this position
because of any male talent for leadership, or because we need them
as "role models." They have it because we indirectly elect them to
be our means for receiving spiritual power and guidance from a
higher realm in Creation.
>I think things would be a lot easier if we could have women on the House and
>certainly think the House would function just as well with women on It. I
>also think the all-male House is confusing for many contemporary Baha'is, men
>as much as women. We do not understand the reason for it and when we try to
>give practical explanations, we fall into the modern error of rationalism, as
>when men in "scientific" nineteenth century Europe and America confused what
>they allowed women to do with what women were capable of doing.
Yes I am afraid that we do not generally understand it at the
moment and it will be with us for some time. But the Sun is rising
see below. Again faith and rationality must go hand in hand, and
we must find the balance that there is within them. A practical and
rational reason does exist but yet we have to take it as a faith for
the time being.
>Such misunderstandings are all too current in our community. "Rational"
>explanations which post any kind of practical advantage for an all-male
>House are demeaning to women and, plainly, wrong. Alternatively, we see the
>possibility of a symbolic rationale but take it literally, as a statement of
>our "real" natures, applying it too broadly and in the wrong direction,
>which is the ancient error and has the same effect. Ahmad's "seed of
>creation" post is, I am afraid, an example of this.
Yes, it is true that many have tried to put many supposedly rational
explanations behind this fact and who is there to say that they are
wrong, but those so to speak rational explanations must stand the
scrutiny of time and the writings of our Faith. As yet I have not
come up with any explanation that stands with the writings as does
the male and female principle (i.e. Seed of Creation). The concept
that I explained in my article does not demean the position of
women in our society in any way, it does not present any kind of
practical advantage for men. It explains the interaction process
from a higher realm (world of The Holy Spirit) to a lower realm
(physical world). This process is an intercourse. It needs male and
female entities to manifest itself. As such men (only the elected
nine) are playing a female role and get pregnant with Godly ideas
and Heavenly guidance. This could only put men in advantage, if
you consider that women are in an advantage to men, because they
can give birth to a child. further what is wrong to have a universal
and broadly applicable principle. There I must say exist some truth
in ancient rational but unfortunately is muddied by human
intervention.
>The maleness of the House is symbolic, pro forma. Because of this
>--symbolic-- requirement, the House is not advantaged but inconvenienced,
>put to no small additional trouble to be sure that it understands correctly
>in addition to the Sacred Texts the needs and interests of the whole (female
>as well as male) community. In practice, women have tremendous power in the
>Baha'i Community to make known their feelings, power which is growing, not
>decreasing, and the House must make every effort to discover the interests
>and needs of women as they are involved in their decisions and the House may
>easily do this through consultation with women and through contributions of
>women.
The UHJ being ordained with spiritual powers will indeed produce
at all times the requirements for the interest of the community
(female as well as male). And I am sure they will be involved with
such consultations as you mentioned.
> The restriction of its membership can in practical terms be regarded
>as a handicap accepted for symbolic purposes, a preference of symbolism over
>practical considerations, and this symbolism must be understood not in
>contemporary terms but as an ancient symbolic ordering preserved in spite of
>our tendency in the modern world to want government to represent the People
>through democratic representation.
To consider this as a handicap, one is implying that the structure is
imperfect and requires perfection. How could an institution that is
endowed with spiritual powers could be considered imperfect.
There is no symbolism, it is just part of the pattern of Creation. It
is perfect in all its aspects.
> In a democratic order, women's
>participation as members of the House would symbolize women's full rights of
>citizenship. The administrative order of the Baha'i Faith does have
>democratic elements and thus to an extent our LSA and NSA members are our
>representatives, representing us as individuals as well as as collectivities,
>and the Universal House of Justice as well is an elected body, but, to quote
>Shoghi Effendi, "The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
>no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as the basic
>assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally upon
>getting their mandate from the people is altogether lacking in this
>Dispensation."(WOB, p.153)
The Guardian's statement imply that the present structure is a new
one and not a remanent of the past as you put it. It does not have
to be purely democratic in character, as The Guardian says. So it
does not need necessarily follow what we know as a democratic
process.
> The House represents not the community but God the
>Father as Source of Authority. As such, membership on the House is a kind of
>kingship, especially in the absence of a living Guardian, who would have been
> a direct male descendent of Shoghi Effendi in line with "that hereditary
>principle which, as Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by
>the Law of God. 'In all the Divine Dispensations,' He states, in a Tablet
>addressed to a follower of the Faith in Persia,' the eldest son hath been
>given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been
>his.'"(Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p.148)
I totally agree with you that this Institution is a representative of
God on Earth and not of people. They are active force in respect to
the Baha'i community which acts as recipient of their elaborations.
Abdu'l-Baha's quoted statement clearly shows some relationship
between the chosen men and their role as recipient of power of God
on Earth in a spiritual interaction.
Kings, also, as,
>occasionally, Queens, have been seen as representatives of Divinity, a
>principle upheld by Baha'u'llah. "Although a republican form of government
>profiteth all the peoples of the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of
>the signs of God. We do not wish that the countries of the world should
>remain deprived thereof. If the sagacious combine the two forms into one,
>great will be their reward in the presence of God."(Tablets of
>Baha'u'llah, p.28),(see also Promised Day Is Come, pp 73-76, the section
>entitled "Recognition of Kingship"), Even though the members of the House are
>elected, they do not represent the Community but God, the Father. The
>representation of God as male is ancient and complex. The Torah presents the
>Jewish people as undergoing a continuous struggle to uphold their idea of One
>God while surrounded by worshippers of Ishtar and Baal. The "patriarchy" I am
>referring to is this one. The Essence of Essences is of course beyond all
>images, and a mature human race must understand that, must not confuse every
>guy changing a diaper with God, the Father, but that Image is, for some
>reason, important, (and perhaps that is the heart of the quandary) and
>important enough to be reflected in the Administrative Order at its highest
>level in preference to a reflection of a representation of the community.
One point that I want to raise, is that we have in the writings that
Kings in future are subject to authority of The UHJ. We have even
statements that the will come and walk through the steps upon the
Carmel mountain and testify that they worship the Faith of
Baha'u'llah. So perhaps we should not confuse the status of the
UHJ with those of kings that will be there in a Golden Age.
> No one could suggest that this is a new idea. It is one of the very oldest
>ideas. It is also a delicate idea, easily corrupted. In the past every corner
>had its lord who exercised unrestrained and arbitrary authority. When, with
>the rise of capital and the vogue for "scientific" justifications for the
>prevailing order in the nineteenth century, the ideology of the divine right
>of kings was replaced by an appeal to raw force and the idea of the supremacy
>of white males and every household had its imperious tyrant. Since that time
>women have fought for their rights, bringing men back down to earth. We are
>not kings. Even kings are not kings in the absolute sense, as only God is. "Ye
>are but vassels, O kings of the earth! He Who is the King of Kings hath
>appeared, arrayed in His most wondrous glory, and is summoning you unto
>Himself, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting." All authority, all
>sovereignty on earth is limited and really only a token, a symbol, of this
>Ancient Beauty. With the realization of this limited nature of authority,
>kingship becomes a burden. " One of the signs of the maturity of the world is
>that no one will accept to bear the weight of kingship. Kingship will remain
>with none willing to bear alone its weight. That day will be the day whereon
>wisdom will be manifested among mankind. Only in order to proclaim the Cause
>of God and spread abroad His Faith will anyone be willing to bear this
>grievous weight. Well is it with him who, for love of God and His Cause, and
>for the sake of God and for the purpose of proclaiming His Faith, will expose
>himself unto this great danger, and will accept this toil and
>trouble."(Baha'u'llah, quoted on page 72 of The Promised Day is Come)
No comment.
>The male House of Justice is thus, I tentatively conclude, a remnant of the
>old order of things, symbolically male in memory of ancient kings, upholding
>an ancient image of hierarchy which, with our understanding of relative as
>opposed to absolute truth, we know can only be actually manifest in the world
>to a limited extent, but the image of which is important to us as it points
>to transcendent reality. No longer is this image to be reflected by males in
>authority at every level. It has been minimized, by restricting it to 2
>institutions at the highest level ready to welcome the Maiden into their
>midst (the House of Justice and the Guardianship).
How could the "male House of Justice be a remnant of the old
order of things, symbolically male in memory of ancient kings,
upholding an ancient image of hierarchy", Baha'u'llah has appeared
to remove the past hindrances and not yet put another hindrance in
the path of the progress of humanity. That transcendent reality has
manifest Himself through His Creation and there is no need for a
symbolic hierarchy to represent it to us. Why, if it is not to be
reflected in all level, must we stop in that point, it doesn't make any
sense. To say that this is a symbolic hierarchy does not solve the
problem. People still can say that that brings about superiority.
I like to raise a point here, and that is that so many of the friends on
Talisman, I think have the wrong notion in regard to "the Maiden".
It seems that friends think that the Holy Spirit appeared to
Baha'u'llah in the form of a maiden. I like to say that in my opinion
this is wrong. I think Baha'u'llah is in many of His writings is
describing His revelation in the form of a women as has been done
by the initiators of past Dispensations. This is an ancient form of
describing the Advent of a New Dispensation. Baha'u'llah has done
it in that manner too.
> As the Guardian left no
>heir, the House of Justice may perhaps decide at some point that the need of
>the community for democratic representation of itself as both male and female
>does take precedence and allow the older symbolism of an all-male institution
>to pass on "through the roof", and perhaps that would be fitting. In many
>ways I think that would suit us at the present. I do have a funny wonder
>about the future. It may seem absurd but what if we really do achieve a world
>of peace and justice? In such a world the all-male House would be a remnant
>of ancient practice, a deliberate holdover, a memory of traditional
>authority. That may (just may) be its value.
As I stated at the beginning and in my previous posts I do not see
any way that The UHJ can change the law and I think The House is
in agreement with this notion by their statements in this regard.
Once again This Institution is not a remnant but a new concept that
Baha'u'llah has instituted. By this means, the society can be in
contact with the spiritual world and obtain guidance in continuos
fashion.
>I hope I have not wasted your time. Perhaps you will have some thoughts that
>can push the sun higher into the sky.
>
>david taylor
I would like to say that the properties of the sun is to shine
luminously with heat and light at its full zenith, but this does not
mean that it is hidden at down or during the time needed to reach at
a noon's position. At down the sun is there but yet with little
amount luminosity and heat. So transferring this metaphor we see
that the reason that Abdu'l-Baha is mentioning to be clear as the
noon sun, is also there presently but it is veiled precisely like the
sun at down and one has to put all facts and related information
together so to see a glimpse of the real reason. I like to say that we
currently are at the position of down in that respect and it may be
very hard to distinguish between the reality and the darkness that is
involved in this matter.
With Baha'i Love and Fellowship,
Ahmad.
_______________________________________________________________________
^ ^
^ Dr. A.M. Aniss, Tel: Home [61(2)] 505 509 ^
^ Bio-Medical Engineer, Work [61(2)] 694 5915 ^
^ Neuropsychiatric Institute, Mobile 019 992020 ^
^ Prince Henry Hospital, Fax: Work [61(2)] 694 5747 ^
^ Little Bay, N.S.W. 2036, ^
^ Australia. Email: A.Aniss@unsw.edu.au ^
^_______________________________________________________________________^
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comTue Sep 26 12:35:28 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 10:06:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Farmayyishat-i Quddusiyyih
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dearest Juan:
Thank you, a million thank you's, for this piece of his writings.
I received it in mail this morning and closed my office door and
read the whole thing. I have absolutely no doubt, none
whatsoever, that its by Quddus. I don't know why they titled it
"Farmayyishat", as it clearly seems to be text of his writing.
Question: this text is 27 pages with the last page marked as
"308" on the top left corner (prob. referring to the folio
number). Was there any more pages? (this last page seems to
finish mid-thought...)
Obviously, in the book you will be recognized as the discoverer
of this piece. When I draft the section will mail it to you to
make sure its OK. Alternatively, if you wish to write something,
(describing the manuscript that this was in it, etc.), I'll be
happy to translate it in Persian and include it in your name.
Did I tell you that the friends in Iran sent a copy of Quddus'
autobiography (about 140 pages)? They also located the Bab's
Tablet of Visitation for him (about 300 pages).
Its going to be a nice book on Quddus ...
Which brings me to a question that I've meaning to ask for some
time: interested in doing a joint book (in English) on Mulla
Husayn, Quddus and Fort Tabarsi? I know that you don't need me
for such a project, but since I've already done a lot of leg work
on it, and assembled about 450 pages of notes, think that I can
contribute. If interested, we can work out an outline and begin
work sometime early 1996 with a goal of possibly finishing by the
end of the year.
take care and thank you so very much for everything, ahang.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Sep 26 12:36:36 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:32:52 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Tablet of Wisdom question
You wrote:
>My Dear Juan
The further point was that I could post the Tablet on Talisman ,
especially the point about Historians , it sought of confirms the point
you were making a few months back. Warmest Regards Derek
>
>
>Thanks for the tip, Derek. I hadn't gotten to the new book on
Rosenberg
>yet. But I sense there is some further point here?
>
>
>cheers Juan
>
From pjohnson@leo.vsla.eduTue Sep 26 12:54:00 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 12:44:27 EDT
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Darkness and Light
According to Member1700@aol.com:
>
> Well, if Paul's fight is against self-righteousness, arrogance, character
> assassination, censorship, and the "authoritarian nature of Baha'i life" then
> I am with him 100%.
> But, I do not think that these are evils that are peculiar to the Baha'i
> community, as he has seen. Among Baha'is they have taken on a particular
> form--which I find just as repugnant as he does. But, they are hardly worse
> in the Baha'i community than they are anywhere else. I am afraid that we are
> dealing with human failings that are all too universal.
Universal because we are all partly conscious, mostly
unconscious beings. Alas, we furiously resist becoming
conscious of certain things that exert strong unconscious
influences. The function of a light-bringer is to expand the
domain of consciousness, which can be felt as life-threatening
to the unconscious. This situation is faced by every writer
about religious topics who dares to say anything not approved
by ecclesiastical authority. The only thing that is "worse"
about Baha'is or Theosophists attacking scholars than
fundamentalist Christians doing it, is the hypocrisy. We're
supposed to know better.
> And no, it can never stop. As long as there are human beings there will
> always be a continual struggle between light and darkness. And light only
> looses when we give up the struggle.
> Warmest,
> Tony
>
> P.S. Paul, I hope you stay. But, if you have to go, I will understand.
>
Thanks Tony. At the moment traffic is so high, something's got
to give. It won't be theos-l but all 3 other lists are under
consideration.
Regards
Paul
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Sep 26 15:41:14 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:43:12 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Rosenberg Tablet and the Tablet of Wisdom.
Dear Talismanians
This weekend I read the new book by Robert
Weinberg on the life of an early English
believer Ethel Jenner Rosenberg I may post a
review of the book later , however what I
thought would be of interest
to Talisman is an excerpt from the Rosenberg
Tablet that the Master had sent to the Lady in
response
to her questions on the Tablet of Wisdom. To
get the whole Tablet you will have to buy the
book it is published by George Ronald and
priced at $24.95. As my dear Friend Richard
Hollinger would want to know of course we
have it in stock in the Bosch bookshop and we
do ship , support your local web bookshop .
The Tablet is in reply to her letter dated 6th of
April 1906 , and this is a recent translation from
the World Centre : ' Thy letter dated 6 April
1906 hath been received . ---------
As to what thou didst ask regarding the history
of philosophers : history , prior to Alexander of
Greece, is extremely confused , for it is a fact
that only after Alexander did history become an
orderly and systematized discipline. One cannot
, for this reason , rely upon traditions and
reported historical events that have come down
before the days of Alexander . This is a matter
thoroughly established , in the view of all
authoritative historians . How many a historical
account was taken as fact in the eighteenth
century , yet the opposite was proved true in the
nineteenth . No reliance , then, can be placed
upon the traditions and reports of historians
which antedate Alexander , not even with
regard to ascertaining the lifetimes of
leading individuals.
Wherefore ye should not be surprised that the
Tablet of Wisdom is in conflict with conflict
with the historical accounts. It behoveth one to
reflect a while on the great diversity of opinion
among historians , and their contradictory
accounts ; for the historians of East and West
are much at odds , and the Tablet of Wisdom
was written in accordance with certain histories
of the East.'
I think it gives food for thought.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From Member1700@aol.comTue Sep 26 15:42:24 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:17:13 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: American Baha'is and Abdul Baha
'Abdu'l-Baha was in constant touch with the American Baha'i community through
correspondence, and through the pilgrims that visited him in the Holy
Land--except for the war years, when he was cut off. Both local Assemblies
and individuals wrote to him continually. The correspondence became so great
that, eventually, most letters were not answered.
'Abdu'l-Baha's instructions were communicated to the community in many
ways. Through the verbal messages give to pilgrims, in Tablets to
individuals, and in Tablets to local bodies with various names. I do not
think that the matter was ever fixed.
Tony
From Member1700@aol.comTue Sep 26 15:44:22 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 14:45:48 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Local Houses of Justice
With regard to the topic that will not go away, (I have given up trying, by
the way, so we might as well just go on. I see that the question of
exclusion of women from the House of Justice is going to be with us for the
duration, and we might as well get used to it. Proposals that it should not
be discussed further are a fantasy.) I agree substantially with Richard's
construction of event--expect that I do not believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha's
Tablet to Corinne True 1909 was misunderstood.
When the Tablet arrived there were two takes on it: The House of
Spirituality unanimously regarded it as a simple reiteration of
'Abdu'l-Baha's previous position and thought that it put Mrs. True properly
in her place. Mrs. True, on the other hand, took the insertion of the word
"ummumi" (universal, general) to mean that 'Abdu'l-Baha had changed his
position and was now calling for the House of Spirituality to be reorganized.
After that, there insued a battle royal with women all over the midwest
writing to 'Abdu'l-Baha for a clarification. His position was fairly
consistent--that women could serve on all local bodies except Chicago and
Kenosha, that had been originally organized as Houses of Justice.
Now there was a lot of writing back and forth on this issue, and if
'Abdu'l-Baha had been misunderstood on this question he had about three years
to say so before his journey to America. Even once he got here, he never
suggested that his Tablet had been misunderstood. He did, however, admit
women to the Chicago body, at the same time insisting that it be called a
"Spiritual Gathering" (probably mafil-i rawhani).
I think that the House of Spirituality was correct in their
understanding of the Tablet--which was everyone's understanding, except for
Mrs. True and her troops. It does not seem to me possible that 'Abdu'l-Baha
would have given instructions to reorganize the Chicago House is such an
obscure fashion to a women who was the bane of the House of Spiritualities
existence--seeking to undermine their authority at every chance she got.
(She even eventually came up with the idea of the Baha'i Temple Unity, which
really did succeed
--eventually--in trumping the authority of the House of Spirituality.
Anyway, as the minutes of the House show, they agreed to write to
'Abdu'l-Baha specifically on this point to seek a clarification. There is no
record of an answer.
This issue was a very contentious one in the community and it repeatedly
came to 'Abdu'l-Baha's attention. Certainly in addition to the
correspondence on the issue, pilgrims must have raised it with him in the
Holy Land. In no place do we have any indication that 'Abdu'l-Baha felt that
he was being misunderstood on these issues. From 1902, with the original
Tablet to Mrs. True which everyone (even her) agreed excluded women from
local Houses of Justice--from 1902, right up to 1912, his instructions with
regard to Chicago were consistent.
With regard to the New York House of Justice, it is clear from the letter
to Chicago that they were organized as a House of Justice before Chicago
was--perhaps also by Mirza Asadu'llah? They clearly regarded themselves as a
House of Justice. The early records of the community are lost, so we do not
have 'Abdu'l-Baha's earliest Tablets to New York, like we have for Chicago.
The recently recovered Ahmad Sohrad papers may be a help in this regard--but
I understand that Roger Dahl is sending the stuff in Persian and Arabic off
to Haifa. (Sigh.)
I guess that is enough for now.
Tony
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Sep 26 15:48:54 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 12:05:44 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Tablet of Wisdom question
You wrote:
>My dear Juan
As I believe Historians are about the discover of facts that happened
regardless of their acceptabilty or popularity , I do think this Tablet
supports that.Warmest Regards Derek. Looking forward to meeting you at
ABS , what do you look like?
>
>
>By all means, post away! Especially if it confirms, even sort of, my
>point about historians . . . :-)
>
>
>cheers JRIC
>
From lua@sover.netTue Sep 26 15:49:37 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:24:31 -0400
From: LuAnne Hightower
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Intro
[The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
Allah-u-Abha. I am a Bahá'í from Brattleboro, Vermont, and I'm thrilled to
find this list. I am a practitioner of integrative bodywork - a combination
of techniques employed to explore the mysteries of the body/mind and promote
healing (Craniosacral Therapy, Myofascial Release, etc., etc., etc.) I am
also a professional jazz vocalist and student of Central Asian Sufi/Shamanic
music, as well as a composer (I set the Writings to music). Along the lines
of mysticism, my favorite mouthpieces include Ibn-'Arabi (Corbin), Rumi,
Yunus Emre, Rabiá, and, of course, the Central Figures and heroes of the
Faith. I am hungry for dialogue on Islamic Sufism and the Faith. I am
intrigued by the healing properties of music and the spoken (Creative) Word,
as well as the process of personal transformation set in motion by
devotional practices (prayer, dhikr, fasting, etc.). I look forward to
hearing your thoughts on any of this.
Regards,
LuAnne Hightower
From rvh3@columbia.eduTue Sep 26 15:50:23 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: American Baha'is and Abdul Baha
On Tue, 26 Sep 1995 Member1700@aol.com wrote:
> 'Abdu'l-Baha's instructions were communicated to the community in many
> ways. Through the verbal messages give to pilgrims, in Tablets to
> individuals, and in Tablets to local bodies with various names. I do not
> think that the matter was ever fixed.
This is true, but there were a handful of individuals upon whom
`Abdu'l-Baha heavily relied for accounts of happenings in the Baha'i
Community. These included Ella Cooper, Roy Wilhelm, and Zia Baghdadi,
whose letters often constituted detailed reports of news and
controversies, which `Abdu'l-Baha seems to have regarded as reliable
sources.
Richard
From think@ucla.eduTue Sep 26 16:14:29 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 12:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: SAFA SADEGHPOUR
To: "Mark A. Foster"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Unknowable Essences
On Tue, 26 Sep 1995, Mark A. Foster wrote:
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
> Hi, Safa -
>
> The best explanation I have seen is the one given by `Abdu'l-Baha,
> in _Some Answered Questions_, where He discusses the differences between
> essence (which is unknowable) and attribution (manifestation,
> reflection, appearance, or expression). For example, we do not know the
> essence of a tree, but we know the tree by its attributes (atomic
> structure, chemical composition, texture, color, smell, etc.), i.e.,
> what we can attribute to the tree.
Dearest Mark,
This is throughly confusing ;) . I would appreciate if you could
explain what it is meant by "essence." Usually the essence of something
,from the philosophical POV, is taken to be its definition, concept, or
more precisely, its predicates. The subject without predicates is
nothing more than a word without denotation, or connotation. A subject
without predicates is not only meaningless, but it also the meaning of
meaningless. In other others, its like saying "IDK KWK LSL WX." There
is no information flow.
It also seems that you are calling the predicates by another name,
attribution.
I'm confused since there seems to be no clear difference between what
is meant by attribution, and essence. Additionally, what could possibly
be the essence of a tree any other than the sum of its parts, which
are of course, its attributes.
Let's imagine a God without the Names we usually give it, would it still
be the same God? For instance, let's say that tommorrow God stops being
Benevolent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Justful, Loving and Merciful. Would
we still consider Him the same God, or are we talking about a completely
different being? On the basis of this analysis, it seems that the
essence of *something* is nothing more than the sum of its predicates.
Interesting. That would mean that the essence of God remains ontologically
unknowable, not because there is something inherently deficient in our
understanding, nor because there is something fundamentally incomprehensible
about the nature of God, but rather because it is an infinite series of
predicates which cannot be added without their full expansion.
In other words, the search for the nature of God is not a fruitless cause.
It is a cause where the fruits never end to come. Predicate upon predicate
can be found without any bounds.
Now, can we apply the same logic to the nature of the soul? It would seem
most proper to do so. It is interesting that in this manner the problem
of distinguishing between unknowables becomes solved. We can imagine the
predicates of the soul to also be infinite in number, but lower in
cardinality when compared with those of God. Moreover, many of the
soul's predicates, nay, an infinite number of them, can be different from
those of God making the distinguishing between the nature of God and soul
simple.
If this is true then there is still hope to know God, not completely,
but every day better.
If anyone else could postulate another explanation I would love to hear it,
but please make sure it doesn't cause any of the paradoxes mentioned
in the previous email message.
your friend,
Safa Sadeghpour
>
> Likewise, as I think we are told in the teachings, there is but one
> universal Reality - the divine Essence. The other two major conditions
> of existence come into being by either manifesting (Prophethood) or
> emanating from (creation) that divine Essence.
>
> We can only know that there is a divine Essence by attribution (the
> Manifestation of God as a Prophet) - just as we can only know that
> Nature exists (that is to say, the essence of nature) by the names and
> attributes of God which appear on the material plane. IOW (in other
> words), using a classical argument , we assume that the divine
> Essence exists by its manifested qualities (as they appear in nature),
> but we have no way of directly approaching that Essence.
>
> Loving regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> *Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
> *President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
> *Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality *
> *Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
> *Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
> * 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
> *Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
> *Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
> *Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet) *
> * 72642,3105 (Staff on Three CompuServe Religion Forums) *
> * Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff) *
> * UWMG94A (Prodigy) RealityDude (Microsoft) Realityman (Interchange) *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>
> ___
> * UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
>
>
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comTue Sep 26 16:38:12 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:31:59 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Tablet of Wisdom question
You wrote:
> My dear Juan
Is your wife coming as well ? . Tell her you refuse to visit Dickie's
Barber's shop in Walla Walla I believe they do that awful short back
and sides. My wife always says my hair is too long for 28 plus years
that is all I have heard. Warmest Regards Derek
>
>
>Derek: I agree that the metier of a historian is to recover the past
as
>best it can be recovered, regardless of how popular that makes
historians.
>
>I have longish curly brown hair, Giorgio Armani granny glasses (forced
>upon me by my wife), a beard, and a bit of an early middle age paunch.
If
>my wife can prevail, the hair will be shorter in October.
>
>cheers Juan
>
From jmenon@bcon.comTue Sep 26 16:39:21 1995
Date: 26 Sep 1995 21:12:58 GMT
From: Jonathan Menon
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Bahai jurisprudence
Hi everyone,
With respect to the discussion on involvement in politics, I am wondering if
anyone has seen the new document from the BIC titled "Turning Point for all
Nations"? It is statement to be released for the fiftieth anniversary of the
UN and basically outlines all the things which the UN must now do to meet the
challenges of the twenty-first century. It is dated October 1995 and was sent
to National Assemblies under a cover letter dated 7 August from the UN
Office. This document really lays it out for the world as to what must now be
done with our international insitutions. It talks about how to create an
international auxiliary language, and that the representatives to the United
Nations should now be elected by the population of each country. This
document is so detailed and to the point (i.e. it doesn't deal with issues at
cloud level) that I think people in the world are really going to start to
get upset with us now (which is good, of course). The BIC also writes that
the minimum requirements for membership in the UN should be raised, and that
any country which is not in the process of committing itself to democratic
processes and human rights, and basically not respecting it's people, should
not be allowed admission!
This document will certainly draw us far into public relations work at a new
level. Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with _partisan_ politics,
but is very direct anyway.
Has anybody seen this?
Best wishes,
Jonathan
From jrcole@umich.eduTue Sep 26 16:40:47 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 16:34:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: God and attributes
Safa:
I think we might be helped by Wittgenstein and Austin here, and by
speech-act theory.
The Baha'i Faith inherits from Greco-Islamic philosophy and from the
Mu`tazilites an essentially nominalist theory of language and a
conviction that God is unknowable.
The Mu`tazlilites saw a problem with reifying God's attributes as real
predicates, since these attributes would have to be uncreated, just as is
God, and so would ipso facto become little 'gods' themselves, throwing
one into a kind of polytheism. The Mu`tazlilite solution, which came
into the Faith via Shi`ism and Shaykhism, was nominalism. That is, they
maintained that when we say God is Knowing, we are not affirming a
separate uncreated attribute, Knowledge, as a hypostasis. Rather, we are
denying ignorance in God's essence, which is perfect.
In other words, when we in this Mu`tazilite tradition speak of God, we
are employing words and syntax that look like predicative speech acts,
*but they are not.*
When we say, "Water is wet," we are affirming an attribute of water, both
of which are empirically perceivable.
But when we say, "God is Knowing" we are not affirming an attribute of
God at all, since God is beyond human perception and conception, and
beyond all attributes. We are, rather, simply affirming that our idea of
God is such that God has no imperfections.
Now, since the Baha'i God is completely unknowable and beyond all
attributes, why speak of God at all? The very first section of Gleanings
makes this clear. It is because such discourse is an aid to human
spiritual advance. That is, the speech-act of talking about God is
*instrumental* spiritually, in the same way as chanting a mantra or
meditating or making a vow to improve one's character is. It has the
form of a proposition, but as a proposition it is empty of meaning,
merely nominal. The only way to understand it is as an act of worship or
a koan paradox.
Thus, "water is wet" is meant to convey information.
"God is knowing" conveys no information, but its statement is good for
the soul. And that is why, Bruce, you might as well speak of Dharma.
cheers Juan
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 27 00:40:40 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 10:53:13 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: mutatis mutandi
Dear Friends,
>From:
>What is the textual basis of the mutatis mutandi principle used in
>Baha'i law to decide which laws apply to both men and women and which
>apply to only one?--apart from the Aqdas footnote, I mean.
The following is from the introduction to the Kitab'i'Aqdas:
In general, the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas are stated succinctly. An
example of this conciseness can be seen in the fact that many are
expressed only as they apply to a man, but it is apparent from the
Guardian's writings that, where Baha'u'llah has given a law as
between a man and a woman, it applies mutatis mutandis between
a woman and a man unless the context makes this impossible. For
example, the text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas forbids a man to marry his
father's wife (i.e. his stepmother), and the Guardian has indicated
that likewise a woman is forbidden to marry her stepfather. This
understanding of the implications of the Law has far-reaching effects
in light of the fundamental Baha'i principle of the equality of the sexes,
and should be borne in mind when the sacred Text is studied. That
men and women differ from one another in certain characteristics
and functions is an inescapable fact of nature and makes possible
their complementary roles in certain areas of the life of society; but it
is significant that Abdu'l-Baha has stated that in this Dispensation
"Equality of men and women, except in some negligible instances,
has been fully and categorically announced."
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Sep 27 00:42:05 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 17:35:38 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Unknowable Essences
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Hi, Safa -
Let me try to clarify what I said. Basically, I summarized, in my
own words of course, the discussion of essence and attribution in _Some
Answered Questions_. However, I added my own ideas as well.
Here is an amplification of my understanding of essence and
attribution:
As I conceice of it, *essence* is synomymous with *spirit* or
*inner* *reality*. Spirit itself is unknowable. IOW, it cannot be
perceived by the senses. The only way I know that God the Essence exists
is because of His Attributes which are revealed in creation through the
Prophets. Likewise, the lower degrees of spirit are also unknowable.
When I affirm that spirit (in all its degrees) is knowing and loving
power, I am describing the effects (attributes or manifestations) of
spirit - not spirit itself. Spirit is the God-given power, seen on
numerous levels, by which God's purpose for creation can be fulfilled.
So, the Most Great Spirit (Supreme Purpose and Power) is the Spirit
of God Himself, i.e, the divine Essence. Likewise, the manifestation of
that Most Great Spirit is the Holy Spirit - the essence (or inner
reality) of the Prophet. In addition, there are various emanations
(stepped-down degrees) of the Holy Spirit, i.e., spirit of faith (the
purposeful power of spiritual transformation), the human spirit (the
purposeful power of rational accomplishment), the animal spirit (the
purposeful power of sensation), the vegetable spirit (the purposeful
power of of growth), and the mineral spirit (the purposeful power of
cohesion).
Perhaps this little chart I put together will be useful:
Degree of Spirit Loving Power Knowing Power
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Most Great Spirit Source of Loving Power Source of Knowing Power
2. Holy Spirit Divine Will Power All-Knowing Power
3. Spirit of Faith Magnet of Faith and Service Inner Vision
4. Human Spirit Will-Power Intellect
5. Animal Spirit Instinct Power of Sensation
6. Vegetable Spirit Law of Growth Power of Growth
7. Mineral Spirit Law of Cohesion Power of Cohesion
Loving greetings,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet) *
* 72642,3105 (Staff on Three CompuServe Religion Forums) *
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff) *
* UWMG94A (Prodigy) RealityDude (Microsoft) Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nlWed Sep 27 00:43:34 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:12:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ membership-response to Dave Taylor
FROM SONJA VAN KERKHOFF
Greetings David, and I am sorry I was away when you were discussing
post-modernism, but that's go by and I'm too lazy/busy to pick up the
threads again.
Re: your posting on the maleness of the House of Justice as an issue of
symbolism rather than representation.
THe only argument that I can see for " symbolic patriarchy" , which in
plain language is patriarchy, when only men qualify, is something I
believe Terry referred to about men not being able to handle having
women members on the House.
But I am torn with the situation where ok, I can see how hard it is for
men to have women in positions of power but no one is talking about
suddenly having an all women House and it is likely that the types of
women that potentially would be elected would come from a similiar
background to those who are already serving.
And having women on the House would not automatically mean that
we would have equality either.
I agree any "Rational" explanations which posit any kind of practical
advantage for an all-male House are demeaning to women and, plainly,
wrong.
AND until I heard the Service of Women paper, all I felt was confusion
and all I could say was that AB said that it would become clear as the
noon day sun. Which wasn't an answer I was happy with but it was all
that I could offer to myself as much as to others.
I appreciate the point where a male only institution is forced to be
aware of the issues of equality because of the exclusion of women from
its institution, and it would be great if this were so. I am not implying
that this is not the case, for those of you who think I am criticising the
House. I am not.
However, this isn't a reason why there are no women, but rather a
possible consequence of the situation as it is today.
ANd please, 'The maleness of the House is symbolic,pro forma' is not
symbollic. It is real. There are nine men.
Where did you get this idea from?
>The House represents not the community but God the Father as
>Source of Authority.
If anything, I'd say then the members of the House should be only
women, to show us that God is not limited to a MALE God concept.
>As such, membership on the House is a kind of
>kingship, especially in the absence of a living Gaurdian, who would
>have been a direct male descendent of Shoghi Effendi in line with
>"that hereditary principle which, as Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been
>invariably upheld by the Law of God. 'In all the Divine
>Dispensations,' He states,in a Tablet addressed to a follower of the
>Faith in Persia,' the eldest son hath been given extraordinary
>distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his.'"(Shoghi
>Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p.148)
I think you are mixing up what has been written about the Guardianship
with the UJH which according to the Will and Testament of AB are
separate but complementary. Please tell me where you have found
anything referring to the members of the UHJ as repesentative of God.
Neither Sen nor I know of any. Does any one else?
Re: Guardianship, as a 'sign' of God, it does not mean that he has to
look/resemble God, in order to be a sign.
Interestingly, Baha'u'llah referred to Queen Victoria as one of the just
sovereigns (and therfore no 'lower' than any of the male sovereigns of
the time, in fact she was praised for her actions). She was not only a
women but one who bore 7? children.
>The representation of God as male is ancient and complex.
So is the representation of God as female.
But the members of the UHJ are not representations of God. The
institution has special guidance and the members are "the trustees of
Merciful", not "sign of God on Earth". So I don't see how all this leads
to why there are males on the House.
arohanui, Sonja van Kerkhoff
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Sep 27 00:44:56 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 8:49:26 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: "K. Paul Johnson" , friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: Member1700@aol.com, Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Darkness and Light
Dear Paul:
Please don't break with us if its only a question of a particular
offense. That will clean out in the wash. I certainly
understand the beckoning of other interests, however. If it is
better to leave Talisman behind, may good luck go with you.
Your post, and some of the others, have me thinking about criticism
and critical attitudes. Your critical insights as posted to this
forum have been quite beneficial to us, it seems to me. On one hand,
your stance and viewpoint is quite unique, plus you express your
views quite clearly. The result is that you have shared with us
quite openly what an intelligent and perceptive observer understands
of some aspects of the Faith that we are accustomed to looking at in
quite a different manner. I have read marvelous and well-argued
replies in response to some of your challenges, again very beneficial.
So, apart from the fact that I think of you as one of my Talizen e-mail
friends, I quite well understand the value of your contributions.
Yet, critical insight (or more correctly, criticism) doesn't always
play a positive role. As you have poignantly expressed, it can be
quite a wear and tear on those who receive it. You express
concern for some in our community who must endure often very
unsympathetic criticism when they challenge widely-accepted under-
standings. Such challenges, which are sometimes delivered in a very
provocative manner, are also criticism. Then, what is the difference
between criticism that plays the positive role of increasing under-
standing and criticism that discourages and causes hurt, pain, and
disunity?
Clearly, we are all trying to find the demarcation line between the
two here on Talisman, dedicated as it is to bringing critical
insight to a shared focus. And very clearly, we all overstep the
line sometimes and are or appear hurtful and spiteful. But, there
are things on Talisman that are a glimmering of very positive and
warming trends that foreshadow promising and anticipated new
developments to come.
One of those glimmerings is that we have a standard by which we can
measure our criticisms. For example, Abdu'l-Baha tells us that in
consultative meetings "The honoured members must with all freedom
express their own thoughts, and it is in no wise permissible for
one to belittle the thought of another . . ." Also, he says "We
must be united. We must love each other. We must ever praise
each other. We must bestow commendation upon all people, thus
removing the discord and hatred which have caused alienation
amongst men."
Baha'u'llah instructs thusly: "We, verily, have chosen courtesy,
and made it the true mark of such as are nigh unto Him. Courtesy
is, in truth, a raiment which fitteth all men, whether young or
old. Well is it with him that adorneth his temple therewith,
and woe unto him who is deprived of this great bounty."
Shoghi Effendi wrote: "Does not Abdu'l-Baha wish us, as He
looks down upon us with loving expectation from His glorious
Station, to obliterate as much as possible all traces of
censure, of conflicting discussions, of cooling remarks, of
petty unnecessary observations that impede the onward march
of the Cause, that damp the zeal of the firm believer and
detract from the sublimity of the Baha'i Cause in the eyes
of the inquirer?"
With these statements as the standard for how our discourse
should proceed, I am sure that although we fall far short at
present in meeting them, we will make constant and steady
progress in approaching them.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen R. Friberg
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpWed Sep 27 00:45:33 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 9:04:34 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: jmenon@bcon.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Bahai jurisprudence
> get upset with us now (which is good, of course). The BIC also writes that
> the minimum requirements for membership in the UN should be raised, and that
> any country which is not in the process of committing itself to democratic
> processes and human rights, and basically not respecting it's people, should
> not be allowed admission!
Dear Jonathan:
Yes, I have the document sitting on my desk. It is a list of
recommendations that the Baha'i NGO at the United Nations is making
to improve the United Nations. As you know, this year is the 50th
anniversary of the beginning of the UN, and everybody, including
the Baha'is, is making lots of suggestions as to how to improve
things.
I wonder if it is likely that the Baha'i voice will be heard. If it
is, it is more likely to be because of the sound nature of the
proposals put forth, rather than their radical nature. I don't find
the document all that radical at all. In fact, it expresses agreement
with many other suggestions for improving the United Nations that I
have read elsewhere (including a very interesting one from Abba Eban
of Israel). What is unusual is the depth of the Baha'i commitment to
certain issues which are strongly supportive of some aspects of
international thought which have come under strong attack recently.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen R. Friberg
From sbedin@gov.nt.caWed Sep 27 00:45:53 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 18:26:03 MDT
From: Stephen R Bedingfield
To: jmenon@bcon.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Turning Point for all Nations (was Re: Re: Bahai jurisprudence)
It will be interesting to compare the thrust and the specific points of
BIC's "Turning Point for all Nations" with its earlier (1965) submission
to the Charter Revision Conference.
As I recall that document dealt mainly with the Security Council and
included such points as: (1) enlarging it to 11 members, none to be
permanent, (2) no member to have a veto, (3) an armed force under the
direct control of the Security Council, and so forth.
In any case, it seems to me that the House of Justice through the Baha'i
International Community is once again proactively promoting the Lesser Peace
as mandated by Baha'u'llah (see Lawh-i-Dunya).
Loving regards, stephen
--
Stephen R Bedingfield /\ "We desire but
Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 \/ the good of the world and
Canada (403) 983-2123 /\ the happiness of the nations"
email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca \/ - Baha'u'llah
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 20:46:39 -0400
From: To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Fwd:
My God! Another one. I am really overwhelmed. There must be hundreds of
Baha'is like this out there, maybe thousands.
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Date: 95-09-26 15:21:30 EDT
I've been reading Talisman quietly for several months now, and this
article of yours affected me in a very special way. I'd like to share
with you my feelings, but first I have to tell you where I'm coming
from.
XXX is the one who introduced me to Talisman. I wrote to him after
reading some of his articles in the Baha'i newsgroup and finding his
criticism of the Baha'i community very refreshing! As a Baha'i, born and
raised in Iran, I always felt that the Baha'i community was just too
closed, and in some ways oppressive. So when I saw his intellectual and
seemingly well-researched scrutiny of our ways, it was like a breath of
fresh air. He told me that Talisman was an interesting list where
Baha'i scholars hang around. He said I would enjoy it, and enjoyed I
have, in more ways than he would've thought! His presence and what he
has expressed on Talisman has taught me something so valuable that I'll
always be in his debt. I'll try to explain.
>>Well, if XXX's fight is against self-righteousness,
>>arrogance, character
>>assassination, censorship, and the "authoritarian
>>nature of Baha'i life" then
>>I am with him 100%.
It is wonderful to see fellow Baha'is express these thoughts, but I have
a feeling that XXX's and your fight aren't exactly against the same
thing.
In the past several months that I've been reading Talisman, and before
that, on the Baha'i newsgroup, I've seen articles by XXX attacking the
Baha'i institutions with very strong language; characterizing the
most beloved sacred figures of our Faith, especially the Guardian, with
very harsh judgmental words, knowing well, that his audience held
him most dear to their hearts; accusing Baha'is as people who are
hoping and waiting for calamities, so that their
prophecies come true; accusing Baha'is as being closed minded and in
denial of their history; threatening to unsubscribe from the list more
than one time, both on Talisman and in the Baha'i newsgroup, for the
strangest of reasons. In one case that I remember very clearly, someone
suggested that the authority of the central figures of the Faith is
absolute. XXX wrote that it was time for him to unsubscribe, because
he just couldn't "stand" getting these kind of "intolerant" views in his
mailbox! Nevermind that no one showed any "intolerance" towards him.
He simply couldn't tolerate the expression of that view!!
The reason I'm writing all this is not to express negative feelings
about XXX. I actually have come to like and respect him quite a bit.
Rather, I want to explain the reason for the joy and happiness that I
feel now. I am utterly impressed by the responses that I have seen from
Baha'is to his articles. No one has said he should go away because they
can't "tolerate" his constant bashing of the sacred figures and
institutions of the Faith. No one has said anything close to what he
has said about Baha'is, about him and his fellow theosophens, even
though, he constantly compares the two. No one has been disrespectful
or rude to him, even when they have strongly opposed his views. No one
even has ignored him. You and others, have taken his posts point by
point, rationally agreed with the parts that you found correct, and
firmly rejected what you didn't, without resorting to name-calling, or
"go away if you aren't willing to see things our way" articles.
What I have seen on Talisman is what I would consider a true Baha'i
dialogue that I've been wishing for a very long time. In contrast with
the apparently scholarly approach, that says unless you see the world
through my secularist, relativist eyes, I have no respect for your
views, because you are ignorant and superficial, or at best, faithfully
blind, and in denial of history/reality/etc.. I have learned that those
scholars who feel self-righteous, are those who proclaim with the same
force and conviction as the religious people, that there is no truth but
what they believe(albeit, the relative truth, that everyone possess an
angle on), but with an arrogance that I haven't seen among the
Baha'is on Talisman. At least the Baha'is have considered the others'
point of view valid enough to present an argument to it. The other
side, simply proclaims that the Truth is theirs, and whoever doesn't see
it is blind and in denial.
XXX has said several times that the interaction with Baha'is has been
helpful to him, because it has made him realize that there are worse
communities than theosophies when it comes to disagreeing with his
views! Well, I just wanted to tell you, as one of the contributes to
the dialogue, that there is at least one person who is also very
grateful for your discussions. This one, is a former skeptical Baha'i
who thought there was no difference between Baha'is and others, and
thanks to XXX and you guys, has realized that Baha'u'llah has created a
new people afterall! We still have a long way to go, but the difference
is already as clear as the noon day sun!!
Sorry for rambling so much.
With warmest regards,
From HRG@nmsua.nmsu.eduWed Sep 27 00:59:37 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 18:52:20 MDT
From: Richard Gurinsky
To: Juan R Cole , hrg@nmsua.nmsu.edu
Subject: Re: backbiting
> I'm lurking on SRB and notice myself backbitten.
>
> If this continues I shall have no choice but to a) weigh in in
> self-defense and b) bring this behavior to the attention of the Institutions.
>
> You surely don't want me intervening in SRB. So cut it out.
>
> yours with spinal indentations Juan Cole
Juan,
Several weeks ago someone posted a message to srb entitled, "Shoghi
Effendi and Infallabilty (sic)". In it, the poster stated that you had
written that Shoghi Effendi was wrong - oooh, I have to look it up
exactly; I'm not sure I have that original post - in how he translated the
word 'homosexuality'. I believe the poster also reported that you said
the Universal House of Justice was wrong in including that translation in
the Aqdas. The poster then asked the Baha'is what we thought about the
infalliblity of Shoghi Effendi.
All of the discussion - except for one post - dealt solely with this
question of the infallibility of the Guardian. There was one poster, a
Persian, who posted a discussion of the term 'relating to boys', saying
that that was the terminology used in Persia to refer to homosexuals, and,
he concluded, therefore you were wrong in your conclusion because you
apparently did not know this cultural context of this term. THAT was the
only post that ever referred to you, as far as I know.
When Michael R. posted his question to srb, saying he remembered someone
posting that you had said something, and wanting to know if this was
heresay, I reacted by thinking, 'uh, oh... here we go on srb; now we're
liable to get into backbiting about Juan Cole, and we shouldn't do this.'
So I made a short post, _trying_ to be simply factual, referring to the
fact that there had been discussion on Talisman where this topic had come
up. I was _not_ trying to backbite about you - please get a chiropractic
adjustment (do you want to send me the bill? :)). My purpose in sending
that post was to try and cut off public discussion about you on srb - I
even sent Michael a private post and suggested to him that it stay off srb.
As far as I have seen, it has not come up again.
After I sent my post, I realized, with regret, that I should not have used
the word 'unfortunately', in the post. That was wrong of me, and for
using that word I should be held justly accountable. I apologize.
Between you and me, I think it is one thing to say, based on your
research, a certain word could have been translated differently. But it
is quite another to suggest that Shoghi Effendi may have been wrong in a
specific translation of the writings. That I personally find very
distressing, and unfortunate. But I would not say that on a public forum
on srb. If I want to publicly challenge a statement you have made, I will
do it on Talisman. I will not do it behind your back on srb.
Sincerely, Richard
Richard Gurinsky hrg@nmsua.nmsu.edu
505-439-3766 (work) New Mexico State University at Alamogordo
505-437-0173 (home) PO Box 477, Alamogordo, NM 88310
From sleep_lab@crcvax.med.virginia.eduWed Sep 27 01:05:56 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:40:51 -0400
From: sleep_lab@crcvax.med.virginia.edu
To: jrcole@umich.edu, srb-mods@bcca.org
Subject: s.r.b and your name
>Mr. Hellman: Allah'u'Abha. I am told you were hoping to contact me about
>some controversy on SRB where my name has come up a number of times. I am
>glad to provide a statement clarifying my views if that helps, or to let
>the matter drop if you are inclined to simply not have further attacks on
>me posted in my absence.
>
>
>Warmest Baha'i regards, Juan Cole, Professor of Middle Eastern History,
>University of Michigan
>
Greetings Juan,
At this point I know that you are aware that your name has
come up on s.r.b in a thread entitled "Shoghi Effendi and Infallibility".
Due to an error on the part of the moderators, we allowed your name to be
mentioned without posting your actual words.
IMHO, the discussion that was posted presented the idea of
infallibility, not the idea that Juan Cole is a [insert neg. term here]. I
believe that some people, in the absence of verbal clues and body language,
took some of the comments to be intended as insults.
I am currently discussing this matter with the parties
involved and it seems that they are all at a point were things have been
smoothed out. As it stands now, the moderators will not be posting any
comments directed at you or your statements. With this in mind you may want
to consider letting the matter drop.
I will keep you posted as to any new events and hope that
you will accept my apology for any ill feelings this may have caused.
Best regards,
Pete Hellmann
co-moderator of soc.religion.bahai
Peter J. Hellmann
804-982-3567 FAX: 804-979-4967 THE EARTH IS BUT ONE COUNTRY,
UVA E-mail: pjh5u@virginia AND MANKIND ITS CITIZENS.
Internet: pjh5u@virginia.edu -Baha'u'llah
From rparrish@bmi.netWed Sep 27 01:07:05 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 21:29 PDT
From: Robert Parrish
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Karen Austin: The intellect: a Baha'i problem
Greetings,
Robert Parrish here dropping out of lurk mode to comment on the
following:
JH>Allah-u-abha Friends: The chairperson of the LSA to my east is a
>psychiatrist, to my west and electrical engineer (treasurer is a concert
>pianist, then we have William Hatcher on the Russian LSA, and brother
>John on another assembly in Florida, in other words, this is the pattern.
>So how is it the institutions are not with the intellectual movement when
>the institutions are led by intellectuals.
Are institutions (meaning the Divinely ordained kind) that are "led" by
"intellectuals" really operating in the spirit of consultation and
unity, seeking the inspiration and guidance that occurs when "our views and
thoughts," are all "harmonized?"
Can this sort of thing happen when being "led?"
Robert (dropping back into lurk mode)
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 27 01:07:35 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:51:00 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Darkness and Light
Stephen wrote to Paul:
>
>Please don't break with us if its only a question of a particular
>offense. That will clean out in the wash.
Last time Paul left I didn't understand why some missed him, but I think I
would miss him if he left now. And I would miss him for the following
reason. We had a fight which we were able to end -- IMV -- amicably. I
must say I was surprised at just how forgiving he was -- or seemed to be.
Today, I don't get any sense of hidden rancour. Certainly, I don't get the
sense of Paul waiting, concealed and ready to whack me over the head with
some sensational thought that makes mine look like complete nincompoops.
Robert.
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzWed Sep 27 01:10:25 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 17:04 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women & Houses of Justice
Dear Friends
It seems from the discussion of the last few days that a new possibility
may have emerged. If the Chicago House of Justice was re-named a Spiritual
Assembly with its first election with women members in 1912, and the Master
had continued to deny women's election to Houses of Justice, then it would
be correct to say that no woman has ever sat on any House of Justice -
local or national. (Correct me do - has there ever been a 'House of
Justice' with women members?)
If the institution of the House of Justice is to replace that of Local and
National Spiritual Assemblies at some time in the future, is it possible
that women will NOT be elected to these Houses of Justice?
Has anyone asked the Universal House of Justice for clarification on this?
A bit of a scary thought - perhaps we might find a response from the UHJ
cause for further dis-ease.
Suzanne Michael
From sw@solsys.ak.planet.gen.nzWed Sep 27 11:33:41 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 17:25 NZST
From: S&W Michael
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Women & The House (2)
Dear Friends
Further to my 'hasty' questioning, the Aqdas states at n80:
"It has been elucidated in the writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi
that, while the membership of the Universal House of Justice is confined to
men, both women and men are eligible for election to Secondary and Local
Houses of Justice (currently designated as National and Local Spiritual
Assemblies)."
I think this creates some confusion, and possibly some inconsistency in the
drawing of certain conclusions:
1. Where do AB and SE state that women are eligible for election to local
and national 'Houses of Justice'?
2. If 'it has been elucidated', how has it been elucidated?
3. Has it been 'elucidated' because AB allowed women to stand for the
Chicago House in 1912 - henceforth known as a Spiritual Assembly?
4. If such elucidation is based on 3., then it's possibly as apparently
weak an elucidation as that which contends women cannot be on the UHJ, or
at least as weak as the belief that the premise that states: women could be
on the UHJ based on the change that did occur; is wrong.
Maybe this is a red herring ...
Suzanne Michael
Sep 27 11:37:52 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 01:52:01 -0400
From:
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: In confidence!
Good Lord! So, the conservatives are resorting to their favorite weapon--the
witch hunt. And on the internet, no less. And I thought that I was the head
demon in the pantheon of heretics! Maybe only in NSA circles.
What is wrong with the likes of Ranjbar and Gurinsky, anyway?
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Sep 27 11:38:39 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 1:52:33 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: Jonah Winters
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Surah of Joseph?
Dear Jonathan: 27 September 1995
I advise you first of all to read Todd Lawson's studies on the
Bab. Moreover, you can order a microform copy of Todd's dissertation
through interlibrary loan. It should be available through the National
Library of Canada here in Ottawa, where it was *published* with its
own ISBN no., etc. Todd's dissertation is on the first two tafsir
works by the Bab--the first written before his declaration (on the
Sura of the Cow, if memory serves) and the second on the Sura of
Joseph. A fascinating comparison. I hope it will be published, but it
may be stuck in Baha'i review due to the problem of authorizing Todd's
translations from the Bab's idiosyncratic Arabic.
Also, in the Talisman archives (don't ask me how to access
them!) you should look for Stephen Lambden's translation of the
opening *vahid* of the Bab's commentary on the Sura of Yusuf, known as
the _Surat al-Mulk_. Evidently, it was this chapter which was revealed
in the presence of Mulla Husayn, not the entire Commentary, as is
popularly thought. (This is all off the top of my head, so my
apologies to Juan, John, Stephen, Ahang et al if I am mistaken on any
of this information.)
The Sura of Joseph is the only complete narrative in the
Qur'an. So much of the other narrative material is referential,
allusive, piecemeal, truncated, episodic. I don't know if your paper
requires you to discuss the history of the tafsir on Yusuf, but, if
so, I commend to you the writings of Andrew Rippin (article on
*Tafsir* in the _Encyclopedia of Religion_ and the proceedings volume
he edited, _Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the
Qur'an_, as well as John Wansbrough's _Quranic Studies_ for a
theoretical framework. Wansbrough's writing is a form of academic
revelation--it emanates from a brilliant mind but requires
interpretation and lots of coffee to comprehend what he is saying.
Wansbrough is the most brilliant and arcane Islamicist I have ever read.
The Bab's special interest in the Sura of Joseph may have
derived from Shaykhi interests. The sura was certainly susceptible of
allegory--in which the text is taken as a point of departure but the
exegesis otherwise having very little to do with it. Todd Lawson aptly
calls the Bab's tafsir *Interpretation as Revelation*.
I hope this helps, Jonathan. Nice to have an aspiring Baha'i
academic on Talisman. The Faith needs you as a potential *intellectual
pioneer* to use the Guardian's own characterization of Baha'i scholarship.
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Sep 27 11:39:19 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 2:13:45 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Rosenberg Tablet and the Tablet of Wisdom.
Derek cites a recent translation of a Tablet from the Master
which says in part:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wherefore ye should not be surprised that the Tablet of Wisdom is in
conflict with the historical accounts. It behoveth one to reflect a
while on the great diversity of opinion among historians, and their
contradictory accounts ; for the historians of East and West are much
at odds, and the Tablet of Wisdom was written in accordance with
certain histories of the East.
__________________
Derek, this is fascinating material as it contributes in a
new way to a long-standing discussion on Talisman. Because your quote
is so coyly incomplete, I can't help but asking you if the Master
commits himself to the historicity of Baha'u'llah's *historical*
statements in the Tablet of Wisdom, or if the Master relativizes them
within Islamic historiography? Is Cole vindicated on this count after
all these years? It certainly reflects the Master's awareness of some
of the historiographical problems John Walbridge has outlined. I find
that `Abdu'l-Baha's knowledge was much more vast and nuanced than
present translations allow. This Tablet is most intriguing. Thanks for
posting it!
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
* * * Christopher Buck Invenire ducere est.
* * * Carleton University * * *
* * * Internet: CBuck@CCS.Carleton.CA * * *
* * * P O Box 77077 * Ottawa, Ontario * K1S 5N2 Canada * * *
* * * * * *
**********************************************************************
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 27 11:39:31 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 18:59:14 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
Ffolks,
Have I missed something? Today there were three letters -- two from Sue
and one from Sonja -- on the women-House matter. John did ask that this
matter be dropped for now. Has the season been re-opened/extended?
Robert.
From burlb@bmi.netWed Sep 27 11:40:38 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 00:08 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: rparrish@bmi.net
Subject: Led Zepplin (was: The intellect: a Baha'i problem)
Robert Parrish, famous for his fantastic barbeque and administrative
insights wrote:
>Are institutions (meaning the Divinely ordained kind) that are "led" by
>"intellectuals" really operating in the spirit of consultation and
>unity, seeking the inspiration and guidance that occurs when "our views and
>thoughts," are all "harmonized?"
>
>Can this sort of thing happen when being "led?"
>
> BINGO! And the award for popping the inflated balloon goes to the man from
lurkdom. Robert has, I believe, noted exactly who's name is on the zepplin
(Baha'u'llah), the source of its propelling energy, and the one who charts
its intended course. If we expect intellectuals to "lead" our LSA's, NSA's,
and various committee's we are pumping ourselves full of hot air -- the same
is true if we expect octogenarian horticulturalists or post-pubesent
guitarists to assume that role. What leads the LSA is love, unity, asking
for guidance, courtesy, dignity, and continual encouragement and support
from each member for the others and from the community at large. Show me an
LSA that is being "led" by anyone or anything other than the spirit of true
consultation, and I'll show you one that will have nothin' but trouble.
Speaking of intellectuals and trouble, how many of you whiz-kids of the
Covenant are treking to S.F. for the confab? I am seriously thinking of
crawling in Rhet Deisner's trunk or Randi Gottlieb's suitcase and making it
down there -- I figure Derek and I can convince you folks to buy out the
remaining Bosch stock of my new book, MAN OVERBOARD, and I can put some
faces and voices to the brilliant ramblings I see on Talisman. Maybe we can
get the list owner to get a WWW Talisman home page where we can download
gifs (pictures) of various Talismaniacs -- wouldn't you love a Juan Ricardo
Cole screen saver? Or Rob Stockman wallpaper? Or perhaps a sound file of
Ahmad Anise singing The Seeds Greatest Hits?
Love,
Burl
>
>
>
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 27 11:41:06 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:56:06 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Safa Sadeghpour , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence (God's unknowability)
Dear Safa,
>
>What do we mean when we say that God is by essence "Unknowable"? This
>sounds as a denial of self-reference, as in "This statement is false."
On an experiential level no one can claim to know God, in the same way that
I may "know" a tree, or clouds, or my friend. God is beyond human sensory
and intellectual experience. In a sense, then, He does not exist: where
existence is determined by such experience, then God is non-existent.
Are
>we claiming
>that we do have a piece of knowledge of God, which is, that He/She/It is
>unknowable?
Seems illogical doesn't it, but really ...we are talking about why the
Manifestations of God are necessary. Speaking Truthfully They Tell us
about God. This is the Baha'i viewpoint as I understand it.
My dear Safa, if this is an unsatisfactory answer, then maybe I'll try
again later.
Robert.
From rstockman@usbnc.orgWed Sep 27 11:43:23 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 07:00:15
From: "Stockman, Robert"
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re[6]: Local Houses of Justice
When the Tablet arrived there were two takes on it: The House of
Spirituality unanimously regarded it as a simple reiteration of
'Abdu'l-Baha's previous position and thought that it put Mrs. True
properly in her place.
Tony, how do you infer all these details from a decision to ask `Abdu'l-Baha
what His tablet meant? You seem very good at mind reading.
After that, there insued a battle royal with women all over the midwest
writing to 'Abdu'l-Baha for a clarification.
All over the Midwest? I think you mean one letter from Chicago by Corinne
True that started the discussion in the first place. And maybe one from
Kenosha? Do we know for sure the women there wrote? Who else wrote? I
think you are exaggerating the numbers.
Now there was a lot of writing back and forth on this issue, and if
'Abdu'l-Baha had been misunderstood on this question he had about
three years to say so before his journey to America.
Which misunderstanding are you referring to? I think the "misunderstanding"
of the tablet is yours.
He did, however, admit women to the Chicago body, at the same time
insisting that it be called a "Spiritual Gathering" (probably mafil-i
rawhani).
What document have you seen that links the election with the change of name?
I have never seen any such document. Nor have I see the name of the Chicago
body change. They knew `Abdu'l-Baha had called it "spiritual assembly" in the
earlier tablets when Dreyfus visited in 1909 or 1910 because he read the
tablets and told them. And they continued to call it "House of Spirituality"
until 1922. When did `Abdu'l-Baha say anything about the name being
"spiritual assembly" in 1912? How do you know he "insisted"?
It does not seem to me possible that 'Abdu'l-Baha would have given
instructions to reorganize the Chicago House is such an obscure
fashion to a women who was the bane of the House of Spiritualities
existence--seeking to undermine their authority at every chance she
got.
I don't think even Thornton Chase--who often disagreed with True--would agree
with you here! She did not seek to undermine the House of Spirituality "at
every chance," nor was she their "bane"--many liked her, and even Chase seems
to have liked her sometimes. This is a very unfair characterization of
Corinne True, I think.
(She even eventually came up with the idea of the Baha'i Temple Unity,
which really did succeed --eventually--in trumping the authority of the
House of Spirituality.
With the House's full cooperation! They did the bulk of the work in planning
the convention that elected the Bahai Temple Unitty.
Anyway, as the minutes of the House show, they agreed to write to
'Abdu'l-Baha specifically on this point to seek a clarification. There
is no record of an answer.
But don't infer anything from the silence. There often weren't answers, as you
noted in another message today.
This issue was a very contentious one in the community and it repeatedly
came to 'Abdu'l-Baha's attention. Certainly in addition to the
correspondence on the issue, pilgrims must have raised it with him in
the Holy Land.
"Repeatedly": I have yet to hear you mention more than two letters to
`Abdu'l-Baha. "Must have been raised by pilgrims": This means you don't know
of any instances in pilgrim's notes it was mentioned, but you assume it was.
With regard to the New York House of Justice, it is clear from the
letter to Chicago that they were organized as a House of Justice
before Chicago was--perhaps also by Mirza Asadu'llah? They clearly
regarded themselves as a House of Justice.
Where's your evidence for this? "They were organized as a House of Justice";
maybe, but there is no document I know of saying this, and the only documents
referring to the New York body call it "Board of Counsel." What evidence
exists that says anything at all about what New York Baha'is thought about
the term "House of Justice" any time between 1899 and 1910? How do you know
what they "clearly regarded" themselves to be?
Please note I mean no criticism here; I just seek some clarification.
-- Rob
From rvh3@columbia.eduWed Sep 27 11:57:51 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: S&W Michael
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
On Wed, 27 Sep 1995, S&W Michael wrote:
> 1. Where do AB and SE state that women are eligible for election to local
> and national 'Houses of Justice'?
There is a tablet from `Abdu'l-Baha, which I believe is found at the end
of Paris Talks, in which he states that women are eligible for membership
on local spiritual assemblies, which in other tablets he has equated with
Houses of Justice. He also states women will be allowed to vote in the
elections for the International House of Justice. In talks he gave in
the US, and in his Will and Testament, he outlined the procedure for
electing the UHJ--election by the members of the secondary Houses of
Justice from around the world. It can be deduced from this that women
must be eligible for membership on NSAs.
>
> 2. If 'it has been elucidated', how has it been elucidated?
I suspect that elucidate means the deductive reasoning that Juan referred
to in an earlier posting.
> 3. Has it been 'elucidated' because AB allowed women to stand for the
> Chicago House in 1912 - henceforth known as a Spiritual Assembly?
The name of the Chicago House of Justice was changed by `Abdu'l-Baha to
Spiritual Assembly in 1902 not 1912. However, it is true that no
women served on the body until 1912. The function of the institution did
not change either with the change of name or with the inclusion of
women. It is true that `Abdu'l-Baha envisioned local Houses of Justice
gradually taking on greater reponsibilities, but it is clear from his
writings that Spiritual Assemblies were the same as Houses of Justice and
it is explicit in his writings that women were allowed to serve on the
local ones.
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Sep 27 11:58:42 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:34:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Unknowable Essences
Dear Friends,
I think that something can only have one essence while
it may have numerous attributes.
Is the soul the essence of humans?
regards,
sAmAn
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Sep 27 15:34:39 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 11:56:46 EDT
From: Christopher Buck
To: Stephen R Bedingfield
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Tablet of Abdu'l-Baha on Persia/Europe
Dear Stephen: 27 September 1995
Yes, this tablet was published:
PRAYER OF BAHA'U'LLAH
PRAYERS AND TABLETS OF `ABDU'L-BAHA
(Some of them revealed some twenty-five years ago
during the darkest days of His incarceration
in the prison-city of Akka)
Translated by Shoghi Effendi
Third Edition
(New York: Baha'i Publishing Committee, 1926):
pp. 30-31.
(Covering letter from the Guardian on pp. 29-30.)
Thanks for posting this Tablet on Talisman, Stephen.
Christopher Buck
**********************************************************************
* * * * * *
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 27 15:35:19 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Richard Vernon Hollinger
Cc: S&W Michael , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
Richard:
The very important letter at the end of Paris Talks, dated August 28, 1913
(for which I know of no Persian text, though one probably exists) does
not appear to me to mention local spiritual assemblies at all.
Nor does it refer to the Universal House of Justice. It says, (p. 183):
"As regards the constitution of the House of Justice, Baha'u'llah
addresses the men. He says: `O ye men of the house of justice.'"
There is nothing in this Tablet to suggest that he is limiting himself at
that point to a discussion of the Universal House of Justice, and the
wording is remarkably similar to the 1902 Tablet in which he also
excludes women from "the House of Justice" without specifying level.
There does not, in fact, appear to be any textual evidence that
`Abdu'l-Baha ever specifically admitted women to local Houses of Justice,
although in the 1909 letter he admitted them to spiritual assemblies.
It is Shoghi Effendi, not `Abdu'l-Baha, who equated local assemblies with
local houses of justice and so laid the juridical foundation for women's
service on local houses of justice. Unfortunately, he did not have at
hand the contextualizing information that would have allowed him to see
that the 1902 letter referred to houses of justice generally, including
mainly the Chicago local House, rather than specifically to the Universal
House of Justice.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 27 15:36:50 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 12:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: jurisprudence
I think we are making some progress in our discussion of jurisprudence,
but I'd like to see us take the subject forward.
I think one key distinction that must be made regards levels of the law.
There are three:
1. ideal law (law as it appears to be conceived in the texts of statutes)
2. the interpretation of law (this involves weighing various apposite
texts against one another)
3. positive law (the implementation of law in a particular human situation)
Thus, the ideal law with regard to marriage in the Aqdas appears to
permit bigamy.
However, `Abdu'l-Baha pointed out that the text of the statute indicated
a preference for monogamy and that the principle of fairness must be
brought into play, so that the verse is narrowed to only permit monogamy.
Positive law, as implemented by the Universal House of Justice and
subsidiary institutions now only permits monogamy (except, e.g. in Africa
and the Middle East, where a polygamous family comes into the Faith
already formed).
Ahang is correct that the implementation of law, or the positive-law
level, is in the hands of the Universal House of Justice, and so it has
the last word.
But to arrive at positive law, current Baha'i institutions must navigate
among texts specifying statute, those specifying principle (e.g.
fairness), and the actual situation. This navigation can produce an
administrative requirement of monogamy for unmarried and monogamous
Baha'is (in apparent contradiction to the statute's permission for
bigamy) and can yet allow polygamy to already-polygamous families (again,
because it would not be "fair" to break them up involuntarily).
Some have suggested that the wording of specific statute always takes
precedence over principle, but such a mode of proceeding would make
nonsense of the above paragraph. Moreover, there is no reason for which
revealed texts commanding adherence to a particular principle should have
less weight than those specifying statutes.
As for interpretation by `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi always taking
precedence over the ideal statute that is being interpreted, that appears
actually to depend on several variables. 1) Did they have complete
information when making the interpretation? 2) Were they implementing
policy as Head of the Faith or were they interpreting law for the purpose
of setting precedent. (In the former case their policies may be altered
by the House of Justice fairly easily).
What all this suggests to me is that Baha'i jurisprudence is not a simple
matter of finding a text and applying it. It requires weighing a large
number of factors.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Sep 27 15:38:37 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 12:20:46 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: Saman Ahmadi
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Unknowable Essences
> Is the soul the essence of humans?
Hi, Saman -
IMHO, the spirit is the essence of life in all things. The essence of
man's human (including intellectual) life is the human spirit. The
essence of man's spiritual life is the spirit of faith.
Ultimately, all of these are, IMO, circumscribed attempts to describe the
One Universal Reality which manifests in and emanates all things.
However, from the above standpoint, I would say that, in a sense, the Baha'i
teachings are monist. However, even monism (like essence, attributes,
emanation, and manifestation) are labels. They are imperfect approximations
of a Reality which is supra-rational (beyond language)
Blessings,
Mark Foster
From think@ucla.eduWed Sep 27 15:44:00 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:59:08 -0700
From: Safa Sadeghpour
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence (God's unknowability)
At 06:39 PM 9/26/95 +1200, Robert Johnston wrote:
>Dear Bruce,
> Ain't it funny. I expected that you would greet me with great
>glee, having found a Baha'i who agrees with you! But no. I guess I am
>just another straw-Buddha, in need of slaying, that you met on the road...
>
>But, enough. Your questions:
>
>>
>>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?
>
>I respond, in the vien of the changelessness of religion etc, with a
>quotation from Foundations of World Unity ('Abdu'l-Baha):
>
>"If we
>investigate the foundations of the divine religions, we find them to be one,
>absolutely changeless and never subject to transformation. For example each
>of the divine religions contains two kinds of laws or ordinances. One
>division concerns the world of morality and ethical institutions. These are
>the essential ordinances. They instill and awaken the knowledge and love of
>God, love for humanity, the virtues of the world of mankind, the attributes
>of the divine kingdom, rebirth and resurrection from the kingdom of nature.
>These constitute one kind of divine law which is common to all and never
>subject to change. From the dawn of the Adamic cycle to the present day this
>fundamental law of God has continued changeless. This is the foundation of
>divine religion."
>
>Maybe this is not enough for you.... But it is unlikely that your own
>investigation of the Faith will find you Bookless...
>
>
>>
>>> "Therefore Bruce's Buddhist God and my Baha'i One are the same." <
>>
>>What "therefore?"
>
>
>see following...
>
>
>>
>>Goodness, but my "Buddhist God" is non-existent, no objective referent, so
>>the what does that tell us about the "Baha'i One?"
>
>Same, by all measures, where "existence" has a human ontology, and
>"referent" is within a human epistemological scope. Your "non-existing",
>unknowable God is the same as my "non-existing", unknowable God!
It seems that Bruce is denying the subject while mantaining the predicate,
while Robert is denying the semantic content of the predicate without
touching upon the subject.
This brings me to my question:
What do we mean when we say that God is by essence "Unknowable"? This
sounds as a denial of self-reference, as in "This statement is false." Are
we claiming
that we do have a piece of knowledge of God, which is, that He/She/It is
unknowable?
It is as to claim that there is no absolute truth while mantaining that this
sentence itself
*is* absolute truth.
Or are we saying that to the subject (God) pertains an infinite number of
consistent
predicates which could not be enumerated, and without a full enumeration of them
we wouldn't be talking about the "true" God, but of a shadow which only
possesses
a limited number of His attributes? Of course, if we claim this, then we may
not say
that one of those attributes is unknowability since we would fall in the same
referencical trap. IOW, we cannot get away with simply stating that God is
Unknowable while acknowledging that God is a logical entity. But, then, if
we deny
God's logical character we fall into the question of why do we live in a world,
which at least seems logical, and why Shoghi Effendi states that there can be a
scientific study of religion (read logical ;) ) ?
Let's assume that we accept that God is by its very nature unknowable. Then,
it would
seem that no proof for the existence of God could exist insomuch that every
proof
makes some type of negative or positive assertion regarding the nature of God.
For instance, by stating that all things have a cause and that the Cause of
all causes
is God, we are saying that God *is* a cause. Then, we would know *something*
about
the Unknowable, which is contradictory. Thus, our proof would be meaningless.
Let's assume that we ignore this problem, and accept with all our heart and mind
that God, in reality, is in principle "Unknowable." Would this mean that
this Unknowable
is equivalent to all other unknowables? Here metaphysics becomes interlinked
with
epistemology since we are not talking about practical unknowability, but
rather, the
fact that God is, under Baha'i thought, metaphysically unknowable. One might
ask,
what else is metaphysically unknowable under this scheme, and of course, the
answer
is the soul.
Having these two metaphysically unknowable entities, which in principle we
cannot
differentiate from the other, would be correct in saying that they are the
same? No
answer that states that God is "greater" than the soul would be valid
insomuch that
it would be professing to know *something* about God, which is contradictory.
Following this line of thought, and pushing the notion of metaphysical
unknowability
to the limits would, without doubt, cause incredible philosophical and
logical problems. Therefore, it seems, either that the notion in itself is
flawed, or that
our understanding of it is limited. Having preference for the latter I would
appreciate
if any of the friends could suggest how this notion of unknowability could
be understood without causing inconsistencies, and remaining complete ;) .
In self-denial ;)
Safa
>
>Robert.
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it as
it is and why it exists as all." - Stephen Hawking
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are
forever." - The Laws of Physics
"The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing
opinions." Abdu'l-Baha
Safa Sadeghpour (think@ucla.edu)
http://www.smc.edu/homepage/maclab/maclab.web/web/safa.web/safa.htm
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Sep 27 15:44:05 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 23:00:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Baha'i jurisprudence
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Beloved Juan:
Great example, let's work with it. You wrote:
> 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.
[snip]
> 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?
Actually I think the answer is very simple. According to the model I
outlined, (inspired by Cole's brilliant first approximation), its up
to the House of Justice to tell us when its time to participate in
politics, to what degree, in what fashion, etc., as the rulings of the
House has primacy in matters of laws and jurisprudence over all
others.
In this example, the statement of the beloved Guardian is not meant to
be an interpretation of the Sacred Text binding forever. Its simply a
matter of temporary legislations (which he had to do in so many cases
in absence of the House), and the House is perfectly free to alter it
when it sees fit.
Simple.
much love, ahang.
PS. An example where the House of Justice has already altered a
temporary guidance of Shoghi Effendi is the manner in which we elect
our delegates to the National Conventions. Unlike the time of the
Guardian, it is now universally strictly statistical and based on
proportional representation.
From alma@indirect.comWed Sep 27 15:44:13 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 07:09:44 -0700
From: Alma Engels
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Dr Cole and your post
Dear Juan,
Thought you might be interested in this. I missed all of this thread but
the end as I was computerless in Hawaii for a week. "Heresay' is an
interesing word, isn't it.
In peace, Alma
>Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 03:16:21 EDT
>From: Pete Hellmann
>To: alma@indirect.com
>Subject: Dr Cole and your post
>Cc: pjh5u@virginia.edu
>
>----------
>X-Sun-Data-Type: text
>X-Sun-Data-Description: text
>X-Sun-Data-Name: text
>X-Sun-Content-Lines: 19
>
>Greetings Alma,
>
>This is to let you know what is happening with the thread:
>"Shoghi Effendi and Infallibility". The moderators have decided,
>after consultation, that we have been negligent in our duties to
>allow this discussion to get to the point it is. We are currently
>attempting to contact Dr. Cole in an effort to post the material
>from Talisman and/or get a statement from Dr. Cole himself.
>
>Until such time we feel it is prudent to stop posting messages
>concerning this topic.
>
>
>Thank you for participating,
>
>Pete Hellmann
>co-moderator of soc.religion.bahai
>
>
>----------
>X-Sun-Data-Type: default
>X-Sun-Data-Name: alma_sho.srb
>X-Sun-Content-Lines: 74
>
>From: SMTP%"alma@indirect.com" 23-SEP-1995 09:07:08.15
>To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net
>CC:
>Subj: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallibility
>
>There is at least one misconception in this article. There is no newsgroup
>called Talisman. There is a mailing list by that name.
>
>I have been away on vacation and missed any quote from Dr. Cole. So perhaps
>what is implied was stated by him. However, if it wasn't, I do not think it
>is justified to paraphrase anyone on such an important topic. Dr. Cole makes
>many fine distinctions and to bluntly state that Dr. Cole says that the
>Guardian was
>
>>> outright incorrect in certain interpretations
>
>without qualification does an injustice to someone who, so far as I know, does
>not read this newsgroup. Since Dr. Cole takes responsibility for what he
>says, it is possible to quote what he has emailed to Talisman.
>
>In peace,
>Alma
>
>
>In article Richard Gurinsky
> writes:>From: Richard Gurinsky
>>Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallibility
>>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 07:30:05 GMT
>
>
>>> I noticed a few [I think about two] people on this group referring to
>>> Dr. Cole as having stated that the Guardian was outright incorrect in
>>> certain interpretations. I am curious as to whether or not this is
>>> "hear-say"; you heard him say this; or Dr. Cole has actually published
>>> a formal statment to the house or someone stating this.
>
>>There is another newsgroup called "Talsiman"; and in a post to that list,
>>Dr. Cole made this statement. Unfortunately, it is not heresay.
>
>>Richard
>>Richard Gurinsky hrg@nmsua.nmsu.edu
>
>>505-439-3766 (work) New Mexico State University at Alamogordo
>>505-437-0173 (home) PO Box 477, Alamogordo, NM 88310
>
>
> To tread the path of Love Alma Engels
> Is no mere game. alma@indirect.com
> For only one
> Out of many thousands
> Can perserve in His Love. (Tahirih)
>================== RFC 822 Headers ==================
>Return-Path: postmaster@i.net
>Received: by crcvax.med.virginia.edu (UCX V3.2-9B VAX)
> Sat, 23 Sep 1995 09:07:02 -0400
>Received: from pdx1.world.net by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20484;
> 23 Sep 95 9:11 EDT
>Received: from world.net (sydney2.world.net [198.142.12.2]) by pdx1.i.net
(8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA16459 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 1995
06:10:57 -0700
>Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by world.net
(8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA12779 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 1995
23:12:34 +1000
>Received: from globe.indirect.com by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP
> id QQziky01331; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 09:10:42 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (from root@localhost) by globe.indirect.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id
GAA08006; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 06:10:22 -0700
>To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net
>Path: slip171.indirect.com!alma
>From: Alma Engels
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
>Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi and infallibility
>Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 06:12:31 UNDEFINED
>Organization: Internet Direct, Inc.
>Lines: 46
>Message-ID:
>References:
>NNTP-Posting-Host: slip171.indirect.com
>X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]
>
>
From brburl@mailbag.comWed Sep 27 15:44:41 1995
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:03:44 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence
Juan,
Thanks for your msg.
> '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.' <
I never said that Momen said the Buddha used the term god. As a matter of
fact, I clearly point out that he did not say that.
Let me repeat my self and let me a make correction:
'What a close reading will show that you [Momen] 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 the correction:
"A close reading of your text will show that though you did NOT directly
state that the Buddha taught a god, your very obvious implications cannot be
escaped."
The "not" was missed when I originally posted this msg. A proof reader
would be of great help.
My point is that by the time Momen does talk about the supposed "Absolute"
in Buddhism, "Absolute" is a term that he has already equated with the idea
of god. With reference to Frege, it was Momen who said "same entity,"
using the words "Absolute" and "God" interchangeably in his text in the same
way he interchangeably equates and uses "Buddhas" with "Manifestations of
God." Momen collapses the connotations, and he never demonstrates that the
supposed Buddhist "Absolute" is the "same entity" as the Baha'i "God," or
that Manifestations of God are Buddhas, though he collapses that distinction,
or, since you are so concerned with connotations and denotation, that
Baha'u'llah taught _Dhamma_.
> 'Thus, in a Baha'i semiotics, "God" and the Buddha's "Unborn,
Unoriginated" are signs that have the same ultimate referent.' <
But to say that they have the "same ultimate referent" is not a little
problematic; it is majorly problematic, and to have meaning beyond mere
assertion that these terms "have the same ultimate referent" some proof is
required. The rest of your argument, until the question of "same ultimate
referent" is settled, is irrelevant.
> "Flattening out the signs into mere equivalents by ignoring connotation
and looking only at denotation results in nonsense." <
This precisely what Momen has done, thus my complaint.
> '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."' <
Western conception of god? I am well aware how Baha'is disassociate their
notion of god from what has gone before, but quite frankly that is beside the
point. What Momen is offering is a defining of Buddhism in terms of Baha'i,
which is essentially what your "third term" boils down to, or so it seems.
> "for corroborating proof you have only to study his chapter on religious
relativism in Studies in Babi and Baha'i Religions vol. 5." <
I do not have access to it, but what from I have seen of it from Momen, you,
and others here, it looks a lot like Hick's approach, which is less than
convincing.
> "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)." <
What is the function of Baha'i dialogue if it ended so easily? If a Baha'i want
to see how the Buddha's teaching fits into the Baha'i framework, I would
hope that first rather than making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions about
"Absolutes" in the Buddha's teaching, the Baha'i explorer would try to find
out what it that the Buddha taught from the perspective Buddhism. I get
absolutely no sense of this in Momen's book, as sympathetic as he is to
Buddhism.
So the unity of religion for most Baha'is is not something that can be
carefully explored; rather, it must just be grokked somehow? Nirvana can
been seen, but let us not also forget that nirvana also exists in verb form, so
one becomes nirvanized. But is the seeing of unity that you believe is there
the same as seeing nirvana? What is the point of this comparison? (And as an
aside it is not Walpole, it Walpola.)
> "In the same way, to begin by rejecting the transcendent unity of the
religions ends any dialogue on the subject with Baha'is." <
To me that is a really sad statement. But understand something, I am not
rejecting some sort of transcendent unity. My point is that if there is such a
unity is not easily seen or demonstrated, and certainly not by easy equations
of quoting a couple of passages. If Momen wants the Udana 80 to be the
same entity, as he claims it is, as Baha'u'llah's god, then he needs to be able
to do a very careful exegesis. It shows no respect to Buddhism and the
Buddha quoting this passage without making a serious attempt at
understanding it fully in all its elements. He does not have to have it in his
book, but that understanding needs to be there; otherwise, what do we then
have?
> "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" <
Maybe, but do we then take the time and effort -- the very hard work -- to
carefully understand what these other scriptures are saying, or can we make
them say what we want to meet this goal of unity?
> "In any case, I think it will be more fruitful to return to the 8-fold
Noble Path than to discuss Transcendent Reality." <
How can we discuss the Eight-fold Path without discussing the goal of the
path?
Bruce
From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduWed Sep 27 15:53:43 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:51:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: srb
Juan, I'd like to suggest a different tack for you. Permit me a
philosophical musing on the Name of God, "The Wronged One." I find it a
useful spiritual exercise to allow myself to be misunderstood sometimes.
I figure that in the long run, like a river, my direction will be clear
to others, and a misapprehension here or there won't amount to much. I
recommend this course of action to you. It's not like there's a real
dialogue going on there about you.
Monitoring SRB is, I suggest, not a real useful use of your time. Lots
of messages, substance not real often.
(Step down from soap box.)
OK. To subscribe you send a message to:
bahai-faith-request@oneworld.wa.com
Tell them your name and address and that you want to subscribe. From
then on, you post to
bahai-faith@oneworld.wa.com
Su amigo
Brent
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 27 16:08:20 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 11:42:29 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
Dear Juan and Friends,
>From: Juan R Cole
>There does not, in fact, appear to be any textual evidence that
>`Abdu'l-Baha ever specifically admitted women to local Houses of Justice,
>although in the 1909 letter he admitted them to spiritual assemblies.
>It is Shoghi Effendi, not `Abdu'l-Baha, who equated local assemblies with
>local houses of justice and so laid the juridical foundation for women's
>service on local houses of justice.
I'm confused by these remarks. Quoting from the Universal House
of Justice's response to the paper on Service of Women:
[Begin Quote]
In the following passage, `Abdu'l-Baha referred to membership of the
"House of Justice" being restricted to men, without a specific designation
of the level or levels of the institution to which this provision applied:
The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text
of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the
Lord God's, which will ere long be made manifest as clearly as the
sun at high noon.
("Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha" [rev.
ed.], (Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1982), p. 80)
Later the Master clarified that it was only the Universal House of Justice
whose membership was confined to men. `Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the
equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the
Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text
of the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice
are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Con-
struction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly,
and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally
in all rights with men.
(from a newly-translated Tablet)
[End Quote]
It appears that the Universal House of Justice has a tablet from
`Abdu'l-Baha which makes this point clear. How do your remarks
square with what the Universal House of Justice says above?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Sep 27 19:15:27 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: Rick Schaut
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
Rick: The second letter of Abdu'l-Baha that you quote from 1909 does not
in the original Persian say Universal House of Justice (Baytu'l-Adl-i A
zam). It says "general (umumi) house of justice." "General" is a
comparative term, contrasting with specific. Abdu'l-Baha in the Will and
Testament does refer to the Universal House of Justice as "general" in
contrast to the specific (khususi) national houses of justice. But,
obviously, a national house of justice is general compared to a specific
local house of justice. Thus, there is evidence that Abdu'l-Baha
referred to e.g. Iran's major LSA, in Tehran, as a general house of justice.
So, there is a dispute about what exactly the 1909 letter means. Even if
one did not think it referred to the Chicago LSA, the term "general house
of justice" could refer to a hypothetical national house of justice.
It is only during his 1912 visit that Abdu'l-Baha explicitly orders a
mixed-gender LSA in Chicago.
Finally, the letter does not mention local houses of justice, and does
not authorize women to serve on them, only on local assemblies and other
committees; the opening line about "all" other service being open to them
may be rhetorical.
In response to Richard, I would like to point out that in Ma'idih-yi
Asmani Abdu'l-Baha makes a strong distinction between houses of justice
and local assemblies, seeing the latter as teaching units and the former
as judicial or executive (hakim) ones. I have posted a translation and
citation earlier.
On the other hand, there are passages from Shoghi Effendi that identify
local houses of justice with LSAs and it seems clear that the Guardian
did not envisage women ever being excluded from such institutions, even
when the name changed.
The reason this discussion has not gone away is that the documentary
record is extremely confusing.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 27 19:16:48 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 12:48:53 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: jurisprudence
Dear Juan and Friends,
The crux of the difficulty, here, seems to be in a failure to separate
the resoning and information involved in a decision from the authority
that's being exercised in a decision. This can be seen in Juan's example
of `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation that the Law enjoins monogomy
despite the apparent text of the law and how Juan relates `Abdu'l-Baha's
line of reasoning to instances where already poligamous families
are allowed to remain poligamous after becoming Baha'is.
The former is clearly an exercise of `Abdu'l-Baha's authority to
interpret the Law. The latter is an exercise of an authority to
progressively unfold the Law as the world moves toward the
ideal to which the Law applies. Even if the reasoning might be
the same, the authority exercised is quite different.
This confusion is also evident in the following remarks:
>From: Juan R Cole
>As for interpretation by `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi always taking
>precedence over the ideal statute that is being interpreted, that appears
>actually to depend on several variables. 1) Did they have complete
>information when making the interpretation? 2) Were they implementing
>policy as Head of the Faith or were they interpreting law for the purpose
>of setting precedent.
Dealing with the points in reverse:
2) They cannot be both interpreting the text and implementing policy
as the head of the Faith. Whatever the reasoning used in an interpretation,
that reasoning does not allow an interpretation to be changed by the
Universal House of Justice. Nor would the use of any particular line of
reasoning in some exercise of the authority to implement policy imply
that at interpretation which uses a similar line of reasoning should be
deemed an implementation of policy as the Head of the Faith.
1) Even if we could answer this question, I don't know what we can
do with the answer. Even if we assume that we could determine
that a particular interpretation was not based on 'complete'
information--a _very_ strong assumption--the interpretation
is not magicly converted into an implementation of policy. We
may be forced to live with such an interpretation if we are to adhere
to the provisions of Baha'u'llah's Covenant.
Clearly something other than the line of reasoning used by the author
and/or our understanding of the information available to the author
must be used to determine whether or not a decision constitutes an
exercise of the authority to interpret the Writings. I have proposed
just such a method, but it seems to have not warranted significant
discussion.
Indeed, the question, "How do we tell whether something is an
interpretation or merely an implementation of policy," has received
so little discussion on Talisman, despite the fact that the issue has
been brought up a number of times, that I'm beginning to get a bit
concerned. We all agree that it's important to have an answer to this
question. How, then, can we proceed in a discussion of Baha'i
jurisprudence without finding a systematic way to answer this
question?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Sep 27 19:17:47 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:31:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
Dear Friends,
Rick quoted the UHJ in which they refer to the letter from Abdul Baha to
Corine True (1909):
> Later the Master clarified that it was only the Universal House of Justice
> whose membership was confined to men. `Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
>
> According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the
> equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the
> Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text
> of the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice
> are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Con-
> struction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly,
> and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally
> in all rights with men.
> (from a newly-translated Tablet)
I think Richard's question still stands: why does Abdul Baha
refer to "the head" of the Universal (ummumi) House of Justice
as being male? If the reference is to *all* Houses of Justice,
then how would have that affected the makeup of the lower Houses?
BTW, what is the "Book" to which Abdul Baha is refering? Is it a
reference to Aghsan with regard to "endowments" in the Aqdas?
regards,
sAmAn
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comWed Sep 27 19:17:57 1995
Date: 27 Sep 95 17:35:51 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talisman Gathering at ABS/SF
Dear Talismanians,
Yes, an evening of introductory fun would seem highly appropriate and
desirable for Talismaniacs attending the ABS conference... so let's
plan one. How's by Friday eve, dinner?
Love,
David
From brburl@mailbag.comWed Sep 27 19:21:13 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 16:45:51 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Dead Buddhism
Stephen,
> "Bruce, you are keeping us wonderfully engaged in discussion." <
I suspect yours is a minority view. Thanks.
> "I'm enjoying it, although slightly puzzled by what your views are, and
the background you are coming from. Let us know more about yourself?"<
I'm 46 or 47. Damdifi can remember right now. Getting old, you know. I've
been a Buddhist since 1969. I was a Conscientious Objector during Viet Nam
war. I am a rehab nurse, I have a BA in South Asian Studies from U of W,
Madison, but all my elective work was upper level in the Buddhist Studies
PhD Program. I lived in Thailand for a while as an ordained Buddhist monk.
I've lived in a Zen center for three years, I've studies with Tibetan,
Theravadin, and Zen teachers. Of the various schools of Buddhism, my
preference is Theravada/Pali Buddhism with an interest in the Prajna
Paramita Literature.
At one time some twenty plus years ago, I seriously considered Baha'i, but
opted for the richer and deeper traditions of Buddhism. I still have an
affection for Baha'i, and have over the years run into various Baha'is and
Baha'i communities, always the better for the experience. I ride a Harley-
Davidson Electra Glide Sport, which is a very intense form of dharma
practice. I have a girl friend who has a 9 year old kid, my favorite group is
the Yardbirds and I don't have a favorite color and I have a very sweet Shar-
pei. Anything else you'd like to know?
> "As far as I can tell, you do believe that souls will be reborn on earth,
and that the level will be determined by what effort you make in your life.
Tell me if this is not true." <
No. Buddhists do not believe in souls, but I have reasons for believing rebirth
is correct picture of what happens.
> "A good friend of mine rejected the Buddhist teachings despite several
years of zazen because of such belief on the part of the Buddhists. When she
went to India on pilgrimage to the Holy places, it hit her with
typhoon force that such teachings were being used a justification for
the caste system and all its attendant injustices." <
Well, your friend poorly understood a number of things. The caste
system is Hindu, and what Hindus have chosen to do with their idea of
reincarnation should not reflect upon the Buddhist notion of rebirth. Actually
the foundational teaching behind the caste system is not reincarnation. If your
friend wanted to correctly get her nose out of joint she should read the
Bhagavad Gita where Krishna, aka god, states that he created the caste
system. The caste system was divinely ordained.
> "Maybe this is not what the Buddha meant to teach, but it is what it has
degenerated into nearly 2500 years later." <
Since the Buddha did teach rebirth, but very strongly rejected the caste
system why are you laying blame for the Hindu caste system upon Buddhism,
which has been essentially absent from India since the Islamic invasion of the
12th Century?
> "As a professional scientist, I find it hard to regard such a belief
as anything but superstition. If it had altogether good
consequences, i.e., if it was fruitful, I might change my mind." <
Well, certainly the idea of god has not had altogether good results, the caste
system is a very nice example, so then are you going to change your mind
about god?
> "Everywhere that Buddhism once shown brightly, and brightly indeed
did it shine, it is dead, ignored by the populations it once educated,
rejected. This is not the Baha'is fault. What we want is that same
light that Buddha brought shining vigorously again. We do realize
that our misconceptions can prevent us from seeing the source. But,
we are not so foolish as to think that today's misconceptions are
the same as those 2500 years." <
Why do Baha'is, I asked rhetorically, want Buddhism to be dead? Now, you
made this statement, and I can then assume that you are willing and able to
show in detail that it is true, or are you indulging in uncritical rhetoric?
> "You speak quite a bit about God. I'm sorry, but I don't understand
very much of what you are talking about. God is a foreign idea to me.
I do accept Baha'u'llah as the Supreme Enlightened One. He does teach
of God, although he says that our understanding can't even approach
comprehension of Him. So, to me knowledge of Baha'u'llah is as close
as I can get to knowledge of God. So, I accept as valid His
teachings about God." <
So when a Baha'i or Baha'u'llah says the word god, what are we to
understand as being meant by that? Since I have studied Baha'i and have
talked to Baha'is at length about these issues, I think that when I say god,
you can understand it as being what you probably mean by it. However, in
looking at the new, ongoing discussion of god the unknowable essence, it is
clear that Baha'is really haven't the foggiest idea of what god means, because
anything you can say about god is actually false, even that god is an
unknowable essence has to be false, otherwise you are asserting a truth claim
about what is above truth claims, and even that is false....
Baha'is are sort of in a position of a man who is told about the most beautiful
woman in the world, and he falls in love with her on the basis of what he is
told, though he has never seen her. And to make it worse, the man who told
him about her states that actually everything he said was about her is not
true, because her beauty is beyond description, beyond experience, and not
only that, this poor love-smitten can never see this most beautiful woman in
the world, but he is told she exists.
> "Could you teach us more about Buddhism?" <
What would like to know?
> "I would like to learn more about what you have found important, and
why." <
It present a careful understanding of the human condition and offers a
solution that does not involve further dependence.
> "Of course, then, teaching about the nameless requires a Master,
preferably with a pedigree going back to Buddha. It is not a
logical thing that is to be learned, not a bookish sentiment,
a mind-construct. It is reality itself, surely no inanimate
thing. How can you reach it without a guide? But alas, the
guides are now few, and their students nearly all gone, and
their peoples wandering in the paths of consumerism. Do you
wish to offer them the Pali canon which they rejected such a
long time ago?" <
Who rejected the Pali Canon? The Pali texts have a great deal to offer in any
number of ways, and this isn't just theoretical. There are a lot of socially
engaged Buddhists in this country and in Buddhist countries living the
principles spelled out the Pali texts.
Bruce
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comWed Sep 27 19:23:15 1995
Date: 27 Sep 95 17:57:03 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Franklin Kahn's Rights
Dear Talismanians,
I just heard a most distressing story that I thought someone out there
might be able to confirm or deny.
Seems Franklin Kahn, Navajo Baha'i, ex-National Spiritual Assembly
member, and most respected scion of a large extended Native American
Baha'i family, fell deathly ill some months ago. Although the nature of
the illness wasn't described in this story I heard, it was obviously
severe and life-threatening. Western medicine was employed to its
fullest extent, and did not work. Franklin's condition continued to
deteriorate.
At that point, Franklin's family decided to seek the help of the Navajo
healer in their area on the reservation. The healer agreed to try his
best, and danced the most powerful traditional Navajo healing ceremony
for Franklin. Franklin subsequently recovered, and is now healthy. The
problem? -- the ceremony involved the ritual use of peyote as a healing
talisman. For this, Franklin's administrative rights have since been
removed by the National Spiritual Assembly. I understand that he is
currently appealing this decision to the Universal House of Justice.
I did not hear this story from Franklin, whom I haven't spoken to since
the day I left Arizona in 1977, nor from anyone in his family, but from
a concerned Baha'i in Arizona, worried about the chilling effect such an
action might have on Native American teaching, not to mention the effect
on the family and Franklin.
Does anyone have information on this case? Aside from that, what kind of
wide boundaries can we as Baha'is be expected to make for the practice of
indiginous healing arts when they involve substances such as peyote? Does
this sort of practice -- an obviously successful one in this case -- have
any parallels with Baha'u'llah's countenancing the use of alcohol by
those engaged in medical practices for medicinal purposes?
Just wondering, and concerned.
Love,
David
From entry.bt@ix.netcom.comWed Sep 27 19:24:06 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:27:36 -0700
From: "Amatu'l-Baha' Teaching Crusade-GRTR. HOUSTON"
To: Baha'i Announce
Subject: ASSISTANT TO ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST BECOMES BAHA'I
SEPTEMBER 25,1995
Dearly loved friends,
There is yet more exciting news about the Amatu'l-Baha Teaching
Crusade in the Greater Houston area:
Last night,a gentelman in his late 60s walked into the
Woodlands Baha'i Center. He had heard of the Faith through
the teaching team earlier. For nearly 2 hours the friends
told him of the Faith of God and he enthusiastically enrolled
in the Cause. He was particularly enamoured with the Writings
of Baha'u'llah. He informed them that he has acted as an
assistant to the priest of the Roman Catholic Church for
many years. He invited the teaching team to accompany him
the next day to meet with the priest.
This morning, he had arranged breakfast with a minister and
two of the priests of the Church. The new believer himself
carried on teaching the Faith to the clergymen and emphat-
ically informed them that he "has joined the Baha'i Faith".
He then asked the teaching team members if they could join
him on his daily routine of visiting the sick in the hospit-
als, and the poor and the needy. They gladly joined him.
The team members say that "Abdu'l-Baha like, this man has been
visiting, loving, praying with the sick and the down-trodden".
They say: "all day long, as he went from place to place, like
a saint, people flocked to him, and he in turn and without
exception and with great ferver and love told them about the
'great thing that happened to him last night' and that he is
now a Baha'i and wants them to know about the Faith".
The team members say that this new Baha'i has a warm relation-
ship with the congregations of many different churches of varied
demoninations and that the churches consider him as the
"ambassador of good will".
In the Amatu'l-Baha Teaching Crusade, the teachers are in tune
with the fact that signing an enrollment card is a spiritual
connection of the hearts, a truely spiritual act.
May your prayers be with us all.
With Warmest Baha'i greetings
Entry by Troops Coordinating Office/Greater Houston
Sai'd Khadivian
coordinator
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 27 19:27:08 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 15:19:36 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
Juan and Friends,
I'm still, somewhat, confused:
>From: Juan R Cole
>Rick: The second letter of Abdu'l-Baha that you quote from 1909 does not
>in the original Persian say Universal House of Justice (Baytu'l-Adl-i A
>zam).
The citation that the Universal House of Justice gives for the
tablet they quote (not I) is "(from a newly-translated Tablet)"
No date for the tablet is given, nor is the tablet's recipient
named in any way.
How do you conclude that the referent tablet is the 1909 letter
and not some other tablet?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From richs@microsoft.comWed Sep 27 19:28:24 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 15:48:20 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: Buddhist/Baha'i Absolutes
Dear Bruce and Friends,
>From: Bruce Burrill
>When you say '"God is knowing" conveys no information,' on that we
>certainly can agree. You poor Baha'is have no way of checking it out if there
>is some unknown essence to which this non-referential language is sort of,
>find of, in a way, referring to.
There is a pejorative connotation to your use of the word "poor" in
this context, and I believe you are not unaware of this connotation.
Quite frankly, I find it difficult to read these words and still believe
that you intend an honest Buddhist/Bahai dialogue. It looks more
like you want some way to think yourself better than Baha'is.
>Dharma, however, for Buddhists is a signpost pointing what one can,
>in fact, fully realize, know and understand.
Well, I can't speak for Juan, but I think I understand his purpose,
and I think you've completely missed his point. Rather than focus
on descriptions of the destination (a destination neither of us can
see until we "get there" as it were), perhaps we should compare
the directions for getting there. If the directions are the same, can't
we conclude that they lead to the same place even if we have
no way of knowing where that place is or what it looks like?
Is this an unreasonable means by which to pursue a Buddhist/Baha'i
dialogue?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Sep 27 22:57:26 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 17:40:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Native American practices
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
A very brief note friends to say how much I appreciate hearing
that Franklin Kahn is on the road to recovery (many thank,
David!). There is a Tablet from Abdu'l-Baha that encourages the
friends to quickly share all the good news and pause a little
before sharing any bad ones. In this case, I'm glad that the
good news of Mr. Kahn's recovery is shared with us all.
However, I think we can do his case harm by discussing it. Let's
honor his privacy. Further, if the case is before the House, I
think justice will be better served by those in position of all
the specific facts.
Of course, discussing health, Writings on healing, or some
indigenous practices, is a very worthwhile thing and we can all
learn from it. Does anyone have my good cousin Khazih
Fananapazir's provisional translation of Baha'u'llah's Tablet to
a Physician handy to post? How about some of those Writings of
the Bab on what to eat and what to avoid? If memory serves, He
discouraged eating honey with melons. Of course, who is his
right mind would want do such a thing anyway ... And what about
Homeopathic medicine? One time when I said to Ruhiyyih Khanum
that I go by what's approved by American Medical Association, she
said that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi went only to Homeopathic
doctors.
regards, ahang.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Sep 27 22:59:27 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 17:34:05 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Rosenberg Tablet more of.
Dear Talismanians
In regard to the Rosenberg Tablet and the vari-
ous personal posts regarding it and Christopher
Buck's general one. Do I think this Tablet
opens up new areas of understanding for us . In
simple terms it does , certainly the idea we must
take everything literally was always wrong as a
concept to begin with anyway , this Tablet
should make us all a little more reserved in
rushing to judgment on many things .I am not
sure that Juan needs any validation over the
things he wrote so long ago , this Tablet makes
it very clear History is a branch of Learning
that is subject to change based upon research
and investigation . That should come as no sur-
prise to anybody . It is a fact that people are
tied to what they have previously been taught
and they are comfortable with. The work of an
Historian must be to discover facts that are un-
known or hidden and present them to expand
our knowledge of the past and change our un-
derstanding of how the future will be shaped .
Some times those facts are neither popular or
acceptable , but those who embark upon the
Path of Knowledge and Discovery should do so
to be true to themselves and not the adoration of
public acclaim . I have never thought those who
wish to be Scholars of the Faith need mass ac-
ceptance or approval of their work , it would be
nice but it is not necessary .
Another selection from the Tablet : ' ---- Our
purpose is to show that even in Scriptural his
tory , the most outstanding of all histories ,
there are contradictions as to the time when the
great ones lived , let alone as dates related to
others . And furthermore , learned societies in
Europe are continually revising the existing re-
cords , both of the East and the West . In spite
of this , how can the confused accounts of peo-
ples dating from before Alexander be compared
with the Holy Text of God ? If any scholar ex-
presses astonishment , let him be surprised at
the discrepancies in Scriptural history .
Neverless , the Holy Writ is authoritative , and
with it no history of the world can compare ,
for experience hath shown that after investiga-
tion of the facts and a through study of ancient
records and corroborative evidence , all estab-
lish the validity of God's universal Manifesta-
tion ; once His claim proveth true , then what
soever He may choose to say is right and cor-
rect .
The histories prior to Alexander , which were
based on oral accounts current among the peo-
ple , were put together later on . There are great
discrepancies among them , and certainly they
can never hold their own against the Holy Writ
. It is an accepted fact among historians them
selves that these histories were compiled after
Alexander and that prior to his time history was
transmitted by word of mouth . Note how ex-
tremely confused was the history of Greece , so
much so that to this day there is no agreement
on the dates to the life of Homer , Greece's far-
famed poet. Some even maintain that Homer
never existed at all , and that the name is a fab-
rication.
I am sure that this will just make everybody
more curious . Hope you all enjoyed reading it
now back to planning for ABS.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From haukness@tenet.eduWed Sep 27 23:00:02 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 19:42:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: Safa Sadeghpour
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and Buddhist transcendence (God's unknowability)
Allah-u-abha Friends: As it seems to me that independent investigation of
the truth can be a guide here my thought on the Buddhist Baha'i
comparison would be that I have been maintaining that Bahaullah is Buddha
and that the certitude of that is nothing that is said by us here,
certainly not my arguements, but by comparing Bahaullah's writings, with
Buddhist, (and we have had lots of hidden words here of late). Indeed,
some of the Buddhists who have become Baha'i this month, probably,
inevitably have found Bahaullah's writings to come from the same source
as Buddha's and don't get lost in how similar or different the two Names
are spoken and spelled.
If one sees that Bahaullah's writings contradict or are opposed to
Buddha's writings then that would be conclusive enough for me to stay
clear of the Bahai faith or investigate it further if one felt a
misunderstanding was possible. On the other hand if one thinks that God
can or will matchevery existing thought in the world then this is an
impossibility, Marxism, Taoism, this book attributed to Buddha, Lao Tzu's
explanations, Alan Watts, J Edgar Hoover, it gets to be ridiculous, it
gets to be a case of treating God like one of us. 'Here is my paper
explaining philosophy or some religion, now let's find how another
religion is in error, yes there it is, ?
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From haukness@tenet.eduWed Sep 27 23:03:55 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:03:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: Robert Parrish
Cc: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Karen Austin: The intellect: a Baha'i problem
Allah-u-abha Karen's brother: (I'm corecurriculum led). Of course, we
need not be lead, sorry for my semantic breakdown, so the correction is
there are intellectuals on assemblies and intellectuals are
representational of one of the many sub-groups of Baha'is. You may have
missed my post awhile back speaking up for blue collar and undereducated
Baha'is being represented. But actually my thought is that Baha'i
assemblies are further along than any other group in integration and
consultation.
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From haukness@tenet.eduWed Sep 27 23:04:22 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:23:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Haukness
To: "Eric D. Pierce"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Franklin Kahn's Rights
Allah-u-abha Friends: Hallucinagenic drugs are not only foriegn to
supreme court laws they are also rejected by Baha'i legislation.
haukness@tenet.edu
2015 Bay St. N.
Texas City, TX 77590
voice/fax 409-948-6074
One planet one people please!
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 27 23:04:44 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:38:00 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
Juan wrote:
>
>"God is knowing" conveys no information, but its statement is good for
>the soul. And that is why, Bruce, you might as well speak of Dharma.
That God is knowing and the there is a Cause of causes, may be discerned
inferentially, using speculative reasoning.
Robert.
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 27 23:05:13 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:35:52 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: John Haukness , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Franklin Kahn's Rights
Greetings to my amigo John from the purple sage,
I have been enjoying your
sane letters. Today you wrote:
>Allah-u-abha Friends: Hallucinagenic drugs are not only foriegn to
>supreme court laws they are also rejected by Baha'i legislation.
I stand to be corrected, but I understand the House has allowed Samoan
Baha'is to drink an alcoholic substance called kava, for certain ceremonial
occasions.
Regarding your second letter on this matter [about taking sides without
being fully informed]: I agree. However, I suspect that David is going to
say he wasn't.
Oh, yes: and how's that massive teaching going in Houston? & did you hear
that a mountain in the North Island of NZ (Ruapehu) was blowing its stack?
Further: what is salsa? [been meaning to ask]
Robert.
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comWed Sep 27 23:05:50 1995
Date: 27 Sep 1995 21:23:00 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
I think you got a bit off-track at the end when you say
> "God is knowing" conveys no information
It seems to me that the statement does convey information - the denial of the
negative, that 'God is ignorant' is false.
While the form, 'God is not ignorant', might be slightly more accurate, it is
not consistant with the tone of the Writings I have read. The emphasis in
the Writings is on the positive, that which is or should be. The emphasis is
on what to do, principles, not what not to do, laws. We are not to destroy
the old world order; we are to build a new one. The attributes of God are
also attributes that we are to develop in ourselves, statements of what we
are to become. We are not told to eliminate ignorance; we are told to
develop knowledge. We are not told to expunge racism/sexism/etc; we are told
to develop unity.
By emphasizing the positive, we are given the most efficient direction to
proceed. Pairs such as ignorance/knowledge contitute an axis with negative
and positive poles. A field can be said to develop from these poles like is
seen in the magnet and iron filings experiment in H.S. physics. If we
concentrate on distancing ourselves from the negative pole, ignorance, we
can't be sure that we are moving directly toward the positive pole,
knowledge. but if we concentrate on the positive, knowledge, we are assured
of moving most directly toward our goal.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From think@ucla.eduWed Sep 27 23:49:08 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 20:10:22 -0700
From: Safa Sadeghpour
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
At 01:38 PM 9/28/95 +1200, Robert Johnston wrote:
>Juan wrote:
>>
>>"God is knowing" conveys no information, but its statement is good for
>>the soul. And that is why, Bruce, you might as well speak of Dharma.
>
>
>That God is knowing and the there is a Cause of causes, may be discerned
>inferentially, using speculative reasoning.
Could you show how this is possible?
>
>Robert.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it as
it is and why it exists as all." - Stephen Hawking
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are
forever." - The Laws of Physics
"The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing
opinions." Abdu'l-Baha
Safa Sadeghpour (think@ucla.edu)
http://www.smc.edu/homepage/maclab/maclab.web/web/safa.web/safa.htm
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Sep 27 23:49:30 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:24:51 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Bruce Burrill , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: motorbike envy...
Dear Bruce,
> Dharma, however, for Buddhists
>is a signpost pointing what one can, in fact, fully realize, know and
>understand.
And what is it that you - to use YOUR words -- "can...fully realize, know
and understand"? Yes, Bruce, you did write FULLY!
I can't think of anything I know fully. Is there a way I can become more
like you? Am I stuck with my envy regarding your motorbike?
Your friend,
Robert.
From brburl@mailbag.comThu Sep 28 00:03:48 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 22:34:01 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Buddhist/Baha'i Absolutes
ick Schaut,
Me: 'When you say '"God is knowing" conveys no information,' on that we
certainly can agree. You poor Baha'is have no way of checking it out if there
is some unknown essence to which this non-referential language is sort of,
find of, in a way, referring to.'
Thee: > 'There is a pejorative connotation to your use of the word "poor"
in this context, and I believe you are not unaware of this connotation.' <
My first response to this is to say, Oh, do lighten up a little. But if I
offended, then please accept my apologies. The "poor" hardly was meant as
a put down nor was it a serious characterization.
> "Quite frankly, I find it difficult to read these words and still believe
that you intend an honest Buddhist/Bahai dialogue. It looks more
like you want some way to think yourself better than Baha'is." <
But to be honest with you, this is not a unfamiliar feeling I have been getting
from some on the Baha'i side.
> "Well, I can't speak for Juan, but I think I understand his purpose,
and I think you've completely missed his point." <
I don't think I have; it is just that I do not agree that it is applicable to a
Buddhist perspective.
> 'Rather than focus on descriptions of the destination (a destination neither
of us can see until we "get there" as it were), perhaps we should compare
the directions for getting there. If the directions are the same, can't
we conclude that they lead to the same place even if we have no way of
knowing where that place is or what it looks like?' <
It is worth looking at what the basic philosophical stances are for each
religion, which included looking at the "destinations," which there a great
deal in both religions said about their respective destinations.
Are the directions the same? Let us look from that perspective. If the they are
then maybe we can assume the "destinations" are the same. I game.
Bruce
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep 28 00:04:00 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 23:48:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Invisible Essence and speech acts
With regard to comments and objections regarding my statement that in the
Baha'i Faith the phrase
"God is knowing"
conveys no information, despite having the form of a predicative proposition:
I stand by the formulation.
In Gleanings, section I, Baha'u'llah says:
"Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man
to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the
nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish,
they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy
creatures . . ."
Well, you might say, if we cannot know God directly, at least we can know
the Manifestation of God. But he
then goes on to deny *also* the "existence of any direct relationship
between the Pen of Thy Revelation [that is, the Manifestation] and the
essence of all created things [that is, the universe] . . ."
That is to say, that we cannot even know the Manifestation on his own terms.
What then?
"Whatever duty Thou has prescribed unto Thy servants of extolling to the
utmost Thy majesty and glory is but a token of Thy grace unto them, that
they may be enabled to ascend unto the station conferred upon their own
inmost being, the station of the knowledge of their own selves."
We have three noumenal levels here: The Absolute Truth (al-Haqq), which
is beyond all human knowledge and conception; the Manifestation of God,
which humans can glimpse but to which they do not have a direct
connection; and the level of human subjectivity, to which humans do have
direct access. Each noumenon or thing-in-itself has a phenomenon; God's
phenomenon is the Manifestation of God. The Manifestation's phenomenon
is is human perfections.
Thus, all we can ultimately hope to know is our own truest selves, our
own perfections. And these perfections point toward the Manifestation
and ultimately toward God, not directly by signifying, but indirectly, by
pointing. The three levels are homologous.
This is why Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah all wrote
commentaries on the saying attributed to `Ali (and which goes back to
Greek wisdom), "He who knows his own self hath known his lord" (man
`arafa nafsahu faqad `arafa rabbahu).
We can only know God or the Absolute Truth very indirectly, through the
homologous signs of the divine present in our own human subjectivity (the
level of "khalq" or creation).
This is the meaning of one of the Tablets to Salman in Gleanings CXLVIII,
"All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded,
nor can they every hope to exceed, the limitations to which man's finite
mind hath been strictly subjected. To whatever heights the mind of the
most exalted of men may soar, however great the depths which the detached
and understanding heart can penetrate, such mind and heart can never
transcend that which is the creature of their own conceptions . . . No
tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath
created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His
creatures do justice to His being."
There are many things even in this universe that human empirical
perception and human conception cannot know. I would argue that what is
behind the event horizon of a black hole is one such phenomenon. Oh,
some physicists can do the math for it, but it really is inconceivable,
at least to me. And it is not even a divine noumenon.
Thus, discourse about God in the Baha'i faith only looks like predicative
propositions. It does not actually signify or allude in any meaningful
way to its purported referent. One engages in it only because it helps
one develop one's own perfections, which, as signs of signs of signs, are
the closest we can get to knowing the Absolute Truth. The speech-act is
not predicative but spiritually instrumental.
With regard to our dear friend Bruce's exclamations over poor Baha'is:
well, of course, we do not believe ourselves poorer than anyone else,
since we believe this is the human condition, and if any Sufis or gurus
or Buddhist monks think differently, they are simply in the grip of a
profound illusion. Now, this does not rule out seeing Nirvana, since
Nirvana is simply what one attains when one roots out desire, greed,
sorrow/dukkha and the illusion of the permanence of phenomenal "things"
in oneself. This is, I would argue, homologously equivalent to what
Baha'i religious discourse (as with Sufism) calls fana', the Valley of
the extinction, to the highest extent possible, of selfish passion (nafs va
hava). It is a moment of profound insight (`irfan) into the nature of
reality. But it does not consist of direct, propositional knowledge of
the Absolute Truth, only the indirect, phenomenal knowledge of perfections
that is the ultimate any human subjectivity can attain.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comThu Sep 28 00:04:17 1995
Date: 27 Sep 1995 22:10:55 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Franklin Kahn's Rights
> I would assume that the problem revolves around the recent
> rejection of religious ceremonial use of peyote by the US
> Supreme Court (therefore it may be more of a "following the
> law of the land" issue than a "theological" one)
Eric
Tho' the NSA gave permission for the sacramental use of peyote in the early
60's, several years later, the Universal House of Justice banned its use by
Baha'is, I believe in the same message banning LSD. This was widely known by
'hippy' Baha'is at that time.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Sep 28 00:04:56 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 22:57:28 -0500 (EDT)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Talismanians -
I wonder if the question that Bruce brought up today regarding the
Divine Essence might be resolved by recognizing that, as `Abdu'l-Baha
said, "Every cause hath an effect, and every effect a cause." So, if we
have a Prophet, there is a need of a source of prophecy (teachings). We
can then ask, where is that knowledge coming from? Well, IMO, If we
observe attributes in the world of nature (manifestations/Manifestations
of reality/Reality), there is a presumption of a Source of manifestation
or attribution. So, while Deity cannot be known (in the sense of being
able to relate to it directly), we can connect with that Divine Essence
through Revelation (the revealed Word, Will, and Cause in the station of
Manifestation), viz., love/linking with Deity.
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet) *
* 72642,3105 (Staff on Three CompuServe Religion Forums) *
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff) *
* UWMG94A (Prodigy) RealityDude (Microsoft) Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comThu Sep 28 00:07:44 1995
Date: 27 Sep 95 17:57:03 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Franklin Kahn's Rights
Dear Talismanians,
I just heard a most distressing story that I thought someone out there
might be able to confirm or deny.
Seems Franklin Kahn, Navajo Baha'i, ex-National Spiritual Assembly
member, and most respected scion of a large extended Native American
Baha'i family, fell deathly ill some months ago. Although the nature of
the illness wasn't described in this story I heard, it was obviously
severe and life-threatening. Western medicine was employed to its
fullest extent, and did not work. Franklin's condition continued to
deteriorate.
At that point, Franklin's family decided to seek the help of the Navajo
healer in their area on the reservation. The healer agreed to try his
best, and danced the most powerful traditional Navajo healing ceremony
for Franklin. Franklin subsequently recovered, and is now healthy. The
problem? -- the ceremony involved the ritual use of peyote as a healing
talisman. For this, Franklin's administrative rights have since been
removed by the National Spiritual Assembly. I understand that he is
currently appealing this decision to the Universal House of Justice.
I did not hear this story from Franklin, whom I haven't spoken to since
the day I left Arizona in 1977, nor from anyone in his family, but from
a concerned Baha'i in Arizona, worried about the chilling effect such an
action might have on Native American teaching, not to mention the effect
on the family and Franklin.
Does anyone have information on this case? Aside from that, what kind of
wide boundaries can we as Baha'is be expected to make for the practice of
indiginous healing arts when they involve substances such as peyote? Does
this sort of practice -- an obviously successful one in this case -- have
any parallels with Baha'u'llah's countenancing the use of alcohol by
those engaged in medical practices for medicinal purposes?
Just wondering, and concerned.
Love,
David
From rvh3@columbia.eduThu Sep 28 00:08:35 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 14:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: S&W Michael , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women & The House (2)
On Wed, 27 Sep 1995, Juan R Cole, made the astute observation:
>
> The very important letter at the end of Paris Talks, dated August 28, 1913
> (for which I know of no Persian text, though one probably exists) does
> not appear to me to mention local spiritual assemblies at all.
> Nor does it refer to the Universal House of Justice. It says, (p. 183):
>
> "As regards the constitution of the House of Justice, Baha'u'llah
> addresses the men. He says: `O ye men of the house of justice.'"
>
> There is nothing in this Tablet to suggest that he is limiting himself at
> that point to a discussion of the Universal House of Justice, and the
> wording is remarkably similar to the 1902 Tablet in which he also
> excludes women from "the House of Justice" without specifying level.
Good Point.
> There does not, in fact, appear to be any textual evidence that
> `Abdu'l-Baha ever specifically admitted women to local Houses of Justice,
> although in the 1909 letter he admitted them to spiritual assemblies.
> It is Shoghi Effendi, not `Abdu'l-Baha, who equated local assemblies with
> local houses of justice and so laid the juridical foundation for women's
> service on local houses of justice.
I'm not so sure about this. In 1902, `Abdu'l-Baha changed the name of
the Chicago House of Justice with a tablet, excerpts of which follow:
"The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering
(House of Spirituality) [mahfil-i rawhani] and the wisdom therin
is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term
"House of Justice" that a court is signified, that is connected
with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere
with governmental affiars.
This seems to indicate that there was no change in function connected
with the name change. Shoghi Effendi have made the implication of this
explicit in his writings, but I think this can be deduced from the works
of `Abdu'l-Baha.
Richard
From brburl@mailbag.comThu Sep 28 00:14:24 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 23:10:52 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: motorbike envy...
Robert,
> 'And what is it that you - to use YOUR words -- "can...fully realize,
know and understand"? Yes, Bruce, you did write FULLY!
> 'I can't think of anything I know fully. Is there a way I can become more
like you? Am I stuck with my envy regarding your motorbike?' <
Well, I've sort thought you were more of a Goldwing type, but who knows?
To become more like me? Gosh, I don't think that's possible, but thanks for
asking. It does, at least, show some promise on your part, and it is an
important recognition of a certain degree of unsatisfactoriness with your
present situation, which can, if you are open to it, allow to get beyond you
present narrow view of things. Good luck.
Can't think of anything you know fully? Hmmmm, that is a bit sad. You've
never popped a piece of expensive semi-sweet chocolate in your mouth and
let that experience be all that there was for the moment it was happening?
That is, from a Buddhist perspective, a form of knowing, and if you can
attend to the experience completely there is a fullness in the knowledge of it.
What the Buddha said one can fully know, realize, and understand is the
destruction, the uprooting of, greed -- the grasping after that which reinforces
and reifies the sense of self, soul, spirit, atman --, hatred -- the pushing
away
of that which threatens the sense of self, soul, spirit, atman --, and ignorance
-- the assumption that the self, soul, spirit, atman (no matter how rarified) is
other than it really is, a conditioned, changing phenomenon.
That by definition is the attainment of what some Baha'is here are calling the
Absolute.
Does that help?
Bruce
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 28 00:40:42 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:29:27 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Local Houses of Justice
Dear Rob:
No, I am not inferring too much from the minutes of the House of
Spirituality--though they are quite telling. Corinne True meet with the
House and urged them to hold new elections with women eligible for the new
body. They refused, and said that they would write to 'Abdu'l-Baha for a
clarification of his 1909 Tablet excluding women from the baytu'l-'adl ummumi
(the general House of Justice).
But there is also a letter of Thornton Chase that you must have seen in
which he discusses these developments with another Baha'i--I forget who right
now. Here he makes it clear that the unanimous opinion of the House of
Spirituality was that 'Abdu'l-Baha was reiterating his previous instructions.
It is also clear that the women are agitating for a change.
The agitation was widespread. By 1911, when the Kenosha House--in
response to the insistence of some of the Baha'i women that women should be
eligible for election to that body--inquired about the matter to the Chicago
House (which acted as a regional body at the time), Chicago was able to cite
three recent Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha to different cities in the Midwest on
this specific question. Chicago, of course, would have received the Tablets
and translated them before sending them on to the appropriate person. Yes,
that amounts to an organized movement. (Jackson Armstrong-Ingram has told me
that he has seen copies of other letters from Baha'i women in the Midwest to
'Abdu'l-Baha on this subject that were not answered.)
If Mrs. True was correct, and 'Abdu'l-Baha had changed his position
regarding the election of women to the local House in his 1909 Tablet, then
he was misunderstood by the House of Spirituality. They did not read his
Tablet as saying that, they continued to maintain that the Chicago House
should be limited to male Baha'is, and they made no move to reorganize or
change. 'Abdu'l-Baha clearly knew this. If he had indeed been
misunderstood, then he had plenty of opportunity to say so. Since you are
arguing that the Tablet was misunderstood by the House at the time, it would
seem to me that the burden of proof for that position should rest with you.
Yes, I have seen the notes that Howard MacNutt took of 'Abdu'l-Baha's
instructions to him in 1912 in New York with regard to the reorganization of
the Chicago House. One of the instructions was the explicit command that the
name of the body be changed to "Spiritual Gathering." I believe that the
notice in Star of the West of the reelection also mentions this name change.
It also takes note of the fact that women are now elegible for election.
Well, I suppose there can be different readings of Mrs. True's
relationship to the Chicago House of Justice. I am relying heavily of
Jackson's work in volume four of the STUDIES series. But, I think that there
were deep and serious gender cleavages in the early Chicago community that
you are not sufficiently appreciating.
The Chicago House, for instance, clearly regarded the Baha'i Temple
Unity as an agency that was subordinate to itself. True, on the other hand,
had very different ideas--and she spared no effort to realize them.
The New York body, in 1901, I believe, wrote to the Chicago House to
congratulate them on their election. The letter was from the New York "House
of Justice." They clearly regarded themselves as such. I don't think we
need any more evidence than that. I wonder what "Board of Counsel" is a
translation of? Mafil-i shur? Arjomand-i shur? Perhaps, after a
designation in one of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets? The Chicago House was
addressed with similar titles.
Warmest,
Tony
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 28 00:43:54 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 16:40:01 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Safa Sadeghpour , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: God and attributes
Dear Safa,
>>
>>That God is knowing and that there is a Cause of causes, may be discerned
>>inferentially, using speculative reasoning.
>
>Could you show how this is possible?
Perhaps.
Let's take "God is knowing." How can we inferentially affirm this? Simple
really: if the creatures "know", then why should the Creator be ignorant?
Aristotle uses an interesting argument to establish understanding of First
Cause. [correct me if I go wrong here] .. He says [something like] the
more primary and influential the force, the more motionless. Greater
things MOVE lesser things. If he is correct, then we might also say that
[& maybe Aristotle did anyway] the more primary and influential the force,
the more subtle, because, otherwise, that force would become entangled in
the ways of that which moves. And if we say the more primary and
influential the force, the more subtle, then we might also say that the
more primary and influential the force, the more universal because the
universe[s] is[are] so filled with motion.... and so on.
Robert.
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 28 01:14:11 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:53:27 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Women & The House (2)
Rick:
It is precisely over the meaning--in context--of this 1909 Tablet to
Corinne True that excludes women from the "universal" House of Justice
(baytu'l-'adl ummumi)--in response to her petition that women should be
elected to the Chicago House of Spirituality--that we have been disagreeing
for lo these many days and weeks. Did you miss this thread?
Tony
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: richs@microsoft.com (Rick Schaut)
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
CC: jrcole@umich.edu
Date: 95-09-27 15:57:54 EDT
Dear Juan and Friends,
>From: Juan R Cole
>There does not, in fact, appear to be any textual evidence that
>`Abdu'l-Baha ever specifically admitted women to local Houses of Justice,
>although in the 1909 letter he admitted them to spiritual assemblies.
>It is Shoghi Effendi, not `Abdu'l-Baha, who equated local assemblies with
>local houses of justice and so laid the juridical foundation for women's
>service on local houses of justice.
I'm confused by these remarks. Quoting from the Universal House
of Justice's response to the paper on Service of Women:
[Begin Quote]
In the following passage, `Abdu'l-Baha referred to membership of the
"House of Justice" being restricted to men, without a specific designation
of the level or levels of the institution to which this provision applied:
The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text
of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the
Lord God's, which will ere long be made manifest as clearly as the
sun at high noon.
("Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha" [rev.
ed.], (Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1982), p. 80)
Later the Master clarified that it was only the Universal House of Justice
whose membership was confined to men. `Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the
equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the
Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text
of the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice
are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Con-
struction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly,
and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally
in all rights with men.
(from a newly-translated Tablet)
[End Quote]
It appears that the Universal House of Justice has a tablet from
`Abdu'l-Baha which makes this point clear. How do your remarks
square with what the Universal House of Justice says above?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From Alethinos@aol.comThu Sep 28 11:17:50 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 01:01:08 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: jurisprudence
Dear folks:
While I find this discussion insightful, I have to wonder about some central
issues. I guess the main one is that at this time there is no real
_jurisprudence_ to speak of - notwithstanding the few examples offered
recently.
And while it is interesting and enlightening to follow various developmental
*threads* in decisions by the Universal House of Justice, or seeming changes
between something the Guardian stated and the Master I think we're missing
some larger elements.
By this I mean that we cannot follow, in any serious fashion, the
jurisprudental road of the past. Yes there are elements of US law practices,
and perhaps those of France, and England and some other countries which def.
offer good examples but I think we have reached a new day.
It is the Day I think Plato envisioned at the Academy. All those who have
struggled to establish natural law as the foundation for Law. Justice must be
the motivating force that informs the decisions made, from the Local
Spiritual Assemblies on up the line.
I think the greatest example of this new Day arriving is the manner in which
Baha'u'llah has laid out the Administrative Order, and specifically the
manner in which the House *arrives* at decisions. While the framework of
legislation will follow some of the time honored channels we are all
accustomed to it would also seem that in the consultative process with the
House being the premier all the way down to the efforts of the most humble
local spiritual assembly would finally bring humanity away from the
mechanistic - legal positivism that we have been so prone to employ for so
many centuries.
The central reason that Plato was not fond (to put it lightly) of
constitutions was that when men try to capture Justice in words it becomes
*frozen*. Justice, being an attribute and manifestable by humans does not
function correctly in the above state. And there is no more obvious example
of this, of course, than the struggles with US Constitutional law. Contrary
to beloved popular myth, the Constitution is not *founded* on natural law.
And it is not even a good guarantor of natural rights - we were lucky there
that the Founding Fathers reluctantly decided to establish the Bill of
Rights.
Because there was no true link between a well developed (spiritual) concept
of natural law (justice and the ability to manifest it) and the philosophical
foundation of the Constitution there has been raging debates ever since about
*what* the Constitution *says* and what are *natural* rights etc. There are
the legal positivists (Oliver W. Holmes) and the natural law advocates (to
varying degrees.)
But with the establishment of the Faith God has finally given us a way out of
this particular mess. What I would love to see here is some discussion (in
conjunction with what is already being offered) about Natural Law as the
motivating Principle for the development of *Baha'i Law*. By this I mean
something along the lines of what Plato was offering 2500 yrs ago - in the
Republic (and please, realize that the Republic is not acutally a treatise on
an ideal *society* - Plato was really speaking about the development of a fit
human being - a mature soul), i.e. how will we need to establish true
education so that our prospective assembly members will be able to adequetly
mirror forth the spirit of Justice in their deliberations?
How do we allow Justice to flow?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com
From jrcole@umich.eduThu Sep 28 11:19:35 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 01:13:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: 8-fold path
Bruce:
Baha'is do not, or should not, think that their spiritual and ethical
teachings are superior to those of Buddhism or any other religion, since
we believe that the basics of such teachings are timeless. Baha'is would
not be Baha'is if they did not think that the social teachings of the
Baha'i Faith are more suited to the present day than are those of past
religions. But this attitude need not be triumphalist; all one is saying
is that if Gautama Buddha had taught in the 19th century he would have
taught similar social teachings. Moreover, any individual Baha'i is not
necessarily more enlightened than any individual Buddhist. Few Baha'is I
have met have been as enlightened as my teacher Walpola Rahula; there are
after all 3 or 4 hundred million Buddhists and only 5 or 6 million
Baha'is, so it stands to reason statistically that in absolute numbers
there are more enlightened Buddhists than there are Baha'is (this
observation derives from my conversations with Stanwood Cobb). Buddhism
is still a vital religion in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Japan and
possibly retains some vigor in Communist East Asia and Southeast Asia
underground (just as Eastern Orthodoxy has not disappeared from Russia).
Before 1948, about a third of the Chinese were counted as Buddhist,
though what has survived Maoism there I do not know. I think Baha'is
have much to learn from Buddhist wisdom.
I have tremendous respect for your years of study and meditation. I have
no desire to subsume the specific discourse of Buddhism under that of the
Baha'i Faith, since I believe the discourses of the world religions are
incommensurate in their details. A horse and an automobile are both
means of transportation, and one can compare their elements--hooves are
sort of like wheels, the sternum is like an axle, the battery is like
mitochondria, etc. But their real similarity lies in their purpose, not
in their morphology. That said, I am eager to learn more about Buddhism
and to be reminded of all I have forgotten that I used to know. I have
great admiration for the Buddhist way, and for Buddhists. I did a survey
of human rights abuses related to religion in the countries of the world;
I was struck by how good the records are of Buddhist countries such as
Thailand and Japan, and how bad the records are of Muslim countries on
the whole.
Maybe one good way to proceed would be for you to take a favorite sutra
and post passages from it time to time, with some explanation, and we
could see if it rang any bells with our Baha'i texts and teachings. The
8-fold Path in the Digha-Nikaya would not be a bad place to start.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Sep 28 11:20:25 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 17:37:50 +1200
From: Robert Johnston
To: Bruce Burrill , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: motorbike envy...
Dear Bruce,
I have owned four motor cycles in my time. The first was a
Japanese Silver Pigeon Scooter which rode like a dream for about 20 miles
-- at which point the rubber-band gear-drive system fell apart, and even
the local motor cycle mechanic, Ben Seaver, who had a flash little
moustache and looked like Anthony Quinn, really couldn't do much with it.
The second was a Czech 185cc Jawa which farted blue smoke. The third was a
90cc Honda farmbike, which rode a bit like the Silver Pigeon, but lasted.
The fourth was a 100cc Honda roadbike which I fell off on my way to the NHQ
of the Faith in Auckland in 1978. Does this make me a Goldwing type? And
is OK to be a Goldwing type anyway?
Anyway: thank you for your amusing and thought provoking letter. The heart
of it, it seems to me, was the following:
>What the Buddha said one can fully know, realize, and understand is the
>destruction, the uprooting of, greed -- the grasping after that which
>reinforces
>and reifies the sense of self, soul, spirit, atman --, hatred -- the pushing
>away
>of that which threatens the sense of self, soul, spirit, atman --, and
>ignorance
>-- the assumption that the self, soul, spirit, atman (no matter how
>rarified) is
>other than it really is, a conditioned, changing phenomenon.
A comment or two. First, many years ago, before I became a Baha'i I
studied Vipassana [Insight: `irfan, Juan?] meditation - a form which
originated among Burmese Buddhists, I am told. One watches the formations
of the mind with what is called "bare attention": one simply observes them
as they arise, and so on...
Before long, the steel bands of anxiety broke away from my brain, and the
desire to sing arose in my throat, and I entered into utter emptiness and
freedom. This was the most marvellous thing. I am reminded of this
condition, by what you have written above.
But, do you know what? Having reached this condition, I knew that I needed
a purpose. Buddhism couldn't supply me with that. Baha'i Faith could. I
know this paragraph sounds a bit blunt. But that's the way I am.
Robert.
From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpThu Sep 28 11:22:31 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 15:26:21 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Invisible Essence and speech acts
> "Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man
> to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the
> nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish,
> they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy
> creatures . . ."
Dear Juan:
Its fascinating stuff, this. No? Nice quotes and good explanations.
Thanks!
Yours respectfully,
Steve
From rvh3@columbia.eduThu Sep 28 11:25:36 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 09:43:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: "Don R. Calkins"
Cc: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Native American Ceremonies
> Tho' the NSA gave permission for the sacramental use of peyote in the early
> 60's, several years later, the Universal House of Justice banned its use by
> Baha'is, I believe in the same message banning LSD. This was widely known by
> 'hippy' Baha'is at that time.
I have never heard that the NSA gave permission for use of peyote,
although they certainly have *tolerated* in some instances. A pioneer on a
Navajo reservation once told me that all the Navajo Baha'is there
participated in peyote ceremonies, as well as other Navajo religious
cermonies. I think this has many parallels in the Baha'i experience,
including the dual religious identities Baha'is in
have had (eg. Muslin-Baha'is, Jewish-Baha'is, Zorostrian-Baha'is) and in
many places currently have; the incorporation of Islamic practices in
the early Middle Eastern Baha'i communities; and the incorporation of
Protestant practices into the early
Western Baha'i communities.
Generally, I think the leaders of the Faith have aknowledge that
"conversion" is a long-term process, occuring in its fullest sense over
multiple generations. Therefore, there has generally been considerable
tolerance towards newly-converted Baha'is who continue to be active in
other religious communities. I have heard of one instance in which a
Baha'i lost some of his administrative rights for participating in peyote
ceremonies, but there were unusual circumstances that I cannot go into
without violating the privacy rights of this individual.
Richard Hollinger
From rvh3@columbia.eduThu Sep 28 11:28:00 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:05:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: House of Justice
Juan may have gone over this issue during the earlier thread on
jurisprudence, but, if so, I would like to revisit it.
In reviewing the various texts relating to the House of Justice it
appears that `Abdu'l-Baha may have gone through some evolution in his
conceptualization of this institution. Shoghi Effendi, in WOB, cites a
tablet from the earliest part of the ministry of `Abdu'l-Baha
in which he
contemplated the immediate election of the International House of
Justice. Has anyone seen this tablet? One wonders how the UHJ would
have functioned concurrently with the leadership of `Abdu''l-Baha and
exactly what its functions would have been. In a tablet cited in
Wellsprings of Guidance, `Abdu'l-Baha give the UHJ the authority to make
deductions from the texts relating to Baha'i law, a function that appears
to overlap with sphere of authority given to the Guardian.
Did the function of the UHJ change during the course of `Abdu'l-Baha's
ministry?
Richard Hollinger
From brburl@mailbag.comThu Sep 28 11:30:34 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 23:17:56 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist/Baha'i Absolutes
Rick Schaut,
Me: 'When you say '"God is knowing" conveys no information,' on that we
certainly can agree. You poor Baha'is have no way of checking it out if there
is some unknown essence to which this non-referential language is sort of,
find of, in a way, referring to.'
Thee: > 'There is a pejorative connotation to your use of the word "poor"
in this context, and I believe you are not unaware of this connotation.' <
My first response to this is to say, Oh, do lighten up a little. But if I
offended, then please accept my apologies. The "poor" hardly was meant as
a put down nor was it a serious characterization.
> "Quite frankly, I find it difficult to read these words and still believe
that you intend an honest Buddhist/Bahai dialogue. It looks more
like you want some way to think yourself better than Baha'is." <
But to be honest with you, this is not a unfamiliar feeling I have been getting
from some on the Baha'i side.
> "Well, I can't speak for Juan, but I think I understand his purpose,
and I think you've completely missed his point." <
I don't think I have; it is just that I do not agree that it is applicable to a
Buddhist perspective.
> 'Rather than focus on descriptions of the destination (a destination neither
of us can see until we "get there" as it were), perhaps we should compare
the directions for getting there. If the directions are the same, can't
we conclude that they lead to the same place even if we have no way of
knowing where that place is or what it looks like?' <
It is worth looking at what the basic philosophical stances are for each
religion, which included looking at the "destinations," which there a great
deal in both religions said about their respective destinations.
Are the directions the same? Let us look from that perspective. If the they are
then maybe we can assume the "destinations" are the same. I game.
Bruce
From burlb@bmi.netThu Sep 28 11:30:52 1995
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 21:53 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Re: Invisible Essence and speech acts
>
>
>With regard to comments and objections regarding my statement that in the
>Baha'i Faith the phrase
>
>"God is knowing"
>
>conveys no information, despite having the form of a predicative proposition:
>
>I stand by the formulation.
>
>
Juan: And well you should! And, should you be so fortunate, you may resemble
that remark.
You (again) have touched on one of my favorite topics, and my innermost
being resonated with agreement. Thanks for taking the time to write such
excellent posts!
Burl
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 28 11:48:41 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 10:02:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: simplified Writings
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Burl:
> I know that in some countries where they speak some version of
> English they have Baha'i prayers that say things like " Oh. Big
> Guy! You be so Big. You be really Big. Me not Big. You Big. Me
> not Big. You be smart. Me be fool. Don't kill me Big Guy!"
Where do you come up with things like this? This is absolutely
marvelous! I can't stop laughing ...
Seriously, one of the goals of the Seven Year Plan, (as well as
the Six Year Plan) was to produce simplified version of the
Writings. For example, a very nice simplified version of the
booklet "Words of God" was produced in Africa (by Prof. Geoffery
Gruber) and may be available here too. Other things, such as
Prayers, the Peace Statements, etc, have been simplified and made
available as well. I think its best to call the Baha'i
Distribution Service (they have a 800 number) to see what's
available in print.
So, to answer your question, not only simplified Writings is
permitted, its greatly encouraged. The Words of Baha'u'llah must
be accessible to all.
much love, ahang.
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 28 12:51:05 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 12:16:50 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Women and the House
Dear Friends,
Rick quoted the UHJ in which they refer to the letter from Abdul Baha to
Corine True (1909):
> Later the Master clarified that it was only the Universal House of Justice
> whose membership was confined to men. `Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
>
> According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the
> equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the
> Universal House of Justice, for, as hath been stated in the text
> of the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice
> are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Con-
> struction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly,
> and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally
> in all rights with men.
> (from a newly-translated Tablet)
The question is what the intent of this passage is, and whether the above
translation reflects that intent. Perhaps the passage would be better
translated:
"According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the equals of men
in all rights save only membership on the general House of Justice, for, as
hath been state in the text of the Baha'u'llah's Writings, both the head and
the members of the House of Justice are men. However on all lesser bodies,
such as the Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the
various spiritual gatherings, charitable and scientific associations, women
share equally in all rights with men."
If understood like that, then this Tablet would exclude women from all
Houses of Justice--local, national, and international. And that is precisely
how the Tablet WAS understood in 1909, at the time it was written.
Tony
From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 28 13:02:51 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 09:25:36 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Franklin Kahn's Rights
>From: John Haukness
>Allah-u-abha Friends: With second hand information, I think it is an
>obligation of the reader to get first hand information, from both sides
>before taking sides.
Good grief! We're all individuals. This is in the hands of some
very beloved institutions. Is there some reason we can't just
leave it there?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From Member1700@aol.comThu Sep 28 14:26:17 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:25:10 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: simplified Writings
Seriously, Ahang. There are a number of versions of Pidgin English around
the world (as well as pidgin versions of other languages such as French and
Portuguese), and I understand that the Writings have been translated into
some of them. I could imagine that the Baha'i prayers, in some instances,
could sound very much like Burl's paraphrase.
And Pidgin English, by the way, is not English--even though it may make
use of words derived from English. It is a trade language (several actually)
which make use of the structure, grammar and syntax of the native language
group, but substitute English words for indigenous ones--as a way of
communicating with English speakers, but even more, as a way of allowing
mutually unintellible dialects and languages to communicate with each other.
I think that the word for God in some of these languages is: Big Fella!
Actually, that is probably a translation for "Lord," meaning "great man."
Local words would be used for God. Anyway, the Bible has been translated
into a number of different pidgin dialects--and so the Christians are way out
in front on this one. Also, I have seen excellent translations of the Bible
into simple English--using a vocabulary of less than 2,000 words. It works!
I hope Baha'is are doing that too.
Tony
From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 28 14:27:23 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 10:19:17 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: brburl@mailbag.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Buddhist/Baha'i Absolutes
Dear Bruce and Friends,
>From: Bruce Burrill
>Thee: > 'There is a pejorative connotation to your use of the word "poor"
>in this context, and I believe you are not unaware of this connotation.' <
>My first response to this is to say, Oh, do lighten up a little. But if I
>offended, then please accept my apologies. The "poor" hardly was
>meant as a put down nor was it a serious characterization.
There is often a distance between intent and content. It is something
worth more than just a bit of our attention.
>> "Quite frankly, I find it difficult to read these words and still believe
>that you intend an honest Buddhist/Bahai dialogue. It looks more
>like you want some way to think yourself better than Baha'is." <
>But to be honest with you, this is not a unfamiliar feeling I have
been getting
>from some on the Baha'i side.
Comparing Baha'u'llah to messengers of pink elephants, is one of
those epistemological jabs which tends to put people on the defensive.
Moreover, such a comparison can't possibly capture some of the
subtle, yet important, distinctions between pink elephant belief and
Baha'i belief. Moreover, it looks very much like an effort to subsume
Baha'i ideas into the framework of Buddhist belief.
I just think that epistemological issues are far too dicey for them to be
a sound basis of a search for common ground between Baha'is and
Buddhists. We, certainly, can discuss them, but it's not likely to lead to
any form of common understanding.
>> 'Rather than focus on descriptions of the destination (a destination neither
>of us can see until we "get there" as it were), perhaps we should compare
>the directions for getting there.' <
>It is worth looking at what the basic philosophical stances are for each
>religion, which included looking at the "destinations," which there a great
>deal in both religions said about their respective destinations.
Certainly. However, there will always be the elephant problem when
it comes to comparing descriptions of something. We can compare
descriptions, but it's probably a waste of time if our purpose is to
decide whether or not the descriptions describe the same thing. This
is _particularly_ true if we want to be careful not to subsume the ideas
of one religion into that of the other.
>Are the directions the same? Let us look from that perspective. If the
they are
>then maybe we can assume the "destinations" are the same. I game.
People far more qualified for this task than I are present. At this point,
I think it best to jump back into my observer's role.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comThu Sep 28 15:31:40 1995
Date: 28 Sep 1995 11:42:39 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins"
To: rvh3@columbia.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Native American Ceremonies
> I have never heard that the NSA gave permission for use of peyote,
This was a specific instance where an individual Baha'i was invited to
participate in a peyote ceremony. Not being sure what to do, he contacted
the National Center. They told him to go ahead. This *may* have happened
just before the elction of the Universal House of Jutice, but I think that it
was just afterwards. The wife of the individual involved bro't it up during
a discussion of hallucinogens and the Faith in about 1969.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 28 15:32:38 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 13:27:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: more on simplified Writings
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Tony,
Yes, of course, you're absolutely right. And I fully agree that
Christian community seems to have done a lot more in this area
than we have.
One of things that my kids enjoy quite a bit are pictorial
Bibles. We spend many evenings together, looking at the pictures
and telling Bible stories. It helps us with understanding the
underlying purpose of religion, unity of religions, great Figures
of the past, commandments, obedience, etc. We really enjoy these
pictorial Bibles. They are simple, easy to understand and
pictures are neat!
I only wish there was something similar to it for the
Dawn-breakers, though. A couple of months back, Michael Sours
sent me a number of drawings portraying various scenes from the
Dawn-breakers. They are absolutely great. One of them is on the
Conference of Badasht -- its very powerful. The only thing they
miss is some text to go with them. So, you as a publisher (who
in the past have brought out some great children books), may want
to contact him at Seattle and publish a pictorial Dawn-breakers.
The same sort of thing could be done with other aspects of our
history. Its good for children and its good for promotion of
arts in the community. Also, its the best way to teach history
to adults too. I bet less than 5 percent of Baha'is have read
the Dawn-breakers, or I'm sure we couldn't come up with 100
Baha'is in North America that have made it through "Baha'u'llah,
the King of Glory". But with some easy to read, pictorial
history books, there will be a renewed interest in the subject.
much love, ahang.
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Sep 28 15:34:18 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 12:23:57 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Native American Ceremonies (tolerance and double standards)
> Date sent: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 09:43:05 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Richard Vernon Hollinger
> To: "Don R. Calkins"
> Copies to: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu, talisman@indiana.edu
> Subject: Native American Ceremonies
>
>
Don R. Calkins:
> > Tho' the NSA gave permission for the sacramental use of peyote in the early
> > 60's, several years later, the Universal House of Justice banned its use by
> > Baha'is, I believe in the same message banning LSD. This was widely known by
> > 'hippy' Baha'is at that time.
Dear Burl: Ha Ha. I went from size 31 to 36, but as you know, love
handles all. Of course it took me a while to realize that my fuzzy
suspicions about an insidious conspiracy amongst clothing manufacturers
to foist shrinking fabric on the masses of consumers were groundless.
I remember hearing that there was a youth conference (in Reno?) where
all the wildhairs were told (by Ruhhiya Khanum {sp?}?) that taking mind
expanding substances was a big no-no. Visualize a a youth conference in
the (late?) 60's full of enthusiastic (probably mostly newly declared)
Baha'i youth tripping and/or stoned! Perhaps Mr. Cockshut can interview
J. Rhodes and give us a more accurate account of this important
historical event. :)
Anyway, the basic question still remains, what was the explanation
given when the Supreme Body banned LSD/Peyote/etc.?
>
Richard Vernon Hollinger:
> I have never heard that the NSA gave permission for use of peyote,
> although they certainly have *tolerated* in some instances. A pioneer on a
> Navajo reservation once told me that all the Navajo Baha'is there
> participated in peyote ceremonies, as well as other Navajo religious
> cermonies. I think this has many parallels in the Baha'i experience,
> including the dual religious identities Baha'is in
> have had (eg. Muslin-Baha'is, Jewish-Baha'is, Zorostrian-Baha'is) and in
> many places currently have; the incorporation of Islamic practices in
> the early Middle Eastern Baha'i communities; and the incorporation of
> Protestant practices into the early
> Western Baha'i communities.
>
> Generally, I think the leaders of the Faith have aknowledge that
> "conversion" is a long-term process, occuring in its fullest sense over
> multiple generations. Therefore, there has generally been considerable
> tolerance towards newly-converted Baha'is who continue to be active in
> other religious communities. I have heard of one instance in which a
> Baha'i lost some of his administrative rights for participating in peyote
> ceremonies, but there were unusual circumstances that I cannot go into
> without violating the privacy rights of this individual.
>
>
> Richard Hollinger
>
Thanks for the background! Seems that unless there is good
understanding of how to bridge cultural aspects of shamanism
to Baha'i experience/mysticism, we risk signifigant loss of
diversity within Native American Baha'i identity.
To ask another obvious question about double standards: what is
the essential difference between me getting a prescription for a
medically indicated (and possibly ineffective or harmful), but
never-the-less mind-altering drug, and the Navajo ceremony?
Another aside on tolerance: one of the Persian friends once
described an interesting bit of his family history to me. His
grandfather and greatgrandfather were not only the mayors
of the town, but they were the biggest opium sellers. This was
in a rural western region of Iran (they saw dervishes walking
on red-hot coals during hunting trips in the mountains) that
is very arid and high altitude, and the poppy business was about
the only way of getting ahead. The Baha'i community overlooked
such involvement for generations, and when my friend's father
declined to follow in the family business on the grounds that
it was prohibited in the writings, he was severly ostracised
from the family. Later, following the instructions of the Supreme
Body to stay in Iran, the father was jailed during the revolution
and had his ring finger cut off by the revolutionary guard
when he was arrested, but survived 10 years in prison as his
professional skills were valued by the prison system.
I take brother Rick's point about not second guessing the
Institutions in specific cases, but don't see anything wrong
with trying to understand and discuss the principles involved.
Bye,
EP
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 28 18:58:17 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 19:20:08
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Franklin Kahn's Rights
David Langness writes:
> Dear Talismanians,
>
>
> Does anyone have information on this case? Aside from that, what kind of
> wide boundaries can we as Baha'is be expected to make for the practice of
> indiginous healing arts when they involve substances such as peyote? Does
> this sort of practice -- an obviously successful one in this case -- have
> any parallels with Baha'u'llah's countenancing the use of alcohol by
> those engaged in medical practices for medicinal purposes?
>
I would be very suprised if this were the true facts of the case.
There can be few Baha'i doctors who would even think twice about using
powerful drugs such as Diamorphine (Heroin) in terminal cancer for
example -- and Heroin is, I would think, a much more problematic drug
for its addictive potential than Peyote (although I must confess to
knowing next to nothing about Peyote).
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comThu Sep 28 19:17:19 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:54:46 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re Native American Traditions and Double Standards ..Reno Conference Interviews
Dear Talismanians
I have contacted as requested the Rhodes , Jeff is out teaching the
Faith today in Watsonville , yesterday there was 4 more enrollments ,
the total is now 48. Janie his wife was also at that Conference in Reno
so I have obtained her recollections and will get Jeff's later today or
tomorrow . I will then post them on Talisman , Eric as a personal
question Janie asked me does she know you? I said you seemed rather
disreputable and a nice married lady and mother like herself would
never know anyone like you , that provoked laughter and giggles , so
the lady wants to know.
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut.
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comThu Sep 28 19:19:50 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 15:02:01 -0400
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Woman on the House
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Friends,
Rick wrote:
> Surely, if would have been inappropriate for the translation to
> say "Universal House of Justice," the Universal House of
> Justice wouldn't have published it. Is this not the case? If
> it is the case, then how do we understand the notion that the
> Universal House of Justice is guarded from error?
My understanding is that the House of Justice is guarded from
errors, but not translation mistakes by some staff member.
On this particular case, I happen to fully agree with Rick that
the Tablet of Abdu'l-Baha, assuming it's referring to Baytu'l-Adl
ummumi (general House of Justice) refers to the International
one. Sorry, friends, I just don't buy into all this theory that
Abdu'l-Baha was wishy-washy on his terminology. He used the same
term in the Will and Testament, as well as His 1907 Tablet to the
cousin of the Bab, Mirza Muhammad-Taqi Afnan, Vakkil'd-Dawlih,
about formation of the House in event of His execution.
But back to Rick's point, obviously translation is a continuous
process which requires constant rework and upgrades. It can't be
frozen in time. There are a number of instances where the
beloved Guardian himself has revised his own earlier translation.
Perhaps some weren't here when we were discussing the translation
of the Kitab-i Aqdas, but I showed instances where there are
differences of translations between the Gleanings and God Passes
By and how the current English version is using the Gleanings,
and not the later God Passes By. Additionally, in the present
Text of the Aqdas, in my view, there are a few deficiencies in
translations (not inaccuracies, just deficiencies). We had a
bunch of postings on this subject back in Spring. If we'd got
further in our slow reading of the Aqdas, these points would have
surfaced more specifically.
There hasn't been a compilation made by the World Centre yet,
which hasn't been followed with a long list (often several pages)
of corrections.
None of these has anything to do with the infallibility of the
House and we shouldn't test the House with how accurate a
particular translator has rendered something. The House of
Justice is far above and much holier than this.
And my undying devotion to it won't be any less by finding some
small translation error committed by some clerk on the staff.
Again, I happen to fully concur with Rick that in this instance,
there is very little question (actually, none in my mind!) that
Abdu'l-Baha was referring to the Universal House of Justice and
the House's translation is absolutely on the mark.
Rick, I just want you to be clear that I was not disagreeing with
you but rather addressing a broader issue.
The problem with this entire thread on the exemption of women
from service on the House of Justice is that we are being fed too
much personal interpretation and analysis and not enough facts.
I, for one, would like to see all the evidences, letters sent
from America, Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets, Shoghi Effendi's letters, in
short, everything, *without* any commentary from some good soul.
All these postings between Tony, Juan, Richard, Rob... I'm sorry
brothers, they are mostly confusing and not very helpful. There
is way too much analysis and not enough evidence. And when some
evidence is finally presented, it too much colored by the
person's stated position. So, what would interest me on this
subject, is an orderly presentation of letters, Tablets, etc.,
without any analysis,
I'm sorry if the above sound a bit too harsh -- that's not my
intend. I, and I think I speak for many, are deeply grateful to
Juan, Tony, Richard, Rob, Sen, and others for putting so much
energy in this topic and so generously sharing the results of
their hard labor with us. I just want to be able to see things
for myself now and not through somebody else's eye.
With much love, ahang.
From burlb@bmi.netThu Sep 28 19:20:43 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 15:06 PDT
From: Burl Barer
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Peyote -- On the Button
Message of Universal House of Justice dated November 11, 1967:
"We have already informed the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of
the United States that Baha'is should not use hallucinogenic agents,
including LSD, peyote and similar substances, except when prescribed for
medical treatment."
Message of Universal House of Justice dated November 9, 1972:
" Anyone involved with the use of peyote should be told that in the Baha'i
Faith spiritual stimulation comes from turning one's heart to Baha'u'llah
and not through any physical means. They should therefor be encouraged to
give up the use of peyote."
These messages from UHJ are quite clear, yet the use of such terms as
"encouraged" and "except when prescribed for medical treatment" give some
latitude.
Moojan: If peyote is like mescaline, its sort of warm and red without the
electric intensity of LSD **~)
Burl (Watch, I can write my name in the air!) Barer
From momen@northill.demon.co.ukThu Sep 28 19:21:19 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 23:00:10
From: Wendi and Moojan Momen
To: talisman@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: simplified Writings
Ahang writes:
> So, to answer your question, not only simplified Writings is
> permitted, its greatly encouraged. The Words of Baha'u'llah must
> be accessible to all.
I am not sure that your statement is correct. Some years ago, I wrote to
the Universal House of Justice with a proposal for a simplified Iqan and
I sent them some thirty or forty pages of the Iqan in the style that I
was suggesting. The reply that I got did not encourage any further
development of my proposal
Moojan
--
Wendi and Moojan Momen
momen@northill.demon.co.uk
Tel./Fax: (44) 1767 627626
From richs@microsoft.comThu Sep 28 19:22:07 1995
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 15:23:12 PDT
From: Rick Schaut
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Native American Ceremonies (tolerance and double standards)
Dear Friends,
>From: "Eric D. Pierce"
>I take brother Rick's point about not second guessing the
>Institutions in specific cases, but don't see anything wrong
>with trying to understand and discuss the principles involved.
I wasn't objecting to the discussion. I was objecting to the
notion of taking sides. Certainly we can talk about this
without trying to decide who's right and who's wrong, can't
we?
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From 72110.2126@compuserve.comThu Sep 28 19:41:07 1995
Date: 28 Sep 95 19:30:23 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: An Open Judicial Process
Dear Talismanians,
Thanks to all who responded, publicly and privately, to my message of
concern for Franklin Kahn. I appreciate the reminder not to use names
in our subject headers, which I spaced in a temporary attack of early
Alzheimer's.
To John and others: hey, I'm not pleading any case or grinding any ax
here, guys, only looking for some information. I clearly stated that
my information was second-hand, and asked if anyone had better knowledge
than I on the subject.
To Ahang-jan: very appreciative of your considered and always incisive
and penetrating viewpoints, I'd still differ somewhat on whether or not
a case pending before an administrative body can or should be discussed
in the Baha'i community. How can we have an open and free system of
real-life jurisprudence in the Faith if every case that is currently
being considered carries with it a de facto gag order? While I realize
that many personal cases where voting rights are involved may be personal
in the extreme; and while I realize that most cases should not be the
subject of discussion because they involve some very clear and obvious
infraction of Baha'i law and that discussion of them would therefore
violate the "sin-covering eye" principle; I still would like to see some
public discussion of those cases -- like the one in question -- that
involve a higher issue than simply personal status.
Perhaps these discussions might best take place when a case reaches the
ne plus ultra of Baha'i jurisprudence, even as they now take place in many
free countries of the world when any case of higher principle reaches a
civil supreme tribunal.
Love,
David
Return to Talisman
Translation Page
Baha'i Studies Page
J. Cole Home Page
WebMaster: Juan R.I. Cole
jrcole@umich.edu